Buffs Pac-ing Up And Leaving

It appears that the Pac-12/10/9's long-awaited TV deal, the one that has been promised for months, is finally ready to be presented to the schools.  Unfortunately for the conference, which dragged its feet for the better part of a year, that proved to be too long.  Because Colorado got impatient.  And now, Colorado is gone as a result, back to the Big 12 from whence they came a decade ago.

Oh, how the roles have shifted for those two leagues!  The Pac-10 was operating from a position of strength when it added Colorado and Utah in 2011-12.  The Big 12 was left reeling and was similarly gutted a few years ago when Texas and Oklahoma announced they were leaving for the SEC.  Then they signed their massive new TV contract, added four new members, and suddenly it was the Big 12 in the position of power.  And they took advantage of it.

Colorado's official reasons for rejoining the Big 12 all make sense and are true.  Travel is definitely easier, and the game times are better when they're not going to the West Coast for every road game.  There are certainly competitive reasons, too.  Their football team is getting attention for the splashy hire of Deion Sanders as head coach, but hasn't been good basically since joining the Pac-12. 

Let's be honest, though.  That all may be true.  But they left because of the money.  They were tired of waiting for the Pac-12/10/9's TV deal and knew what they could get by going back to the Big 12.  So, they called the Pac-12/10/9's bluff.  And, if the Pac-12/10/9 wasn't already reeling, it definitely is now!  Waiting to finish the TV contract (and taking so long to get it done) has cost them big time and the vultures are already circling.

Paul Finebaum, the respected college football analyst who has a daily show on the SEC Network, has predicted that the Pac-12/10/9 will no longer be a power conference after this season.  I'm not willing to go that far, yet.  But if this trend continues, it's not hard to envision that prediction coming true.  Especially since the Big 12 and Big Ten don't seem to be done expanding.  Which means the Pac-12/10/9 needs to act yesterday to ensure its future.

They should've been on the phone with San Diego State the second the rumors about Colorado started.  Frankly, they should've been on the phone extending an invitation last summer once the UCLA/USC news broke.  It's absolutely ridiculous that San Diego State, a perfect fit in every way who actually wants to join the conference, hasn't been invited to join yet.  And now San Diego State can't join until after the 2024-25 season!

San Diego State is about to become the prettiest girl at the dance.  They're the most attractive program not currently in a major conference, and they're gonna have plenty of suitors.  They're such an obvious choice for the Pac-12/10/9, but the conference ended up screwing itself with its decision to wait until the TV contract was done before expanding.  Because now San Diego State's gonna have its pick of conferences.  And the Pac-12/10/9 suddenly doesn't make as much sense for them as it did a year ago.

The Pac-12/10/9 hasn't done San Diego State any favors with its delay, either.  The Aztecs were all set to leave the Mountain West, anticipating their Pac-12/10/9 invite.  Except the invite never came, San Diego State had that prolonged "did they officially leave the Mountain West or not?" saga, and they ended up committing to their current conference for the next two seasons.  They could theoretically leave at the end of the 2023-24 school year, but the exit fee would be exorbitant.  So, they're stuck.

According to some reports, it wasn't just because of the delay on the TV contract that San Diego State hasn't been offered Pac-12/10/9 membership yet.  Evidently, not every Pac-12/10/9 school is on board with a larger conference.  Oregon, especially, doesn't want to share any media rights 12 ways instead of 10.  The Ducks also think qualifying for the College Football Playoff will be easier in a 10-team conference than a 12-team league.

That was when Colorado was the 10th member.  Now they're down to nine.  Now they don't have a choice on expansion.  At the very least, the Pac-12/10/9 needs to bring in San Diego State and get back to 10.  Ideally, they'll bring in multiple teams to get back to 12 or even 14.  I've heard SMU, Colorado State and UNLV also mentioned as possibilities.  (A school I'd love to see them go after is Hawaii.)  Either way, the Pac-12/10/9 has two choices--expand or get picked apart and cease to be a conference entirely.

If that sounds all gloom and doom, that's the idea.  And, frankly, the Pac-12/10/9 has put itself in this position.  They could've done what the Big 12 did in response to Texas and Oklahoma leaving.  The Big 12 aggressively sought out new members, brought in four really good ones, and is actually in a much stronger position now.  As evidence by the fact that Colorado decided that their situation would be significantly improved if they returned to the Big 12, regardless of what the Pac-12/10/9's media deal ends up looking like.

Even that media deal might not be enough to save the Pac-12/10/9.  The conference badly overplayed its hand.  They perceived themselves as being in a position of strength that they clearly were not.  The conference lost its two biggest properties in the second-largest media market in the country, which immediately decreased the value of any media rights deal.  Then they didn't replace them.  They were hoping that they'd get something comparable to the other conferences, but that was never gonna happen.  Especially as it dragged out longer, those other leagues signed their deals, and the Pac-12/10/9 became a less and less desirable product.

Now the conference is down to only nine teams.  And not only is it less game inventory, it's game inventory that's nowhere near as attractive.  By dragging its feet on both the media rights deal and expansion, the Pac-12/10/9 has put itself in a worse position.  It went from arguably No. 5 among the Power 5 schools to definitively No. 5.  And, frankly, it's not even close!  There might even be some Group of 5 conferences that are stronger (and the Big East certainly is in basketball).

So, can you really blame Colorado then?  They saw the writing on the wall.  A decade ago, they saw the benefit of leaving the Big 12 for the Pac-12.  Now they see more benefit in going back.  And the Big 12 is welcoming them back with open arms.  I guess it turns out you can go home again.

No Russia, No Belarus (Maybe)

"Russia" hasn't participated in the Olympics since 2016.  There were Russian athletes in PyeongChang, Tokyo and Beijing, but they competed under those ridiculous "neutral" banners of OAR and ROC.  It looks like Paris will make it four straight Olympics without "Russia," but this time it looks like there might not be any Russian athletes either.  Or Belarusian athletes for that matter.

The other day, as a part of the one-year-to-go celebration in Paris, the Olympic invitations were officially sent out to 203 of the 206 National Olympic Committees.  The Guatemalan Olympic Committee has been suspended since October, so they didn't get one.  Neither did Russia or Belarus.  They were both suspended shortly after the invasion of Ukraine and likely won't be reinstated until the war is over.  And the participation of Russian and Belarusian athletes in Olympic qualifying has been a divisive enough issue.  I can only imagine what it'll be like in Paris!

Qualification for the Paris Games is well underway and has proven to be an extremely complicated (and delicate) situation.  Russia and Belarus, of course, are in Europe.  However, Ukraine and many of its allies refuse to compete against Russians or Belarusians (even as neutral athletes), so they can't participate in European qualifying.  The compromise was to let Russian and Belarusian athletes compete in Asian qualifying, but that's only putting a band-aid on it.  Because their status for Paris is still very much up in the air.

IOC President Thomas Bach has promised some clarity about the situation, with a final decision likely expected at the IOC Session in the fall.  Bach has also stressed that there's still time and a decision doesn't need to be made right away, but I disagree with him about that point.  Qualifying is underway, so, even if they're eligible, it won't matter if they aren't able to qualify!

Some sports have been letting Russians and Belarusians compete as neutrals all along.  Mainly individual sports like tennis and fencing.  So, there will still be plenty of Russian and Belarusian athletes who qualify to compete in Paris as "neutral" athletes, should they be allowed to field a team.  Assuming they are allowed to field a team, those teams will be significanty smaller than usual, though.  And it could really impact the competition in Paris.

There are a few sports that would become wide open without any Russians.  They've been the dominant force in artistic swimming for so long that their absence would definitely be felt.  Same thing in rhythmic gymnastics, a sport in which the Eastern European countries are generally the strongest.  And, of course, there's no chance Russia or Belarus will be able to qualify in any team sports (not that Belarus would, but it would certainly be possible for Russia).

If it were up to Bach, they'd be in Paris as "neutral" athletes.  He's made that clear time and again.  He doesn't think punishing Russian and Belarusian athletes for the actions of their governments is fair.  So, as long as they don't support the war and aren't members of the military, he thinks they should be in Paris.  Others in the Olympic family disagree.  Thus the impasse.

As we saw at the last three Olympics, the "OAR" and "ROC" thing was an absolute joke!  Their uniforms might not've said "Russia," and they might not've been alllowed to wear Russian colors or waive their flag or hear no anthem, but everybody knew exactly what country they represented.  It would be the exact same thing in Paris.  It'll be fairly obvious where the "neutral" athletes without a flag are from.  Which is a big problem for some athletes.  And not just Ukrainians, either.

In an open letter sent to Bach a few weeks ago, nearly 100 Olympic athletes representing several countries expressed their concers about letting the Russians and Belarusians participate as neutral athletes.  Their argument was, basically, that it wouldn't work.  One of their main points, in fact, was that the whole idea of participating in the Olympics is to represent your country.  They cited 2018, 2020 and 2022 as their example.  So, try as you might, you can't separate Russia and Belarus from those athletes, even if they're officially designated as "neutrals."

This suspension is also vastly different than the ROC's initial suspension for its multitude of doping offenses, which originally would've seen them missing the Paris Games had it not been reduced from four years to two by the CAS.  So, they were actually doubly-suspended for several months last year until the doping suspension expired.  Now it's just because of the war.

Try as they might, it's impossible to keep politics out of the Olympics.  And the fact that many high-profile European nations have expressed their opposition to having Russia and/or Belarus at the Paris Games in any capacity is why this conversation will continue.  Bach has also pointed out how no one is calling for any other nation currently at war with another to be banned from the Paris Olympics, so what makes this war any different?  We, of course, know the answer to that question, but it is a legitimate point in favor of allowing them to compete.

So, I can honestly say I have no idea how this whole thing's gonna play out.  There's a valid argument on both sides.  The Russian and Belarusian flags will almost certainly not be there.  Their athletes may or may not, depending on how the discussions/negotiations go.  Because the athletes are right.  You can't separate Russia & Belarus from their athletes.  But the IOC is also right.  The athletes aren't the ones responsible for the war, so is it fair to deny them the opportunity to compete?

All we know right now is that Russia and Belarus were not sent invitations for the Paris Games by the IOC.  On the surface, that's not really too big a deal.  They're more of a formality than anything else, and those invitations can always be sent to the Russian and Belarusian Olympic Committees later on.  And, it's in the Olympic Charter that every eligible nation is required to send a team to the Games.  (North Korea didn't go to Tokyo because of COVID-19 concerns and was suspended for Beijing as a result.)  "Eligible" is the key word, though.  Because right now, Belarus and Russia are not.

It seems pretty likely that those invitations aren't coming and both Russia and Belarus will not be able to enter formal teams in Paris.  As for their athletes, who knows?!  I'm inclined to think "Yes," and we'll see them as neutrals.  But I wouldn't be surprised if they end up getting banned from Paris entirely.

Plus Qu'un An

The last time we were a year away from the start of the Summer Olympics (at least, what was supposed to be one year away), all hell broke loose!  Tokyo 2020 became Tokyo 2021, and the Olympics were held in a COVID bubble with no spectators.  It wasn't the same.  Not even close.  Athletes have been looking ahead to Paris since Tokyo, and we've officially reached the one-year-to-mark for the grandeur that awaits next summer.

Paris has wanted the Olympics for a long time, and next year's Games promise to be spectacular!  More importantly, one of the world's great cities will truly play host to the world, as we get our first full-scale Olympics since 2018 and our first full-scale Summer Games in eight years!  Perhaps the most complimentary thing anyone can say in the leadup is that Paris promises to be a "normal" even "boring" Olympics.  We haven't had one of those in a while.  And it could be just the palate cleanser everybody needs.

There are no concerns about construction delays.  Because everything's already built!  They're using all existing facilities and temporary venues at some of the most iconic sites in the city (beach volleyball at the foot of the Eiffel Tower? Yes, please!).  It's a model that fits into Olympic Agenda 2020, which aims to reduce the cost to host cities, and they hope future hosts will emulate.  They also hope that a successful Paris 2024 will show cities how it can be done and make them actually want to host the Olympics again.

One of those iconic sites is the Seine River itself, which will be the location of an Opening Ceremony the likes of which we've never seen before.  Instead of inside a stadium, it'll be out in the open, with the athletes coming down the river in boats.  They expect upwards of 400,000 spectators, most of whom will get to watch absolutely free.  There will still be the traditional elements, of course, but the no stadium thing and bringing the Opening Ceremony to as many people as possible is exactly the message they're trying to send that these will be an Olympics for everybody.

Who'll light the cauldron is always one of the big questions leading into any Olympic Opening Ceremony.  I almost never get it right with my guess, but that won't stop me from trying.  Especially because there are so many great French Olympains who'd be wonderful candidates.  And I wonder if they'll do two--a man and a woman--as a celebration of the Paris Games being the first Olympics ever to achieve complete gender equality.  In fact, that's exactly what I think they'll do.

I'll start with candidates who I don't think are likely, but could very well end up being one of the final torchbearers before whoever lights the cauldron.  Or will be one of the people who carries the Olympic flag, which is nearly as big an honor.  Or it could be someone I'd never even think of.  France's sporting heritage is so rich that any of them would be deserving.  French athletes like...

Didier Deschamps: France has won the men's World Cup twice in its history.  The first was 25 years ago at home in the Stade de France, with Deschamps as the captain.  They won again five years ago in Russia with Deschamps as coach.  It could easily be somebody else from one of those teams.  Someone like Zinedine Zidane or Theirry Henry.  Or even Antoine Grizemann or Kylian Mbappe (who plays for PSG!).  But Deschamps is the link between both teams, so I'm going with him.

Beatrice Hess: This isn't just the first time there'll be equal representation between men and women at the Olympics.  It'll also be the first time the Olympics and Paralympics share a logo and mascot.  What better way to celebrate that integration than by honoring one of France's great Paralympians.  Hess won 20 Paralympic gold medals in swimming, including seven in Sydney, where she set nine world records!

Yannick Noah: Yannick Noah's post-tennis resume is just as good, if not better, than what he accomplished on the court!  He won the French Open in 1983, still the most recent Roland Garros title by a Frenchman.  He's also led France to both Davis Cup and Fed Cup titles as captain.  Then he became a popular singer, started a charity that benefits underprivileged kids, and had a son named Joakim who won back-to-back NCAA titles at Florida before a 13-year NBA career.  (Maybe he could sing "La Marseillaise" if he's not part of the final torch relay?  That would be pretty cool, actually!)

Laure Manaudou: Her gold in the 400 freestyle on the first day of the Athens Games was France's first-ever Olympic title in women's swimming...and first swimming gold period since 1952!  Manaudou later added silver in the 800 freestyle and bronze in the 100 backstroke, making her just the second Frenchwoman ever to win three medals at the same Olympics.  She was also the world record holder in all four of the freestyle events from 200 to 1500 meters at various points.

Renaud Lavillenie: Want to know a crazy stat about Renaud Lavillenie?  He's never won a World Championship!  He's medaled five times, but never taken gold.  It's the only thing he's missing.  Lavillenie was the world record holder in the pole vault for more than six years, won Olympic gold in London and took silver in Rio.  He's also won three European Championships and three World indoor titles, but never a World outdoor gold.

Jeannie Longo: Longo is considered the greatest female cyclist of all-time and represented France at seven Olympics!  Her first was in 1984.  Her last was in 2008, when she missed a bronze medal by just two seconds.  She won four medals throughout her Olympic career, including a gold in the road race in 1996, second-most for a French female Olympian.  However, there's some doping suspicion clouding her reputation, so they may stay away from her to be safe.

Tony Parker: Virtually everyone who follows international basketball would agree that the United States' biggest threat for gold on the men's side next year is France.  The French, in fact, beat the U.S. in pool play in Tokyo before the Americans won the rematch in the gold medal game.  A team led by Rudy Gobert, Joel Embiid and Victor Wembanyama will indeed be formidable.  This French influx of talent to the NBA has been going on for several years, and it started with Tony Parker, the four-time NBA champion and six-time All-Star with the Spurs who had his number retired in San Antonio.

Laura Flessel-Colovic: With 123 total medals and 44 golds, fencing has been France's most successful sport at the Olympics.  And the most successful French fencer is Laura Flessel-Colovic.  She has five career Olympic medals, more than any other French woman, and was France's flag bearer in London, her fifth and final Games.  Flessel-Colovic won individual epee gold in Atlanta, then took bronze and silver in Sydney and Athens.  After she retired, she was the French Minister of Sport from 2017-18.

Now for my choice as the male cauldron lighter--Teddy Riner.  Every time I've thought about this, his name was the one I kept coming back to.  And I really do think he would be a spectacular choice.  He's one of the greatest judokas in history and has medaled in the heavyweight class at the last four Olympics.  He won three straight golds before taking bronze in Tokyo, where he still added a fourth gold medal in the new mixed team event.

As for the woman who'll join him, I also kept coming back to one name.  Marie-Jose Perec.  At the Atlanta Games, a lot was made of Michael Johnson's pursuit of the 200-400 double.  He achieved it spectacularly, setting a world record in the 200.  Johnson wasn't the first to win both at the same Olympics, though.  He wasn't even the first to do it in Atlanta.  Marie-Jose Perec was.  She defended her 400 title from Barcelona, setting an Olympic record of 48.25 seconds that she's held ever since (although, the chances of it being broken in Paris seem good), then won the 200 to complete the double.

Throwing It Back to the Classics

There's something about a throwback uniform that just looks so right.  For some fans, it's purely nostalgia.  Seeing that old jersey reminds them of their favorite player from their youth.  For some, it brings them back to the glory days, as they remember fondly when their team won a championship rocking that look.  Sometimes it's just a reminder how much better the old logo and/or colors are than the current ones.  So naturally, fans love it when teams introduce a throwback as part of their uniform set.

Sometimes the throwback works so well that the team gets the hint and goes back to its old look.  We've seen plenty of examples of this across all sports, from the Islanders and Sabres to the White Sox and Orioles.  Or maybe they're like the Padres (the only team that can make brown & yellow work) and just go back to the classic colors.  Then there are teams like the Brewers and Blue Jays, who modernized their classic logo into something that still works perfectly.

For a while, NFL teams didn't have that option.  Sure, you had the Chargers, Giants and Jets do the same thing as the Blue Jays and Brewers, but the one-off throwbacks weren't allowed.  That's because the league put in a rule several years ago stipulating that teams had to wear the same helmet all season.  So, that threw the possibility of a throwback out the window for any team whose helmet is a different color now than it was in the past.  That rule has since been removed, however, and we're now seeing some terrible second helmets to go with teams' third jerseys.  And we've also seen some all-time classics make their return.

So many teams have already trickled out throwback designs for this season that I've lost count.  And boy will it be great to see Bucco Bruce and Pat Patriot adorning NFL helmets again!  There are so many to choose from, but here are the 10 best NFL throwback looks.  I'm not sure how many of them are definitely being worn this season.  But they all should be.

10. New York Jets: It's hard to pick an era for a Jets throwback.  They've had so many different looks over the years.  There's the Joe Namath white helmets, which came back as their regular uniform for a while from the late 90s until just a few years ago.  Take me back to the 80s, though.  With Mark Gastineau and Joe Klecko sacking everybody while the jet came out of the J in the logo.

9. Minnesota Vikings: With the exception of the color of the face mask, Minnesota's helmet has always been the same.  So, the only throwback the Vikings can wear is the jersey.  That's exactly what they'll do this season, going back to their uniforms from when they went to four Super Bowls in the 70s.  Points off for the helmet, though.  And because they technically could've worn these any time.

8. Philadelphia Eagles: Personally, I think the Eagles' current logo, helmet and colors are much better than the Kelly green.  But there are those who absolutely love the Kelly green!  And, I'll admit, it does bring back certain feelings.  Particularly about Randall Cunningham, Reggie White and how much I disliked them in the late 80s/early 90s.

7. Buffalo Bills: Fun fact, the Bills changed from white helmets to red in the mid-70s because, at the time, every other team in the AFC East also had a white helmet.  They've, of course, since switched the helmets back to white.  I don't want to see a red helmet throwback, though.  I want to see the red standing buffalo from their AFL days!

6. Denver Broncos: Denver did a quasi-throwback for their color rush game a few years ago, putting the old logo on their current navy helmet.  I've gotta say, I wouldn't mind if they did that permanently.  They won the Super Bowl in the first two seasons after they switched to the current logo, but the orange jerseys ARE the Denver Broncos.  So much so that they changed the jersey from navy to orange almost immediately after that color rush game.

5. Seattle Seahawks: When the Seahawks switched conferences in 2002, they made what I think was a very smart decision to completely rebrand and switch their helmet from silver to blue.  It divided the team's history into two eras (kinda like how the Astros did a complete rebrand when they switched leagues).  The AFC Seahawks wore silver helmets, the NFC Seahawks wear blue ones.  We haven't seen those silver helmets and royal blue jerseys in 20 years.  But, boy, do they look good!

4. Tennessee Titans: Long live the Houston Oilers!  How can you not be excited to see these Oilers throwbacks?!  Whether the Titans should be doing an Oilers throwback is a different question (and, whatever they do, they should never wear them against the Texans), but I'll allow it if it means the return of the powder blue.  I can picture Warren Moon lofting deep bombs all over the Astrodome as we speak!

3. Atlanta Falcons: They debuted the throwbacks last season and set a standard that's very hard for everyone else to match.  The red helmet with the black and white stripes had definitely worn out its welcome when they changed to black helmets in the early 90s.  But, boy, does it work as a throwback!  The Falcons should wear these the maximum number of times they're allowed to.

2. New England Patriots: The Patriots have certainly had plenty of success with Flying Elvis, and that's almost certainly the first logo people will think of when they think about the Patriots.  But how can you not love Pat Patriot?  The dude's playing center!  More than the logo, though, is how good it looked with the red jerseys.  That old-school Patriots uniform really is pretty sharp!

1. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: I'm a sucker for Bucco Bruce and I'm a sucker for the creamsicles.  I think this is a case of "they're so bad, they're good."  Keep in mind, I have no issue with the Bucs' current colors or logo (especially now that they've gone back to a more traditional look after those ridiculous alarm clock numbers they had for a few years).  Plus, they own that color scheme!  They played a lot of bad football in those uniforms, but that's part of their charm.  And Bucco Bruce has a knife in his mouth!  I mean, c'mon!  How can you beat that?

To Trade Ohtani Or Not to Trade Ohtani

With a little more than a week left until the MLB trade deadline, the big question is whether the Angels will move Shohei Ohtani or not.  He's a free agent at the end of the season and it seems unlikely he'll stay with the Angels.  And there are obviously plenty of contenders who'd be interested, all of whom would become instant World Series favorites should they acquire Ohtani.  But will any of them get that chance?

This isn't like last season, when everyone knew the Nationals were gonna move Juan Soto and it was really just a matter of who ended up getting him.  That team turned out to be the Padres, who turned around and signed Soto to a long-term deal.  Should Ohtani get traded at the deadline, though, there's no guarantee he'd be anything more than a rental for whoever lands him.  Especially when you consider how much money he's gonna command as a free agent this winter.

While unlikely, the far more plausible scenario is that the Angels do something similar to what the Yankees did in 2016.  That year, the Yankees traded Aroldis Chapman to the Cubs for a prospect haul that included Gleyber Torres, only to re-sign him in the offseason.  The Cubs got what they wanted out of the deal, winning their first World Series in 108 years, and the Yankees got Gleyber Torres out of letting them borrow their closer for two months.

For the Angels, there are positives and negatives to both decisions.  Ohtani isn't just a generational star.  He's a once-in-a-lifetime talent.  So he'd demand quite a haul.  But they'd also have to explain why they traded away such a unique player, even if it benefitted the franchise in the long run.  It's not an easy position to be in.

Should the Angels decide that, yes, they're gonna trade him, they can essentially name their price.  I'd imagine it'd require at least one current Major Leaguer (probably two), the team's first- or second-rated prospect (or both) and another highly-rated prospect or two.  That's at a minimum.  There are probably only a few teams that would even be willing to meet that asking price, but, should they make him available, you know somebody will.  Perhaps multiple teams.  Which would give the Angels a chance to decide which offer they like better.

I can see the logic and benefit in that.  If you don't think you'll be able to re-sign him, you might as well get something for him.  And that something would be reloading the farm system, which could have major long-term dividends.  Just ask the Rays, Astros and Orioles about the importance of having young, controllable talent that's close to Major League ready.

Likewise, getting Ohtani off the books would give the Angels a chance to reset.  They've been all about Trout and Ohtani for so long, but what has it gotten them?  They've made the playoffs once in Trout's career (and got swept in the Division Series) and haven't been there at all since they've had both of them.  This is Ohtani's sixth season BTW!  Their fans obviously wouldn't want to hear that, but it's not exactly like having arguably the two best players in baseball has been working.  So, can things really be any worse if they don't have both of them?

Since Ohtani is essentially two players, the Angels would need two players to replace him.  Or would they?  Their situation designed to accommodate him is very unique.  They use a six-man rotation instead of the typical five.  More significantly, he's a full-time DH when not pitching, so they can't give their other regulars DH days.  You move Ohtani, suddenly your pitchers are on a more-regular schedule and you can give the rest of your lineup half-days off by DHing them.  Which would be huge for guys like Trout and Anthony Rendon should they ever return for injury.

Now for the negatives.  First and foremost, trading Ohtani is essentially waiving the white flag on this season.  And they're within striking distance of the wild card, so why trade your best player when you still have a realistic chance at the playoffs?  How realistic is certainly up for debate, especially with Trout once again on an extended IL stint, but it's still realistic enough.  You wouldn't be sending that message just to the fans, either.  I'm sure there would be plenty of guys in that Angels clubhouse who'd feel the same way.

Then there are the economic implications.  The Angels are a popular draw, both at home and on the road.  Why?  Because people want to see Ohtani!  So, if Ohtani's the reason they sell tickets, what incentive would those fans have to attend an Angels game once he's gone?  Some are fans of the team and would obviously still go, but you'd figure those numbers would take a massive hit without Ohtani.  Which would then trickle down to everything else.

Perhaps more significantly, every Angels game is broadcast live in Japan.  They also have a bunch of Japanese sponsors.  Those deals are probably locked in for the rest of the season, so there won't be an immediate hit.  But moving forward, that's a massive source of revenue they can kiss goodbye!  And the Japanese media caring about them would instantly cease.  They'd move on to whatever team Ohtani gets traded to and go back to ignoring the Angels entirely.

And, no matter how you spin it, trading Ohtani would be a massive PR hit.  No one would look at the prospect haul or the unlikelihood of keeping him once he becomes a free agent or anything else.  They'd simply look at the fact that the Angels traded away Shohei Ohtani.  The reason would not matter.  Arte Moreno would go into the same category as Harry Frazee, the Red Sox owner who sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees a century ago.

Ultimately, I don't think the Angels will trade Shohei Ohtani, nor do I think they should.  Plenty of teams will go after him and offer them attractive packages of both prospects and Major Leaguers, but it won't be enough to convince them.  Ohtani is too valuable a property for the Angels to just give him away.  Even if they're going nowhere.

Whether they have a chance of keeping him in the offseason is an entirely different conversation.  And it's not one that should dictate what the Angels do with Shohei Ohtani at the trade deadline.  Trading him may make perfect sense.  Not trading him makes more.

2023 Women's World Cup

As we embark on the 2023 Women's World Cup, the United States look to make history by winning a third straight title.  And they're the overwhelming favorites to do so.  Winning is by no means a guarantee, though.  This is the largest Women's World Cup ever, with 32 teams instead of 24.  And, while a bunch of those will still be overmatched, the top teams are all more competitive with each other.  So, the later rounds should be very exciting.

During the 2019 Women's World Cup, it became clear that 24 teams wasn't enough.  So, expanding the tournament to 32 seemed inevitable and made sense.  However, 32 almost feels like it's too many.  I could be wrong.  The extra eight teams might prove they belong.  I have a feeling there'll be a lot of group stage blowouts, though.

This is also the first time a Women's World Cup is being played in two countries--Australia and New Zealand.  Australia is among the favorites (although, the Matildas are somehow in the same group as Olympic champion Canada).  New Zealand is not.  So, it perhaps shouldn't be a surprise that ticket sales went much better in Australia.  In New Zealand, meanwhile, they had to give free tickets away in hopes of filling the stadiums.

Despite the fact that there are eight groups instead of six, there are still groups that include two of the better teams.  In addition to Australia and Canada being together, there'll be a rematch of the 2019 final between the United States and the Netherlands during group play.  There's no safety net for finishing outside the top two since third-place teams no longer advance to the round of 16.  Ultimately, though, that shouldn't matter.  Since the top two teams in each group should be pretty clear.

Group A: New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Switzerland
New Zealand and Norway meet in the tournament opener, and it could very well decide who wins the group.  Norway is clearly the strongest of the four teams, and New Zealand should benefit from playing at home.  Overall, it's one of the weaker groups.  Switzerland and New Zealand are close to each other in the rankings, so the Swiss definitely could sneak in there as the second team, but I think the home field advantage will be what puts New Zealand thru.

Group B: Australia, Ireland, Nigeria, Canada
Sorry, Ireland and Nigeria.  There's no chance you're getting out of this group.  Canada should've been seeded and only wasn't because they were ranked seventh in the world at the time of the draw.  An Australia-Canada draw is very possible, if not likely.  So, it's gonna come down to goal differential and how bad they each beat Ireland and Nigeria.

Group C: Spain, Costa Rica, Zambia, Japan
If Group A isn't the weakest of the eight, then Group C might be.  Zambia is the lowest-ranked team in the tournament.  Although, they did qualify for the Olympics in 2021, so they won't be overwhelmed by the experience.  Costa Rica is also one of the lower-ranked teams.  Which leaves us with Spain and Japan.  Japan is the last team to beat the United States at a Women's World Cup--12 years ago in Frankfurt.  They then lost the final in 2015.  Spain, meanwhile, has been on the rise since then.  They'll both easily advance.

Group D: England, Haiti, Denmark, China
England won last year's Women's Euro and is among the tournament favorites.  With good reason.  They're very capable of winning the whole thing.  As for who'll join them in the knockout stage, we might find that out in the very first game when Denmark meets China.  This one's a toss-up, but I'm gonna go with China in that contest, which means I'm going with China to advance.

Group E: United States, Vietnam, Netherlands, Portugal
They changed the rules this year.  The United States and Sweden are no longer required to be in the same group (it would've been impossible regardless since they're ranked 1 & 2 in the world).  Instead, they're in the same group as their orange-wearing 2019 final opponent.  They'll also again get the opportunity to run up the score against a weaker team in their first game.  This time it's Vietnam.  Hopefully, they'll actually display some sportsmanship and act like they've been there before while beating up on a team they're clearly better than.

Group F: France, Jamaica, Brazil, Panama
For some reason, they have two CONCACAF teams in the same group.  A flaw in the system of making the draw before qualifying is finished that will hopefully be rectified for the next edition of the tournament.  Not that it matters.  Because Jamaica and Panama have absolutely no chance against France or Brazil.  France was the second-best team in 2019, but had to play the U.S. in the quarterfinals.  And they're hosting the Olympics next year, so this will be a nice warmup for next summer.

Group G: Sweden, South Africa, Italy, Argentina
How badly does Sweden want to finally come out on top?  For all their success, their only major trophy was at the inaugural Women's Euro in 1984.  Last year, they lost to England in the semifinals of the Euro, and two years ago, they settled for Olympic silver after falling to Canada on penalty kicks.  And in 2019, they settled for World Cup bronze after losing to the Netherlands in the semis.  So, yeah, they're motivated.  Kinda like a certain Argentinian guy eight months ago in Qatar.  As for who else will advance out of Group G, I've gotta like Italy.

Group H: Germany, Morocco, Colombia, South Korea
Being in a weaker group is actually a huge opportunity for Colombia and South Korea.  They both have a chance to join Germany in the knockout stage.  South Korea is ranked higher and plays in the stronger region.  I just have a feeling about Colombia, though.  So, I'm giving them the nod.  Morocco won't have anywhere near the same type of run as their men's team, but they've made history of their own by becoming the first Arab nation to qualify for a Women's World Cup.

Round of 16: Norway vs. Japan, United States vs. Italy, Spain vs. New Zealand, Sweden vs. Netherlands, Canada vs. China, France vs. Colombia, England vs. Australia, Germany vs. Brazil
Here's where it gets really fun!  I mean, look at those potential matchups!  Sweden-Netherlands was a semifinal at the last Women's World Cup, and Germany-Brazil has been a final in the past (it was 16 years ago, but still).  As for who'll advance to the quarterfinals in 2023, I've got...

Quarterfinals: Japan vs. United States, Spain vs. Sweden, Canada vs. France, England vs. Germany
These quarterfinals are no joke, either!  The United States is the two-time defending champions.  Sweden is the Olympic silver medalist.  Canada is the Olympic champion.  And England-Germany was the Women's Euro 2022 final.  And, frankly, six of these eight teams are legitimate championship contenders.

Semifinals: United States vs. Sweden, Canada vs. England
It'll take all the way until the semifinals, but there's the annual USA-Sweden Women's World Cup matchup.  When they played in the opening game of the Tokyo Olympics, Sweden sent a message with a 3-0 victory.  That might be all the U.S. needs for motivation.  As for the Canada-England matchup, I've gotta go with England.  They had their breakthrough last year, and they're gonna be a force moving forward.

Final: United States vs. England
In the bronze medal game, it'll be a rematch of the Olympic final between Sweden and Canada.  Sweden continues its streak of finishing on the podium at a major tournament, but once again doesn't end up on the top step.  The team that will is England.  That's right.  Even though the United States is the consensus favorite to win a third straight Women's World Cup, I have them losing in the final.  I just have that "team of destiny" feeling about England.

Fire Boone, Fire Cashman

Aaron Boone and Brian Cashman insist the Yankees are a "championship caliber" team.  I don't know what makes them think that or what team they're watching.  Because it certainly isn't the 2023 edition of the Yankees.  That team has been nothing short of a dumpster fire.

A lot of things have gone wrong for the Yankees this season.  Aaron Judge has been great when healthy, but he's also had two separate stints on the injured list...and the lineup seems completely incapable of hitting without him!  This has been a season-long problem, and there isn't just one culprit.  There are a lot of high-priced veterans who are being paid to not produce.  At the All*Star break, the Yankees ranked 28th in the Majors in batting average, ahead of only Detroit and Oakland.  Their inability to hit translates to an inability to score, which puts undue pressure on the pitchers, who, other than Luis Severino, haven't been too bad.

The pitching staff, frankly, is the only reason they've remained in contention in the loaded AL East, a division where every team is over .500.  The bullpen, meanwhile, is considered the "strength" of the team, although I still don't exactly see how.  Is it simply because the bullpen has, on paper, been the least bad of the three areas?  Because it's a bunch of no-name guys who haven't been performing exceptionally, either.

Sunday's loss in Denver was absolute rock bottom.  The bullpen completely imploded.  It's as simple as that.  Gerrit Cole was great for seven innings and left the game with a 3-1 lead.  Tommy Kahnle came in, loaded the bases, and Clay Holmes unloaded them by giving up a grand slam.  The Yankees actually came back to tie it, then took a 7-5 lead in the 11th.  That's when Boone turned to Nick Ramirez for some reason....and Ramirez promptly gave up the game-tying two-run homer.  Then it was Ron Marinaccio's turn...to give up a walk-off homer to a guy who hadn't hit a home run all season.

Boone completely mismanaged the bullpen in that game, and it wasn't the first time this season that's happened.  And the end result wasn't just a loss.  It was a series loss to the worst team in the National League.  Since the beginning of June, the Yankees have now lost series to the White Sox, Cubs, Cardinals and Rockies, all of whom are below .500, as well as two against the Red Sox (including a doubleheader sweep in Boston).  They entered their series in Anaheim just 13-19 since Judge broke his toe at Dodger Stadium.

It was a big deal over the All*Star break when Cashman fired hitting coach Dillon Lawson, the first in-season firing of any member of a Yankees staff since 1995.  Cashman's philosophy is that coaches should only be judged over a full, 162-game body of work.  With Lawson, though, he made an exception, since a message had to be sent.  It also had to serve as putting Boone on notice.  If George Steinbrenner was still around, Boone wouldn't just be on notice.  He'd be gone.  And, frankly, so would Cashman.

Hal Steinbrenner has shown much more patience than his father.  But even he has to realize why the fans have grown beyond frustrated.  This is a team that, despite constantly being competitive and always has one of the highest payrolls in baseball, has won a grand total of one pennant in 20 years!  And it sure doesn't look like that'll be changing this season!

Every year, the script is exactly the same, too.  One or more of the veteran hitters gets hurt, usually for an extended period, while others underperform.  Cashman goes out and makes a deal at the trade deadline and that guy either also gets hurt or completely sucks.  And the end result is, if they do make the playoffs, they continue not hitting at all while getting outplayed and eliminated by a better team.  The next year will "definitely be different," only for it to be rinse and repeat.

I'm sorry, but Cashman has to shoulder most of the blame for all that.  He's been the Yankees' GM since the 90s.  It's pretty clear he's been there too long.  Because a lot of the moves he's made to improve the team haven't worked out.  It obviously isn't from lack of trying.  But, the bottom line is really pretty simple.  It hasn't yielded the desired results.  And when a team with an unlimited budget continually underachieves, the GM should be worrying about his job security.  Not staying in the job for 20 years despite those results.

And, frankly, the entire organizational philosophy needs to change.  Cashman is big on analytics and has hired a staff that also buys into that way of approaching the game.  What do they have to show for this sudden embrace of analytics, though?  Certainly not a World Series title or even an AL pennant!  Frankly, they're just copying other teams that became successful by adopting the analytical approach and hoping it'll work as well for them. 

Newsflash: IT DOESN'T.  They're not as good as Houston.  They're not as good as Tampa Bay.  Adopting the approach that worked for those two teams might help against everybody else, but it clearly doesn't work against teams that are not only better than you, they're better than you at playing that style.  Also, just because it works for Tampa Bay and Houston doesn't mean it'll work for everybody.  Build your team around the personnel you have!  Don't try to pigeonhole your personnel into a particular style that may or may not work for them!

As for Aaron Boone, I disagree with Cashman that you can't change managers midseason.  Because sometimes that's exactly what a team needs.  A new voice, a new approach, just something different.  That might be all it takes, and we've seen time and time again where a simple managerial change made all the difference.

We saw it last year with the Phillies.  They fired Joe Girardi midseason and Rob Thomson took them to the World Series.  In 2003, Jack McKeon took over the Marlins in June and led them to a World Series victory over the Yankees in October.  George Steinbrenner fired and rehired Billy Martin so many times it was easy to lose track, but one of the times he fired Martin, in 1978 (coming off a Word Series championship), Bob Lemon guided the Yankees to a huge comeback in the AL East, one-game tiebreaker playoff win in Boston, and World Series victory over the Dodgers.  So, changing managers at midseason has clearly worked for teams in the past!

Would firing Aaron Boone guarantee improved results?  Obviously not!  Just like there's no way to guarantee they won't straighten things out and make a miracle run over the final two and a half months if Boone stays the manager.  If things don't improve, though, and this season ends with an 84-78ish record, Boone may be gone, whether they manage to sneak into the playoffs or not.

Cashman will do everything he can to make that happen.  This team has a lot of needs, and you know he'll try to address them at the trade deadline.  He hasn't had the greatest track record with his trade deadline acquisitions over the past few years, though, so that initial joy could once again quickly be overtaken by a substandard reality.  And how long can Hal Steinbrenner continue to tolerate that?

Yankee fans are frustrated.  There's no denying that.  Dillon Lawson's firing was a warning shot.  He shouldn't be the last.  Because the best way to build it back up might be to tear it all down.  Which means when they return home, Hal should listen to the "Fire Boone" and "Fire Cashman" chants.  Chants that figure to only get louder and louder.

Bring Back the Team Uniforms

In the days since the MLB All*Star Game, I've heard one complaint more than any other.  And it's a complaint that has come from fans, media, well, basically everyone.  There are very few, if any, people out there who actually liked the All*Star uniforms.  Most, in fact, are longing for the old days, when the players wore the uniforms of their respective teams.

This "league uniform" thing is actually a fairly recent phenomenon.  Players did wear their own uniforms until 2019, then, when the All*Star Game came back in 2021 after the 2020 cancellation due to COVID, the "league uniforms" made their debut.  That was also, probably not coincidentally, Nike's first year as MLB's apparel partner.  So, I'm sure it was worked into the Nike deal that they provide All*Star Game uniforms for both the American and National Leagues every year.  Except, in two of the three years, those uniforms have been absolutely terrible!

The less said about the God-awful all-navy crap they subjected the American Leaguers to in 2021, the better.  Last year at Dodger Stadium, they seemingly got the hint, and the All*Star uniforms weren't nearly as bad.  They were essentially the team uniforms with the lettering in gold instead of the team colors.  Then this year, they went back to horrible, giving the National League black pants that made them look like they were playing beer league softball.  Worse yet, the only sort of team identification on them was a small logo on the sleeve and pants.

That is actually one of the biggest issues a lot of fans had with them.  As Jeff Nelson mentioned during that debacle of a Yankee game today, from a distance, you had no idea what team they played for.  It was the generic blue team against the generic green team.  There was no color, no distinguishing identifier, nothing.  Or, to put it more bluntly, uninspired and boring.

I think one of the things that they failed to consider when they went to the whole "league uniform" idea is that people liked seeing their team's uniform at the All*Star Game.  It's like when Roger Goodell thought it would be a great idea for the Super Bowl logo to be exactly the same every year, went with the most boring design in history, and stubbornly stuck with it even though people hated it and let him know that.  In fact, I think one of the reasons it took so long for them to pivot was because he knew fans hated it and wanted a return to game-specific logos that actually had color.  He just didn't care and kept at it for spite!  (It took until Super Bowl LV, a full 10 years after the whole template look started, for the logos to actually have color and originality and some indication of where the game is being played again.)

Baseball and hockey are unique in that they're the only two of the Big Four sports where every team is represented at the All*Star Game.  I know there are mixed feelings about that (and there likely always will be), but, I, for one, absolutely love that every team has an All*Star.  And it was so cool to watch the pregame introductions and see all the different uniforms.  Seriously, look at some of those All*Star team pictures from the 70s or 80s and try telling me they aren't awesome!

However, players have never worn their team uniform at the NHL All*Star Game.  Just in the Skills Competition.  So that element was unique to MLB.  One thing you could count on, year after year, was seeing every team's uniform when you turned on the All*Star Game.  That's part of what made the 2021 change so jarring.

It's not like the American and National League jerseys were a new idea, either.  MLB has been creating and selling those every year since at least the mid-90s.  Same thing with All*Star hats.  In fact, there are two different All*Star hats for everybody each year--one for the game, one for the workout day and batting practice.  Other than the fact that the design is often ugly and the cost is usually ridiculous, no one has a problem with the existence of the league All*Star jerseys.  People are still gonna want and buy them.  And they're specific to each individual All*Star Game, so they are unique, too.

So, nobody is saying the American and National League All*Star jerseys need to go.  We're just saying we don't want to see them on Tuesday night.  That's when fans of every team want to see their own logo and colors on display.  Not whatever generic color they give each league.  (Red and blue next year in Arlington?)

Especially since, if you think about it, there's a really easy solution that really is the best of both worlds.  Simply go back to the way it was until 2019.  Players wear their American and National League jerseys and hats on Monday, then their own jerseys and whatever the All*Star hat for that year is on Tuesday.  That system worked fine and no one seemed to have a problem with it.  So, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

And, frankly, that would solve another problem.  Because the players wearing their own uniforms in the Home Run Derby is also odd and just doesn't look right.  (It's also weird that they're all wearing their home uniform, but that's a much smaller issue.)  It's the ALL*STAR Home Run Derby, but there's absolutely nothing identifying them as All*Stars!  I know that the Home Run Derby has become an individual competition above everything else, but the eight participants are all still All*Stars.  It would be nice if people who aren't baseball fans and just casually tuning in knew that they're all, in fact, All*Stars and not just eight random players.

You also only get to see those eight uniforms during the Home Run Derby.  All of the other All*Star players are there on the field watching, but how many of them do you actually see?  Sure, you see the teammates and buddies of the participants, but most of them are just sitting there hanging out with their families.  It, again, is not like hockey, where the Skills Competition has the same player introductions as the All*Star Game itself and everyone participates in at least one event, meaning you're guaranteed to see every jersey at least once during the night.

Nike, of course, is paying a lot of money for its MLB contract.  It's not a coincidence that the ridiculous City Connect abominations only started appearing after MLB's relationship with Nike began.  And I'm sure Nike wants the maximum exposure for their design (not to mention their "uniform technology" that debuted at the All*Star Game and will be incorporated into team uniforms in 2024), which they're more likely to get at the All*Star Game itself than just the workout day and Home Run Derby.  But it's not like people won't see them at the Home Run Derby.  And it's not like fans won't buy them regardless!

To be fair, there are numerous issues with both the Home Run Derby and All*Star Game (the Home Run Derby takes too long and is too frenetic, while the home run derby tiebreaker for the All*Star Game is just as dumb as the free runner in extra innings).  The uniforms should not be among them.  Yet they are.  They don't need to be, though.  All they need to do is go back to the way things were.  AL and NL All*Star jerseys for the Home Run Derby, team uniforms for the All*Star Game.  Sounds simple, right?

The 2024 Schedule

I should've known when MLB announced the locations and opponents for all of the international games in 2024 that the schedule release was around the corner.  And, sure enough, it was.  The full 2024 slate for all 30 clubs was unveiled on Thursday, the day before the current season resumed after the All*Star break. 

That's the craziest thing about MLB.  The other three (NFL, NBA, NHL) wait until the season is over so that they can set the TV matchups, etc.  The NFL has to wait since some opponents are determined by the previous season's final standings.  (Plus, the schedule release in May gives them another offseason "event" to promote.)  But in baseball, where they play pretty much every day and everybody plays everybody, they don't have to worry about that as much.  They're probably already working on the 2025 schedule, in fact.

Next season will be Year 2 of the new schedule format where every team in the Majors faces every other team.  And, as expected, they just flipped the interleague matchups.  So, the seven (non-partner) teams you played at home this season you'll play on the road in 2024 and vice versa.  That's what I love so much about this change.  Fans are guaranteed to see every opposing team come to their stadium at least every other year (how long have college football fans been complaining about this exact issue?).

Because of that we're getting things like Trout vs. Harper in Anaheim for the first time since 2017.  We'll see Dodgers-Red Sox at Dodger Stadium and Dodgers-Yankees at Yankee Stadium, and Yankees-Cubs at Wrigley.  Boston visits St. Louis on the 20th anniversary of the 2004 World Series.  Xander Bogaerts will return to Fenway for the first time as a Padre, and Francisco Lindor will make his first trip to Cleveland as a Met.  We don't know where Shohei Ohtani's gonna end up, but if it's a National League team and they visit the Angels, you can bet that'll be one of the most anticipated series of next season.

MLB even threw us a little curveball and scheduled an interleague series for Mexico.  I didn't think this would be possible under the current format since you play three-game series with everyone outside your division and those international trips are usually two-game series, but I failed to consider the home-and-home interleague series that everybody plays.  Some you're not touching (Yankees-Mets, Dodgers-Angels, Cubs-White Sox).  But there's no reason you can't take a non-rivalry pair and move one of those two-game sets.  Which is exactly what they did.  The Rockies and Astros will play in Houston and Mexico City instead of Houston and Denver.

Colorado will be the only team losing two home games next season.  Because what they're doing in London and Seoul is very clever.  When the Dodgers and Padres open the season in Seoul, San Diego will be the "home" team in Game 1 and the Dodgers will be the "home" team the next day.  Same with Mets and Phillies in London.  They'll each be the "home" team once.  This way, all four will still have two home series against their nearby rival (unlike the Cardinals, who only have one four-game home series with the Cubs this year since St. Louis was the "home" team for both games in London).

Speaking of the Cardinals, they'll give up a home game again next year to serve as the "home" team for a game against the Giants at Rickwood Field in Birmingham, Alabama.  Willie Mays played for the Negro Leagues' Birmingham Black Barons in that ballpark, so including San Francisco makes sense for that reason alone.  Will this become an annual Juneteenth celebration?  That's the real question.  Especially since the Field of Dreams Game should be returning in 2025.

No word yet on who'll be playing in the Little League Classic (they usually don't announce that until the Commissioner says it on-air during the current year's game).  I've long thought they should take advantage of Cincinnati's proximity to Williamsport and feature the Reds, especially now that they have Elly De La Cruz.  They're home against Kansas City on August 18 (which is the date), so it is possible, even if Reds-Royals isn't exactly the most attractive matchup for ESPN.

One of the two traditional 11 a.m. holiday games has an interesting little quirk.  The 4th of July is on a Thursday, so the Nationals playing the Mets at 11:00 is no problem since it'll be the final game of the series.  The Red Sox usually play a wrap-around series on Patriot's Day weekend so that they can play their 11 a.m. game on Patriot's Day Monday.  Next season, though, that will be the first game of a series against Cleveland.  I'm sure they'll still let them play at 11, but they usually don't allow the first game of a series to have an early start, so it's odd that they scheduled it that way (it's not like they didn't know when Patriot's Day is...or that the Red Sox play an 11 a.m. home game that day every year!).

When they announced the season would be opening in Seoul, I figured it would be two West Coast teams just because of the travel.  Picking the Dodgers makes complete sense since they're the global brand.  I love the choice of the Padres, though.  San Diego has underachieved this season, but is still one of the flashiest teams in baseball.  And they have Ha-Seong Kim, who's probably the best active Korean players in the Majors right now.

Those two games will be on March 20-21, marking the second time the Dodgers get an early start on the season with a pair of games overseas (they played the Diamondbacks in Australia in 2014).  And they'll bring us back to the pandemic days, when the KBO was the first league to start back up and we were all getting up early in the morning because there was live baseball being played somewhere (and, let's face it, because we had nothing else to do).

Everyone else opens a week later, with all 30 teams playing on March 28.  It'll be the earliest domestic Opening Day in MLB history (although, the original 2020 Opening Day was scheduled for March 26).  It'll also be the second straight year everybody plays on Opening Day (they also tried it last season, but there was a rainout).  I hope that trend continues.  Because Opening Day should be Opening Day for everybody.  Next season, they've added three special days (Jackie Robinson Day on April 15, Lou Gehrig Day on June 2, Roberto Clemente Day on Sept. 15) as days when everybody plays, as well as the 4th of July, which, frankly, should've already been the case every year.

There is one other little quirk on the schedule that I found interesting.  There are two scheduled doubleheaders.  The first is on May 8 in Oakland (Rangers-Athletics).  The other is on July 27 across the bay in San Francisco (Giants-Rockies).  I'm curious both about the reason why and if this is a trend that will continue.  (I'm also curious to see where the A's will play beyond 2024, but that's a totally separate issue.)

The 2024 All*Star Game is set for Arlington on July 16.  The interesting thing about that is Texas Governor Greg Abbott said very definitively that "no MLB event" would be held in the state after they moved the 2021 game out of Atlanta.  That stance has obviously changed, and the Rangers will get to show off their new ballpark.  And, speaking of stances changing, among the cities on the shortlist to host the 2025 All*Star Game...Atlanta.

Eventually Getting It Right

I give Northwestern President Michael Schill a lot of credit.  Not only did he do what he had to by firing football coach Pat Fitzgerald, he admitted that he made a mistake by originally only suspending him.  I also admire the fact that came out and said, point blank, that this was his decision.  No throwing the AD under the bus.  It was Schill and Schill alone who let Fitzgerald go.  Which was the only move he could make in the situation.

A huge amount of credit also has to go to the intrepid student journalists at The Daily Northwestern.  They knew how damning this story could be, yet they pressed on.  That's what good journalists do.  And Northwestern has one of the best journalism programs in the country (if not THE best).  And if not for their reporting, who's to say the details even come out?  Let alone to the painstaking degree they did.  It's not Woodward & Bernstein taking down Nixon.  But without the diligence of the reporters at The Daily Northwestern, Pat Fitzgerald is almost certainly still the Wildcats' football coach.

Those details are bad.  There's no way to sugarcoat it.  The culture of hazing and racist behavior within the Northwestern football program was completely unacceptable and needed to change.  And the only way that was gonna happen was with new leadership.

If this were an NCAA-related matter, Fitzgerald's culpability would be undisputed.  The NCAA is very clear about that.  Anything that happens within a program is the responsibility of the head coach.  If an assistant commits a violation, the head coach is equally at fault, whether they know about it or not.  Ignorance can't and shouldn't be an excuse.

For Fitzgerald, ignorance definitely was bliss.  He allegedly didn't know what was going on.  For Schill, that was enough to warrant just a two-week, unpaid suspension.  However, Schill admitted his error of focusing too much on what Fitzgerald didn't know and not enough on what he should've known.  That's the key distinction.  Because Fitzgerald should've known.  Period.

It's like the Houston Astros' sign-stealing scandal.  Alex Cora and Carlos Beltran were evidently the ringleaders.  Manager A.J. Hinch and GM Jeff Luhnow both knew nothing about it and, if they had, would've put a stop to it.  But, because they didn't know, they didn't stop it.  And it was their responsibility to know.  That's why Hinch and Luhnow were both rightly fired as a result.

After Schill suspended Fitzgerald on Friday, he was inundated with calls and emails.  That wasn't what changed his mind, though.  What changed his mind was meeting with the student in question himself, as well as his family.  It was then that he realized the severity of the hazing and how "broken" the football program was.  And that, ultimately, falls on the head coach.

And, while the report after Northwestern's six-month investigation, cleared Fitzgerald of any wrongdoing, I find it hard to believe that he didn't know what was going on.  The report said he didn't, but, c'mon!  They didn't find "sufficient evidence" that the coaching staff was aware of the ongoing hazing, but also said there were "significant opportunities" to find out about it.  However, they also contradicted themselves by acknowledging the hazing was widespread and not a secret.  So, if it wasn't a secret within the program, how could the head coach possibly not know about it?  Especially since multiple accounts corroborated each other.

There really are three possibilities here, none of which is acceptable.  The first is probably the worst.  Fitzgerald knew about the hazing and not only didn't do anything to stop it, he actually condoned it.  The second is that he was employing a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" strategy, where he knew about it, but was playing dumb.  The third is that he simply didn't care enough to find out.  The "ignorance is bliss" approach.

Personally, I think it was scenario one.  One of the Daily Northwestern articles suggested Fitzgerald not only knew about the hazing, he encouraged it by clapping his hands above the head of a player (usually a freshman) who had made a mistake in practice, signaling the upperclassmen who should be a target.  There were also some pretty serious racial allegations, with one former player pointing out that almost the entire offense was white and almost the entire defense was black, which may or may not have been intentional.

What makes this so much worse is that Fitzgerald has been at Northwestern for 26 years, first as a player, then an assistant, and since 2006 as head coach.  Which leads you to wonder how long this has actually been going on.  And how much longer it would've continued had the former player not come forward.  If it dates all the way back to his playing days in the late 90s, that's an even bigger institutional problem.  In which case, the culture change was long overdue.

Of course, it's also possible that it was simply being overlooked because Northwestern was winning.  Fitzgerald went 110-101 in 17 seasons and led the Wildcats to a pair of division titles.  They played in a bowl every year from 2008-12, then again from 2015-18, with a Citrus Bowl appearance in the 2020 season.  Northwestern has won four straight bowl games and five of its last six bowls, after having a grand total of one bowl win before 2012.

Predictably, Fitzgerald has retained council in hopes of recouping some of the nearly $40 million remaining on the 10-year contract he signed with the school in 2021.  Fitzgerald was fired for cause.  No one is disputing that.  Where he and Northwestern disagree, though, is whether the school was allowed to change the punishment after he accepted the two-week unpaid suspension.  Fitzgerald also claims they violated an oral contract, which is binding in Illinois.

My guess is there'll be some sort of settlement.  What's clear, though, is that there's no way Pat Fitzgerald could've returned from that suspension and gone about his business as Northwestern's football coach as if nothing happened.  Because something did happen.  Repeatedly.  And the university's integrity was at stake.  They had no choice.

Baseball at the Break

The first half of the 2023 MLB season is in the books, and it's been an interesting one.  The entire AL East is better than the entire AL Central.  The A's, amid relocation talks and their fans' reverse boycott, looked like they'll be challenging the '62 Mets' record of futility, yet somehow managed to put together a nine-game winning streak.  Shohei Ohtani continued to do Shohei Ohtani things.  Luis Arraez is flirting with .400.  Domingo German went from excellent to a 10-game sticky stuff suspension to God awful to throwing a perfect game.  There's been the absolute brilliance of the Atlanta Braves and Tampa Bay Rays, the pleasant surprises that are the Texas Rangers and Arizona Diamondbacks, and plenty of disappointed fans in New York (both teams), San Diego and St. Louis.

Midseason is a good time to assess where things are, especially with the trade deadline coming up at the end of the month.  It's also a good time to take a look at who might be getting some hardware come the end of the season.  A lot can change over the next three months, of course, but my midseason award winners came to play in the first half.  So much so, in fact, that I don't think there's much debate about any of them.

AL MVP: Shohei Ohtani, Angels-What's there left to say about Ohtani that hasn't been said already?  He's really good at baseball.  And he continues to find new ways to amaze.  Last year, it took an other-worldly season by Aaron Judge to keep Ohanti from winning the AL MVP.  This season, it hasn't been close.  He leads the AL in homers and RBIs, is third in both hits and runs, and is batting over .300.  Plus, all of the pitching stuff.

AL LVP: Josh Donaldson, Yankees-Yankees fans were finally put out of their mercy when Aaron Hicks was released in May, but Hicks doesn't suck anymore since signing with Baltimore.  No such luck for Josh Donaldson, who's now the primary target of the boos at Yankee Stadium.  He's hitting all of .152, and 10 of his 15 hits are homers.  That's right, he has five non-home runs all season.  And he only has 15 RBIs, so it's not even like his home runs come with somebody on base.

AL Cy Young: Shane McClanahan, Rays-You could make an argument for Ohtani to pull a Verlander/Kershaw and win both MVP and Cy Young in the same year.  I'm going with Tampa Bay ace Shane McClanahan, though.  He's 11-1 for the best team in the American League, and his 2.53 ERA is second behind Framber Valdez's 2.51.  In McClanahan's 17 starts, the Rays are 14-3.

AL Cy Old: Lance Lynn, White Sox-It really would be unfair to single out one of the Royals' pitchers for this "honor."  For one, none of them have been any good.  But neither is the rest of the team, so you can't really blame it entirely on them.  Lance Lynn, meanwhile, has gone out there and made his turn in the rotation for the White Sox every time.  Why?  I'm not sure.  He's 5-8 with a 6.03 ERA, second-worst among qualified starters, and his 22 home runs allowed are tied for the most in the American League.

AL Rookie: Josh Jung, Rangers-I think the only Rangers who didn't make the AL All*Star team are Chris Kreider and Mika Zibanejad.  One of those Texas All*Stars is rookie third baseman Josh Jung, who got the nod over such stalwarts as Jose Ramirez and Rafael Devers.  And deservedly so.  He's played 88 games and leads all AL rookies in hits (97), runs (62), homers (19) and RBIs (56), and he's tied for the AL rookie lead in doubles (19).

AL Manager: Bruce Bochy, Rangers-When Bochy retired as Giants manager after the 2019 season, he was already headed to Cooperstown.  Four years later, the Rangers coaxed him out of that retirement, and it turns out that might've been exactly what Texas needed.  Because the Rangers have led the AL West all season and hit the All*Star break at 52-38.  If/when they get a starting pitcher at the deadline, they'll be a very formidable team come October...with a manager who's won three World Series in his career.

NL MVP: Ronald Acuna Jr., Braves-Acuna's the best player on the best team in baseball.  He's also the best player in the National League.  Sometimes somebody's MVP case is just that simple.  Acuna's first in the NL in runs scored, first in stolen bases, first in OPS, second batting average, second in hits, second in slugging percentage, third on on-base percentage, fifth in doubles, and top 10 in both home runs and RBIs.  Freddie Freeman's the only other guy who belongs in the conversation, but even he doesn't come close.

NL LVP: Willson Contreras, Cardinals-On paper, it looked like a great signing.  Yadi Molina retired, the Cardinals needed a catcher, and Wilson Contreras was a pending free agent.  It all made perfect sense!  Except it didn't actually work out the way the Cardinals had hoped.  Contreras was so bad defensively behind the plate (and evidently was calling pitches that the pitchers didn't even have in their arsenals) that they moved him to the outfield and DH for a while.  Not the best way to start an $87.5 million, five-year deal.

NL Cy Young: Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers-Ho hum.  Clayton Kershaw is just adding to his Hall of Fame resume.  His greatness has become so expected it's bordering on boring.  This season, he's 10-4 with an NL-leading 2.55 ERA, and he'd probably be making his second straight All*Star Game start (after never having started prior to last year) if he wasn't currently in the midst of his yearly trip to the IL.

NL Cy Old: Jameson Taillon, Cubs-Taillon threw eight innings of one-hit ball at Yankee Stadium on Friday night.  That lowered his ERA to 6.15.  It was also the first time all season Taillon even pitched into the seventh.  He's actually been pitching better of late, but, needless to say, his first half wasn't exactly memorable.

NL Rookie: Corbin Carroll, Diamondbacks-This could easily be Reds sensation Elly de la Cruz at the end of the season, but at the All*Star break, Arizona's equally-electrifying Corbin Carroll gets the nod.  He's a big reason why the surprising Diamondbacks are leading the NL West.  His 18 home runs, 63 runs scored and 20 doubles lead NL rookies, and his 89 hits are one behind Cincinnati's Spencer Steer.  Carroll has also stolen 26 bases, second-most in the entire National League.

NL Manager: Torey Lovullo, Diamondbacks-Arizona has been in first place for most of the season.  That's right, in the NL West, a division that includes the powerhouse that is the Dodgers and a Padres team that was the consensus favorite for the NL pennant, it's Torey Lovullo's Diamondbacks leading at the All*Star break.  I could've gone with Brian Snitker, but most people expected the Braves to be this good.  No one saw the Diamondbacks coming, though, so Lovullo gets the nod.

Different Events for the World Champs

Most of the U.S. team for next month's World Championships in Budapest will be selected at this weekend's USATF Outdoor Championships.  It's the hardest team in the world to make, especially in certain events, so the competition for the three spots should be intense.  Except this year it might be a little easier in others.  All because of how good the U.S. team did while hosting Worlds last year.

In Eugene, 10 Americans won gold medals in individual events.  Since defending champions are given a bye into the next World Championships, all 10 just need to show up to Nationals to claim their automatic berth.  Make that 11.  Because Valarie Allman also gets one as the Diamond League champion in the women's discus.  (Kara Winger won the Diamond League title in the women's javelin, but retired after last year.)

That means the U.S. will be sending four athletes to Worlds in nearly one-third of the events!  And, because those defending champions are already qualified, many of them won't run their primary event at Nationals.  Noah Lyles has a bye in the 200, so he's only running the 100.  Sydney McLaughlin hasn't run the 400 hurdles all year.  She's running the open 400 (and could easily make the team), then will decide which event to enter at Worlds, where she'll only do one, not both.

For Lyles and McLaughlin, this could be a preview of what they plan to do next summer in Paris.  Lyles wants to run both the 100 and 200 at the Olympics.  Next year, he'll have to run both at Trials.  This year, he can focus on the 100 at Nationals and, assuming he makes the team, still do both in Budapest.

McLaughlin will almost certainly switch from the 400 hurdles to the open 400 eventually.  Probably sooner rather than later.  I actually think she will make the team in the 400, and I'd love to see her do the double.  She's already said she won't at Worlds, and, while it'll theoretically be possible in Paris, the events do overlap, so she probably won't be able to do it at the Olympics.  Which is a shame.  Because it would really be something special if she could (the same goes for Femke Bol, who won both the 400 and 400 hurdles at last year's European Championships).

They're not the only ones who can take it "easy" at Nationals.  Fred Kerley is the defending champ in the 100, so he'll only run the 200.  Michael Norman won the 400 at Worlds last year.  He's been battling an injury, but he just has to show up at Nationals to claim his spot.  Norman's entered in the 100 and 200, and I wouldn't be surprised if he only runs the first round of one and that's it.  Athing Mu, meanwhile, will run the 1500 instead of the 800.

Some of the World Champions will be in their signature events, but they can let it loose without the pressure of having to qualify.  Which means look out for what Ryan Crouser might do in the men's shot put!  And you know Grant Holloway wants to send a message in the men's 110 hurdles!  The women's shot put is so deep that Chase Ealey could easily not even make the top three at Nationals (which she doesn't need to) and still medal at Worlds.

Then there are the events where the U.S. doesn't have the defending World or Diamond League champion.  Events like the women's 100 hurdles, where I have no idea who'll make the team because there are like seven women who could!  And the women's 100, which has about six potential World finalists.  Two of the spots in the women's 200 are probably already claimed by Gabby Thomas and Abby Steiner, but who'll get the other one?  And if McLaughlin makes it in the 400 (which she very well could), which event will she choose?

On the men's side, it's the events where the U.S. does get to send four that look the most intriguing.  The Americans swept the medals in the 100 at Worlds last year.  That sweep did not include Christian Coleman.  And now you're throwing in Noah Lyles, too.  And, since Kerley's not running the 100 at Nationals, fourth place still only gets you relay duty.  Like the women's 100 hurdles, the men's 110 hurdles will see at least two guys who could be World medalists left home, and that's with fourth place getting a spot, since Holloway will probably race the final.

Crouser's on another planet, and Joe Kovacs is probably the second-best shot putter on the planet.  The U.S. gets two other spots, though.  Who will snag them?  The U.S. will also have four spots in the women's pole vault for the first time.  Katie Moon's in as the defending champ.  Unless something crazy happens, there's no way Sandi Morris won't be top three.  Which two ladies will join them in Budapest?

I'm also curious to see how much of an impact the scheduling has.  This is the first time World Athletics has designated a dedicated window for countries to hold their National Championships.  There's another one later this month for the countries that would prefer to have theirs a little closer to Worlds.  U.S. Nationals have typically been at the end of June, so moving them back a week shouldn't be that big a deal.  It's an extra week for the college athletes who competed at the NCAA Championships, though.  (Next year's Olympic Trials will probably straddle the late June-early July window since the Olympics start at the end of July.)

Last year, Worlds were so early and so close to Nationals time-wise (and in the same location) that athletes didn't have to worry about peaking twice.  Heck, the collegians could just peak for NCAAs in mid-June and carry that through to Worlds a month later.  This year, there's six weeks.  Which is another huge benefit for the 11 athletes with World Championships byes.  They don't have to peak twice (or hold their peak).  They're already on the team.

Do I expect the U.S. to duplicate what it did at last year's Worlds in Eugene later this summer in Budapest?  Of course not!  There was a definite home field advantage last year at Hayward Field.  However, that success will still have a major impact.  Because it'll result in an even larger American team than normal.  And a team that has the potential to be just as good.

After all, the U.S. team is the hardest team to make in the sport.  Worlds is actually the easy part.  But they have to get there first.  Which is what the next four days in Oregon are all about.  Let's make a World Championships team, shall we?

Will Novak Make It 24?

Novak Djokovic hasn't lost a match at Wimbledon in six years.  And, in that match, the 2017 quarterfinals, he retired in the second set.  The last time he actually lost a match was to Sam Querrey in the 2016 third round.  He's won four straight, with the 2020 cancellation mixed in.  Should he make that five in a row, it'll be historic for a few reasons.  Djokovic would tie Roger Federer's record for both consecutive (5) and career (8) Wimbledon victories.  Most significantly, the newly-crowned men's all-time leader in Grand Slam titles would tie Margaret Court for the overall record with his 24th.

It goes without saying that Djokovic is the overwhelming favorite.  If he's on his game, I don't see anybody beating him, and he'll head to New York with a chance at the calendar year Grand Slam for the second time in three years.  Most importantly, he'll have his zero points from last year wiped out, which won't just put him back at No. 1, it'll do so by a healthy margin.

Last year, of course, Wimbledon was clouded by the ban on Russian and Belarusian players, which is what led to the ATP and WTA deciding to strip the tournament of ranking points.  (Djokovic didn't play the Australian or US Opens last year, so he got zero ranking points at three of the four Grand Slams in 2022, yet is still No. 2 in the world and just 20 points behind No. 1.)  Fortunately, that was only a one-year thing.  The Russians and Belarusians are back, and so are the ranking points.

On the men's side, that means two significant names return after missing out last year.  Daniil Medvedev and Andrey Rublev.  No. 3 Medvedev won the 2021 US Open and is a two-time Australian Open finalist, but has never been past the fourth round at Wimbledon.  Rublev's best Wimbledon result was also the fourth round in 2021, but he's been to the quarterfinals at least twice in each of the other three Grand Slams.

I'm actually surprised that neither Russian has made even a quarterfinal at Wimbledon before.  Because they both have the game that would seem to translate well to grass.  Medvedev especially.  Maybe this year will be his Wimbledon breakthrough.

Also looking for a Wimbledon breakthrough is world No. 1 Carlos Alcaraz.  He won his first career grass court title at the Queen's Club warmup tournament, so you know that's got to give him confidence.  Alcaraz got crushed by Djokovic in the French Open semifinals, though, and he's the better clay court player.  On grass, I'm not sure even Alcaraz thinks he can beat Djokovic.  Still, the Alcaraz-Medvedev semi for the right to lose to Djokovic in the final could be a good one.

There isn't really anybody else I can even see challenging Djokovic for the title.  Nick Kyrgios is the man he beat in the final last year, but Kyrgios just withdrew from this year's tournament due to injury.  Casper Ruud?  He's only won a single Wimbledon match in his career.  Stefanos Tsitsipas?  Never been past the fourth round.  Alexander Zverev?  Also never been past the fourth round.

So, yeah, all signs point towards Djokovic being handed that golden trophy by the Princess of Wales for the fifth consecutive time.  I'll say Medvedev beats Alcaraz in the other semi and earns the right to watch Novak's coronation from the other side of the net.  Wimbledon number 8, Grand Slam number 24 for the Djoker.

Before getting into the women's tournament, there's something Monica Seles said about Wimbledon the other day that stuck with me.  She was actually talking about British tennis more broadly.  Her argument was, essentially, that there are no top British players because they only care about tennis during Wimbledon.  Well, I'm sure Andy Murray and Emma Raducanu would disagree, but I do get the point she was trying to make.  At least I think I do.  Wimbledon is the most important event in tennis and one of the most important sporting events in Great Britain.  That might be why British people care about Wimbledon, though.  Not because of their love for the sport.

Anyway, that's just how I interpret her comments, which I don't think are necessarily wrong (I don't necessarily think she's right, either, by the way).  Outside of Andy Murray, the number of British players at the top of the rankings has been few and far between.  And Virgina Wade's 1977 title will remain the most recent Wimbledon win for a British woman.  In fact, there wouldn't even be a British woman in this year's field if not for the host nation wild cards!

In 2022, we saw Elena Rybakina and Ons Jabeur in the final.  Rybakina won (in just her second Wimbledon appearance) and has only gone up from there.  She reached the final at the Australian Open and has made her way all the way up to No. 3 in the world (despite the zero points from last year's Wimbledon).  Rybakina has a great chance of going back-to-back, too...except she and Jabeur are in the same quarter and could very well have a rematch in the quarterfinals.

You want to know a crazy stat, too?  Rybakina, Petra Kvitova and Venus Williams are the only former Wimbledon champions in this year's field.  Kvitova's last Wimbledon win was nearly a decade ago (2014), while Venus won the last of her five Wimbledon titles in 2008.  Meanwhile, six different women have won Wimbledon since Serena went back-to-back in 2015-16, and that could easily become seven in seven tournaments this year.

Jabeur, the first Arab woman ever to reach a Grand Slam final, also made the US Open final last year, and she's coming off a French Open quarterfinal appearance.  She's made it clear that Wimbledon is the one she wants to win, though, and I think Jabeur has a very good chance of doing just that.  That'll be a sensational quarterfinal, and the winner will likely be the favorite for the title.

Then there's Aryna Sabalenka.  She made the semifinals in 2021, which, thanks to her being excluded last year as a Belarusian, is the last time she played Wimbledon.  In the three Grand Slam tournaments since then, she's gone semi (US Open), champion (Australian), semi (French).  So, it's not hard to envision Sabalenka going deep into the tournament again.

World No. 1 Iga Swiatek had her ridiculous 37-match winning streak snapped in last year's third round, and she faces some stiff competition on the top half of this year's draw.  That includes Americans Coco Gauff and Jessica Pegula.  I have a feeling about fifth-ranked Frenchwoman Caroline Garcia, though.  Even though she's only ever been to the quarterfinals twice in 44 career Grand Slam tournaments, she's somehow No. 5 in the world.  And I have a good feeling about her.  Mainly because she's won three career grass-court titles, which would make you think she should have better results at Wimbledon than she does.

My feeling about Garcia is so strong that I've got her reaching the final, where she'll lose to Jabeur.  And, just as Djokovic's title would be historic for all the records it would equal, hers would be just as historic.  Already the first Arab woman to make a Grand Slam title, she'll do one better, becoming the first African woman and first person, man or woman, from an Arab country ever to become a Grand Slam champion.