An Interesting Turn of Events

When MLB got rid of the second trade deadline in 2019, one of the reasons why was because it had gotten out of control.  Nobody did anything at the actual deadline because they knew they could still get a guy in August as long as he cleared waivers.  And the waivers were revokable, so if a team didn't want him to go to the team that made the claim, they could simply pull him back.  No harm, no foul.

Well, that's certainly not the case anymore!  Just because teams are no longer allowed to make trades in August, the September 1 roster deadline to be eligible for postseason play still applies.  And now the waivers aren't revokable, so if a team makes a claim, they get him.  Which has actually made the month of August much more interesting.

Last month at the trade deadline, I noted that one of my issues with only having one at the end of July is that it's too early for teams to make a decision.  With six playoff berths in each league, there are way too many teams still close enough to playoff position two weeks after the All*Star Break that they can't justify being sellers, but also far enough away to not think it's prudent to be buyers.  Well, as it turns out, they can change their minds in August, and it might actually work out better!

It gives teams the chance to reevaluate.  If they're in a better position than they thought, they can make some waiver claims.  Likewise, if they had a bad August that dropped them out of contention, they can be realistic about it and see if there are any takers for some veterans who may or may not be high-priced, but somebody in the race thinks might help them down the stretch and in the postseason.  Or they can treat it like a reset button.

That's what the Angels just did.  In late July, they decided to hang on to Ohtani and were aggressive buyers, most notably getting Lucas Giolito from the White Sox.  Giolito was awful with the Angels, Ohtani most likely needs another Tommy John, Mike Trout came back for one game then got hurt again, and they had the worst record in baseball in August (how is it possible they were worse than the Yankees?).

So what do the Angels do?  They admit their mistake and put all those guys on waivers!  Five weeks after being traded to the Angels, Giolito was picked up by Cleveland.  The Guardians also got Matt Moore and Reynaldo Lopez, while Hunter Renfroe went to the Reds and Dominic Leone was claimed by Seattle.  The Angels gutted their farm system to go all-in.  A month later, they were getting rid of the same players they just acquired so that they can get under the luxury tax threshold.

Then there's the Yankees.  They didn't do anything at the deadline, which didn't make sense for a team that was on the fringes of contention and badly needed to improve.  Then August hit, they got even worse, and reality set in.  So they also put some guys on waivers and committed to a youth movement.  As a result, Harrison Bader is now a Cincinnati Red.

What's interesting about the Angels and Yankees is their different approaches in July.  The Yankees drew a lot of criticism for basically standing pat and hanging on to their prospects.  But by doing that, they didn't lose them.  Unlike the Angels, who not only missed the mark on their trades and missed the playoffs again, they also made their farm system much worse in the process.

This is exactly what I meant about teams having more time to assess their chances, too.  Cleveland wouldn't have any shot at making the playoffs in five of six divisions.  They just happen to play in the AL Central, though, so they have every reason to think they can make a September run and get into the postseason as the No. 3 seed in the AL.

Same thing with Cincinnati, the other most-active team on the waiver wire.  They didn't do much in July, but started to slip in August and knew they needed to improve if they wanted to hang on to a wild card spot.  So they made several waiver claims.  They only ended up getting Bader and Renfroe, but they also put in for the pitchers who went to Cleveland (if multiple teams make a claim for the same player, the one with the worse record has the priority).

I can easily see this becoming the new approach moving forward.  Like most things in baseball, once one team proves something works, everyone else is gonna copy it.  The jury's still out on whether making a bunch of waiver claims at the end of August actually will work out.  But if it does, you know we're gonna start seeing it regularly.  Especially if it only costs you picking up that player's salary without losing any prospects.

There's another element at play here, too.  The waiver priority hasn't changed.  It's still the team with the worse record gets the player, but now they simply get him.  There's no working out a trade.  You don't need to try and figure out who you're willing to give up.  Because you don't need to give up anybody.  You just need to hope there isn't a worse team who wants the same player.  And, assuming the players put on waivers are free-agents-to-be, it's only a month's worth of salary you need to pick up.

Moving forward, these are things teams will have to consider on both sides of the late August waiver window.  And the fact that it happens literally in the last few days of August makes it that much more compelling.  It gives the "sellers" time to post guys and the "buyers" still have time to grab them before the September 1 roster deadline.  By then, teams will know whether they're going for it in the final month or looking ahead to next year, so those decisions will be much easier (or at least easier to swallow).

Even though we can't get those shocking last-minute Verlander-to-the-Astros trades at the end of August anymore, we knew that there could and would still be movement.  And if the waiver claim deadline continues to be this crazy in the future, it could end up being just as compelling as the trade deadline.  If not more so.

Brian Cashman's Greatest Hits

Despite this disaster of a season in which the Yankees have gotten progressively worse by the month, are in last place, and need a good September to avoid finishing with a losing record for the first time in 30 years, it looks like Brian Cashman will be back as GM in 2024.  Even though Cashman is the one responsible for putting together this team, and the fact that this season really has been years in the making thanks to some of the questionable/disastrous personnel decisions he's made, that's evidently not enough for Hal Steinbrenner to make a change.

He's been the Yankees' GM for 25 years.  That alone should be enough to make you think a change could/should be in order.  Never mind the fact that this will be the 14th consecutive season without a pennant for a team that fancies itself a World Series contender every season.  Never mind the fact that he's obsessed with analytics for some reason, even though that approach has yielded zero results and Houston and Tampa Bay, the teams they're trying to emulate, aren't just better at it, they're better teams overall.

Anyway, Hal Steinbrenner has proven he's certainly not his father.  If George was still around and running things, Cashman would've been gone a long time ago.  There's been a lot of highs during his tenure.  No one's denying that.  But Cashman's misses have seemed to be piling up more and more in recent seasons.  And that's really why the team is in its current situation.

I don't even consider guys like A.J. Burnett or Giancarlo Stanton to be "bad" pickups.  Burnett was great in 2009, when he helped the team win a World Series, and Stanton has been exceptional when healthy.  He did almost single-handedly win the Division Series against the Rays in 2020.  I can't say the same about some other acquisitions, though.  Let's call them "Brian Cashman's Greatest Hits."

1. Josh Donaldson: Donaldson's Yankee career came to an unceremonious end when he was released on Tuesday.  They got him from the Twins along with Ben Rortvedt and Isiah Kiner-Falefa basically as a way of getting rid of Gary Sanchez, with Gio Urshela thrown in.  Needless to say, this trade did not work out well.  Donaldson wasn't good last year and was even worse this year.  IKF became a utility guy.  And Rortvedt got hurt in Spring Training, paving the way for Jose Trevino.

2. Aaron Hicks: Another guy Cashman got from the Twins, another guy who didn't work out.  Hicks was actually good when he first came over in 2016, but he needed Tommy John surgery right after signing a seven-year extension in 2019 and it's been downhill ever since.  Making matters worse, he knew he needed a left fielder, he knew Hicks sucked and he needed to unload him, and he did nothing about it.  Hicks started the season in New York and continued to be just as bad.  Cashman finally bit the bullet and released him in May.  The irony of the whole thing is that Hicks'll be the one who ends up in the postseason.

3. Frankie Montas & Lou Trivino: This may go down as his worst trade deadline acquisition.  Montas was awful as a Yankee.  Well, as it turns out, he was injured at the time of the trade and Oakland knew it.  How come Cashman didn't?  Montas hasn't pitched this season, no one has missed him, he'll leave as a free agent this winter, and no one will care.  Trivino, meanwhile, pitched in just a handful of games last season before needing Tommy John surgery.  It was a 2-for-1 deal.  One trade, two injured pitchers.

4. Clint Frazier: "Clint," "Jackson," whatever he wants to be called, "Red Thunder" was another swing and a miss.  He was supposed to be one of the big prizes of the 2016 sell-off that also landed Gleyber Torres (one of Cashman's few good trades in recent years).  Frazier came over from Cleveland for Andrew Miller, made his Major League debut in 2017, and spent most of the next four years on the injured list before he was finally designated for assignment in 2021.  Since then, he's played for three different organizations, bouncing between the Majors and Minors with the Cubs, Rangers and White Sox. 

5. Joey Gallo: Blaming this one entirely on Cashman isn't completely fair, since Yankee fans really wanted Gallo, too.  It went south almost immediately.  Gallo hit .160 with 88 strikeouts (in 188 at bats) in 58 games with the Yankees in 2021.  He was still re-signed for $10.275 million for 2022, yet somehow was even worse!  Gallo was hitting .159 and it was clearly getting to him when he was finally put out of his misery and sent to the Dodgers at the 2022 deadline.

6. Sonny Gray: For some reason, Cashman continues to make trades for Oakland pitchers even though they never work out well.  Before Montas and Trivino, there was Sonny Gray.  Gray made 11 starts after the trade in 2017 and went 4-7.  Then in 2018, he was so bad that he was demoted to the bullpen.  His Yankee Stadium ERA during his time in pinstripes?  7.71!  It was clearly just New York, seeing as Gray has made the All*Star team for both Cincinnati and Minnesota since he was traded to the Reds.

7. Carl Pavano: Getting Pavano for four years and $40 million actually seemed like a great deal at the time.  He was coming off an 18-8 season for the Marlins.  His Yankee tenure actually began pretty well, too.  Then Pavano got hurt.  And he spent pretty much the final three-and-a-half years of that contract on the injured list.  After missing the rest of 2005 and all of 2006, Pavano made a grand total of nine starts in 2007 and 2008 combined.

8. Michael Pineda: Pineda was traded to Yankees the winter after making the All*Star team as a Mariners rookie in 2011.  He didn't make his Yankees debut until 2012.  Two years of injuries before ever throwing a pitch for the team.  Pineda was actually solid in 2015, then went 6-12 with a 4.82 ERA and 27 home runs allowed in 2016.  Then in 2017, it was season-ending Tommy John surgery in July.

9. Stephen Drew: Remember when the Yankees and Red Sox randomly decided to make a trade with each other at the 2014 deadline?  I think they were both just trying to pull a fast one on the other by giving them someone they didn't want.  Kelly Johnson for Stephen Drew.  Drew hit just .150 with three home runs and 15 RBIs in 46 games for the Yankees after the trade, then played a full season with them in 2015 and hit a whopping .201!

10. Nick Johnson: Johnson's first tenure with the Yankees was oh-so-spectacular that Cashman just had to bring him back when he got the opportunity in 2010.  Despite the fact that he was a left-handed first baseman and they already had Mark Teixeira.  Not that it mattered.  Johnson started a grand total of 21 games (20 of them at DH) before hurting his wrist in May and, you guessed it, missing the rest of the season.

Not every trade or free agent signing is gonna work out.  Just like how sometimes you miss on a "can't miss" prospect.  This is an inexact science.  Everyone understands that.  But these doozies particularly stand out because of how spectacularly wrong they went.  And those failures have only been magnified by the team's coming up short of its annual World Series goal now 14 years in a row.

Can it all be blamed on Cashman?  Of course not.  He didn't acquire these guys knowing they were gonna suck.  He legitimately thought they'd make the team better.  But the bottom line is they didn't work out.  And these deals have helped put the Yankees on a path that has led to where they are now.  So, even if he doesn't deserve all the blame, he's ultimately the one responsible.

US Open Time

Last year's US Open was really Carlos Alcaraz's coming out party.  Novak Djokovic wasn't there because he wasn't allowed to enter the country, and Alcaraz, who everyone had a feeling would be the next big thing in men's tennis, capitalized and won his first Grand Slam title.  He soon rose to No. 1 in the world and beat Djokovic in the Wimbledon final.  So, yeah, it looks like even without Roger and Rafa, Nole's still got a rival.

Believe it or not, it's actually been five years since Djokovic won the US Open.  In 2021, he was going for the Grand Slam when he lost to Daniil Medvedev in the final.  In 2020, he was disqualified after hitting a line judge with a ball.  In 2019, he hurt his shoulder and had to retire in his fourth-round match.  This year, we thought he might be coming to Flushing Meadows looking for his all-time record 25th Grand Slam singles title.  That won't happen, but he can still tie Margaret Court by winning his 24th.

This obviously isn't the first time Djokovic has come into the US Open with a chance to make history.  I think the difference this year, though, is that he isn't the prohibitive favorite.  And not just because of defending champion Alcaraz.  There's also Medvedev, Alexander Zverev, Casper Ruud and the Americans--Frances Tiafoe, Taylor Fritz, Tommy Paul and Chris Eubanks.  I actually think that's a good thing for Djokovic.

But count Novak Djokovic out at your own peril.  Especially since he wasn't able to compete last year.  And, let's not forget, he's made the final here nine times!  That sometimes gets lost because he's only won three titles, but Djokovic has played in 16 US Opens and made the final in nine of them (and lost in the semis in three others).  So, we know he's gonna be around until the end.  The question is whether he'll win the seventh match and make history.

Frankly, I'm not sure he does.  I do think Djokovic makes it to yet another US Open final, but I'm actually not picking him to win it.  I'm not picking either of the last two champions, Alcaraz or Medvedev, either.  Nope, instead I'm going with Alexander Zverev.  I've long been high on Zverev, who made the final here in 2020 and won the Olympic gold a year later (when he beat Djokovic in the semifinals).  He, too, is returning to the US Open after missing the 2022 tournament.

For the first time in a long time, I actually feel really good about the American men at the US Open, too.  And it's not just one or two guys, either.  Frances Tiafoe had that incredible semifinal run last year.  Then Tommy Paul made the semis in Australia and Chris Eubanks reached the quarters at Wimbledon.  Taylor Fritz is the only one who hasn't made the deep Grand Slam run, but he's actually the highest-ranked American and seeded ninth.  Unfortunately for Fritz, though, he's in Djokovic's quarter.

The top half of the draw is actually far stronger.  Which is why I think Djokovic loses the final to whoever comes out of the more competitive side.  Zverev could have, in order, the winner of Andy Murray/Grigor Dimitrov, then Stan Wawrinka or Jannik Sinner, then Alcaraz, then whoever comes out of the Russian quarter (Medvedev, Andrey Rublev and Karen Khachanov are all in the same section, and they're all strong hardcourt players).  So, whoever comes out of that top half is gonna earn it.  And I think that'll be Zverev.

On the women's side, the 2022 US Open turned into a Serena Williams farewell party.  And rightfully so.  Serena announced her "transition away from tennis' (don't call it "retirement") after the tournament, and she provided one last memorable moment with that second-round victory over Anett Kontaveit (fun fact: I was at the Bianca Andreescu match in Louis Armstrong Stadium during that match).  She lost in the next round, officially ushering us into the post-Serena Era.

In 2023, we welcome back Caroline Wozniacki.  Woz came back from a three-year retirement at the Canadian Open, and she's playing in her first Grand Slam event since the 2020 Australian Open.  Do I expect her to make a deep run?  Absolutely not.  But it's great to see her back.  And I am curious to see how far she advances.

Wozniacki isn't the only veteran in the field.  Victoria Azarenka has always played well at the US Open and is the No. 18 seed this year.  Venus Williams, though, is playing in her 24th US Open.  She made it to at least the semis in each of her first six appearances (1997-2002), but hasn't won a US Open match since 2019.  So what?  We don't know how many more times we'll get to see her on the blue courts of Flushing Meadows, so let's savor the experience (and I actually think she's got a decent chance to win in the first round).

As for who's actually favorites among the women, you've gotta start with defending champion Iga Swiatek.  She's the best player in the world right now.  It's as simple as that.  Swiatek defended her French Open title, then had her best-ever result at Wimbledon, making the quarterfinals.  She's the one to beat.

I also think this could be Jessica Pegula's chance for a Grand Slam breakthrough.  At No. 3, she's the highest-ranked American player (man or woman).  In the last eight Grand Slam tournaments, going back to the 2021 US Open, she's made the quarterfinals of five and lost in the third round at the other three.  She's never reached a Grand Slam semi in singles.  I can definitely see that changing here.

Pegula's quarterfinal opponent could very well be Caroline Garcia, who made the semis last year.  That sort of came out of nowhere, so it'll be interesting to see if it was just a fluke.  But, Garcia is seeded seventh here, so it's not crazy to think she could do it again.  Same with fifth-seeded Ons Jabeur, last year's finalist and a finalist at Wimbledon in both 2022 and 2023.  Her first Grand Slam title can't be too far away.

There have been eight different US Open women's champions in the last nine years.  Due to a variety of reasons (retirement, injury, pregnancy), seven of those eight aren't in the field.  In fact, the only former women's champions in this year's tournament are Iga Swiatek and Venus Williams (whose last US Open title came 22 years ago!).  There hasn't been a repeat winner since Serena won three in a row from 2012-14.  That'll change this year.  Swiatek wins a second straight US Open title.

Sometimes There ARE Ties In Track

At the Tokyo Olympics, Mutaz Essa Barshim and Gianmarco Tamberi finished tied for first in the men's high jump.  They were given two options--have a jump-off for the gold or share the medal.  It was an easy decision for the good friends.  They decided to share the gold medal.

The same thing happened earlier this week in the women's pole vault at the World Championships.  Both Katie Moon and Nina Kennedy cleared 16'0 3/4 on their third attempt, then missed all three jumps at the next height.  They each had one miss at the earlier heights, so they were dead even.  They were given the same option that Barshim and Tamberi had in Tokyo.  It wasn't a hard decision for Moon and Kennedy, either.  Rather than having a jump-off, they shared the gold.

For the athletes, it's probably not that hard a decision at all.  Why would they want to keep jumping when they just missed three times at what would've been the winning height, especially after having competed for several hours already?  And why give up a guaranteed gold medal for the chance to potentially have to settle for silver?  It's better to be a co-champion than finish second.

Both Moon and Kennedy have taken some criticism over the past couple days since the tie.  Katie even took to Instagram to explain her side of the situation and how it was actually a no-brainer for her.  That will hopefully relieve some of the heat.  And, frankly, if I was in her shoes, I probably would've done the exact same thing.  On the day, they were both the best and both deserved to be champions.

My problem is not with the tie itself.  I don't blame the athletes for their decision one bit.  Especially since Barshim and Tamberi are good friends (Tamberi was the best man in Barshim's wedding).  So are Moon and Kennedy.  Sharing a gold medal with a friend probably made the decision that much easier.  No, my issue is with the fact that it was up to the athletes at all.

It's only in the high jump and pole vault where they even have an option.  If there's a tie in the vertical jumps or throws, they go to the athlete's second-best mark.  In the running events, there's a meticulous review of the photo finish to see whose body crossed the line first.  Sometimes they'll even be given the same time, but won't be given the same place.  (Although, there was a tie for the final time qualifier for the women's 100 final in Budapest, so they just advanced both of them since there are nine lanes on the track.)

There's a tiebreaking procedure in the high jump and pole vault, too.  They jump a fourth time at the final height, then, if they both miss again, the bar moves down.  If they both make it, the bar moves up.  This continues until one makes and the other misses.  Yes, it's sudden death.  And, yes, it sounds very tiring.  Especially when they're already spent from having already been jumping for several hours.  But it's still the tiebreaker they have.

So, if they have the tiebreaker, why don't they use it?  Why leave it up to the athletes?  Especially when they'd be idiots not to opt for the tie.  Beyond that, though, how come only high jumpers and pole vaulters get the option?  In every other event, the tiebreaker is applied automatically.  Why should it be any different in the two horizontal jumps?  (Yes, you're taking your life in your hands in the pole vault, and, yes, the horizontal jumps are the only events where you deliberately attempt a certain mark, but that's not the point.)

Granted, a jump-off isn't necessarily the perfect solution.  But neither is the shootout in hockey or penalty kicks in soccer.  And you can't possibly argue that the penalty kicks didn't produce all sorts of drama in the Australia-France and Sweden-USA games at the Women's World Cup, Australia-France especially!  So, maybe instead of having them continue jumping, which they understandably won't want to do for a number of reasons, another type of tiebreaker could be implemented.

In the pole vault and high jump, they go back to the previous height.  If they both cleared on the same attempt at that height, it goes to total misses throughout the competition.  It doesn't matter when they occurred.  So, a third-attempt clearance at a higher height counts the same as two second-attempt clearances at lower heights.

Because those early misses often come into play, we often see the "passing game," where athletes will forego their remaining attempts at a height they haven't cleared, move the bar up, and use them at the next height.  That's usually a strategic ploy where they don't want to waste an attempt when clearing that height won't improve their position, while clearing the next height will potentially move them up while also putting the pressure on their competitors.  Sometimes we'll also see early passes to either save their legs or because the better jumpers simply don't see the need to attempt the first few heights that they'll clear easily.

Passes don't hurt you, and they reduce the total number of attempts you take throughout the event.  However, passing also means you didn't clear a particular height.  Obviously, that's a risk they're willing to take, since they're only given credit for the heights they clear.  I appreciate the strategy that goes into passing most of the time, so I don't think athletes should be penalized for them.  But I do think there's something to be said about clearing each height in the progression.  That's why I think that should be your tiebreaker.

If two athletes cleared the same height and are tied on countback, don't have a jump off and don't go to total attempts throughout the entire competition.  Go to number of heights cleared.  If there were seven total heights in the competition and one cleared six, but the other only cleared five, the jumper who had the six successful attempts gets the higher place.  You can still pass, but that adds another element of risk to it if choosing to pass (and, thus, not clearing a particular height) is factored into the tiebreakers.

Is there a better way than the solution I just proposed?  Perhaps.  There's also nothing wrong with the jump off.  But if you're gonna have a tiebreaker, use it!  And don't leave it up to the athletes.  Because, if you do, we all know exactly what decision they'll make.  It'll be the same one Mutaz Essa Barshim and Gianmarco Tamberi made in Tokyo and Katie Moon and Nina Kennedy made in Budapest.  We'll have co-champions in the only two events where that's even possible.

Atlanta & Charlotte

My sister who lives outside Charlotte had a barbecue over the weekend.  Since the Yankees were in Atlanta and I'm a glutton for punishment, I took that as an opportunity to go to Atlanta first and turn it into a little mini vacation.  Cross another ballpark off the list.  Truist Park is now the fifth active visiting stadium in which I've seen the Yankees play.  Only 24 to go.

In addition to the game, I went to the College Football Hall of Fame and Centennial Olympic Park, which also included a side trip to the 1996 Olympic cauldron (and the Hank Aaron 715 marker in the parking lot that used to be Fulton County Stadium).  Then it was off to Charlotte, where I made a stop at the NASCAR Hall of Fame before heading to my sister's. 

Stop 1: Truist Park-This place is beautiful!  I can completely understand why the Braves left Turner Field and built Truist Park.  I especially loved the Battery, the area behind the stadium with all the restaurants, stores and hotels that was completely developed by the team as part of the stadium's footprint.  They wouldn't have been able to do that had they stayed in Downtown Atlanta.

Inside was a very impressive Braves Hall of Fame/history area.  The most significant part is the tribute to Hank Aaron.  There's a Hank Aaron statue, and behind it is a "755" made out of 755 bats (obviously one for each home run).  They also have all of their National League and World Series championship trophies on display, and I also liked the Braves' uniform evolution.  Outside, there's a statue of Bobby Cox.  (All of my photos from Truist Park are in a Facebook gallery here.)

Stop 2: College Football Hall of Fame-Right when you enter is the helmet wall, which includes all 775 Division I, II and III programs.  I actually could've spent all day trying to figure out where everybody is and figure out who's who when teams have similar helmets.  I didn't spend the whole day at the helmet wall, though.  I checked out the rest of the Hall of Fame, too.  And there was plenty to see!

They really did a good job of capturing the history, with plenty of footballs, jerseys, etc., from the 1800s and early 1900s.  The equipment evolution exhibit is particularly interesting.  They also have sections highlighting great rivalries and the three Division I service academies.  My favorite part, though, (other than the helmets) was seeing all of the different annual trophies, including the Heisman and CFP National Championship trophy.  And, of course, there's the Hall of Fame itself.  (Here's the College Football Hall of Fame gallery on Facebook.)

Stop 3: World of Coca-Cola-Why am I including the World of Coca-Cola?  Because they've got a whole section of the museum dedicated to Coke's sponsorship of high-profile sporting events.  That includes the Olympic Torch Relay, and they've got a torch from pretty much all of them.  Then you turn around and see all the pins for World Cups, Super Bowls and Olympics.  (Here's my World of Coca-Cola Facebook gallery.)

Stop 4: Centennial Olympic Park-It should come as a surprise to absolutely no one that one of the things I wanted to make sure I visited while in Atlanta was Centennial Olympic Park.  Can you believe it's been 27 years since Atlanta hosted the Olympics?!  Well, Centennial Park is the legacy project of those Games, and it took me right back to the summer of 1996.

There's so much in Centennial Park that I can't even begin to list it all or possibly pick a favorite.  There's the fountains, the Olympic rings, the list of every medalist in Atlanta, the Pierre de Coubertin statue, the beautiful memorial where the bombing took place, the area dedicated to the 1996 Paralympics, and so much more (all of it's here).  Not to mention the fact that it's also a beautiful public park right in the middle of downtown in a major city.  You can see all of the other downtown Atlanta attractions from inside Centennial Park.

Stop 5A: 1996 Olympic Cauldron-Towering high above the city is the cauldron from the 1996 Olympics.  It's about a 25-minute walk from the Olympic Park area, but I had to see it.  And as soon as I did, I was immediately overtaken by the memory of Muhammad Ali emerging through the darkness to light the Olympic flame.  It's become a trend for host cities to have a smaller cauldron inside the stadium that is gone as soon as the Olympics are over.  I'm so glad that Atlanta kept and proudly displays theirs!  Because not too many cities in the world have hosted an Olympics, so Atlanta should rightly brag that they have!

Stop 5B: Hank Aaron 715 Marker: When the Braves turned Olympic Stadium into Turner Field, Fulton County Stadium was demolished and turned into a parking lot.  One thing they did not touch was the marker indicating where Hank Aaron's 715th home run landed.  It's still in its original spot.  And they actually have the outline of the field on the surface of the parking lot, so you can stand at home plate and see it from there.  The marker has also become a makeshift memorial since Aaron's passing.

Stop 6: NASCAR Hall of Fame-I landed in Charlotte, then went immediately to the NASCAR Hall of Fame.  And, oh man, was it something else!  To say they've got everything would be an understatement.  Want proof?  Check out all of my photos.  I spent almost an hour just on the first level, which has cars going all the way back from the beginning of NASCAR to today, as well as blurbs about different tracks, some of which have a sample of the asphalt (which are all completely different).

Upstairs is the Hall of Honor, the actual gallery honoring the Hall of Famers.  I think I did spend at least an hour in that room alone, reading each individual plaque.  Then, once I finally left, I checked out the wide variety artifacts from NASCAR's history going all the way back to racing on the hard sand of Daytona Beach.  It's not just a history museum, though.  I actually thought one of the coolest things was the side-by-side cars which show the differences between the racing version and the passenger version of the same model vehicle.  If you haven't been, it's definitely worthwhile.  Even if you're not the biggest NASCAR or racing fan, you'll enjoy it and appreciate the history.

While I'd been wanting to check out the NASCAR Hall of Fame pretty much since it opened, I didn't even know where the College Football Hall of Fame was until I was looking for something to do in Atlanta on that day between the Yankees-Braves game and leaving for Charlotte.  I'm glad I was able to get to both.  And, of course, I'll take any opportunity I can get to geek out about the Olympics!  So, all in all, I'd say it was a pretty enjoyable trip, even if there was only one good team involved in the baseball game.

Budapest Welcomes the World

After two consecutive major global championships that were delayed a year, track & field has gotten back on schedule.  And, for the first time ever, we have World Championships in back-to-back years.  Last year, they were in Oregon.  World Athletics President Seb Coe lamented the choice of Oregon earlier this week, saying that the time zone affected their TV ratings in Europe (the evening sessions started at 5 pm Pacific, which is midnight in London and the middle of the night elsewhere in Europe...so, it was basically the same problem Americans have when events are in Asia or Australia).

Anyway, they'll have no such issues this time, as the World Championships return to the European heart of the sport for the first time since 2017.  Budapest is the site, as the city will once again showcase itself as an Olympic-host-in-waiting.  It's the first time Hungary is hosting the World Championships, and they built a brand-new national stadium for the occasion.  

I'm actually surprised Lord Coe's biggest complaint about last year was the European TV ratings, which were unsurprisingly lower.  I figured his regret about the location would be because of the attendance.  Eugene's not the easiest place to get to if you're coming from elsewhere in the U.S., let alone overseas.  And that "30,000-seat" Hayward Field that actually sat probably no more than 15,000 definitely had a lot of empty seats for a number of sessions.

Of course, empty seats at the World Championships weren't exclusive to Eugene.  Moscow held Worlds in the 80,000-seat Luzhniki Stadium, which looked emptier than it was because of its size.  And the only time they drew a crowd in Doha was on the two nights Mutaz Barshim was competing.  I don't think attendance will be an issue this year, though.  For one, it's a smaller stadium.  More importantly, it's a centrally located national capital, so it'll be easy for fans from all over Europe to get there.  I'm expecting to see a packed stadium for most of the nine days.

Unfortunately, Hungary won't have anywhere near the same type of showing the United States did as host country last year.  You can count the number of Hungarian medal contenders on one hand.  They'll have one right away with Xenia Krizsan in the heptathlon, but I think their only realistic shot at a medal is Anita Marton in the women's shot put.

Don't expect a repeat of that incredible performance the Americans put on in Eugene, either.  The U.S. should once again easily win the team trophy, but the medal count should come down a little bit without the home field advantage.  Nevertheless, I still expect plenty of Americans to leave Budapest with hardware.  And it should set the U.S. team up well for next year's Olympics in Paris.

Eight of the 10 Americans who won individual gold in Eugene are back to defend, and I expect half of those eight to do just that.  Noah Lyles has set an ambitious goal of breaking the world record in the 200 and medaling in the 100.  While I'm not sure he gets that, the gold in the 200 is his to lose.  Same thing with Ryan Crouser in the shot put.  He does something spectacular every time he steps in the ring it seems.  And I want to see what Grant Holloway can do for an encore after what he did last year!

The fourth American I have defending is Athing Mu, although that one won't be anywhere near as easy as I think it will for the three men.  And that's because of Great Britain's Keely Hodgkinson.  The silver medalist behind Mu at both the Tokyo Olympics and last year's Worlds, she's having a tremendous season and has a very realistic chance of standing on the top step of the podium for the first time.

There are three other American women I envision taking gold.  When Nafi Thiam withdrew, Anna Hall became the gold medal favorite in the heptathlon.  As crazy as that sounds.  Maggie Ewen didn't make the team in the shot put last year, then went on to win the Diamond League title.  This year, she has the best mark in the world, and I wouldn't be shocked if she wins gold.  I also think/hope this is finally the time Sandi Morris moves up a step and doesn't add another silver to her collection.  Defending champion Katie Moon has been great all year, though, so Sandi winning would actually be an upset.  I also have Tokyo Olympic champ Valarie Allman turning her bronze last year in the discus to gold.

On the men's side, is this finally the year Rai Benjamin breaks through?  He won silver behind Karsten Warholm's world record at the Olympics, then took silver again last year behind Alison Dos Santos.  All three come in healthy, so the men's 400 hurdles should be quite the showdown.

Sydney McLaughlin hasn't raced the women's 400 hurdles all year, and she won't even be at Worlds, where she was only planning on running the open 400 anyway.  Which is great news for Femke Bol, who stands to win her first World title.  With McLaughlin now also out of the 400 (where she was a medal threat), Marileidy Paulino of the Dominican Republic becomes an even more overwhelming favorite. 

Don't be surprised to see Marie-Josee Ta Lou of the Ivory Coast finally grab her first World title in the 100, either.  Of all the women's 100-meter sprinters, she's been the most consistent this year.  Of course, Sha'Carri Richardson might have something to say (probably obnoxiously) about that.  And so will Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce, who looks to make history with her sixth gold medal in the same event at the World Championships.
 
Faith Kipyegon has set a world record seemingly every time she's stepped on the track this season.  She'll go for 1500-5000 double gold in Budapest.  What makes that interesting is the fact that she'll be doing it against Sifan Hassan, who's repeating her Tokyo triple.  She won medals in all three events at the Olympics (gold in the 5000 and 10,000, bronze in the 1500), then left Eugene without a medal last year.  I'm really looking forward to that showdown.

One of the biggest upsets in Eugene came in the men's 1500, where Norway's Olympic champion Jakob Ingebrigtsen was outkicked and settled for silver.  He came back to win the 5000, but you know he wants to get that first World title in his signature event.  It wouldn't shock me if he takes double gold, either.  

And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the utterly amazing Mondo Duplantis and Yulimar Rojas.  While nobody is guaranteed a gold medal, they're two of the biggest favorites at the meet.  Duplantis electrified the Hayward Field crowd last year with his gold medal in the pole vault concluding the entire meet.  Rojas is nearly as dominant in the women's triple jump.  Might we see a world record from her?

Those are just some of the names and events to look out for over the next nine days.  The pre-Olympic Worlds often set the stage heading into the Olympic year.  Track & field has always been one of the marquee sports of the Olympics, especially when they're held in Europe.  So, some of the faces you see winning medals in Budapest will be headliners next year in Paris.  Where they'll look to do it all again.

Stars Skipping Worlds

We already knew that Sydney McLaughlin wouldn't be defending her World Championship in the 400 meter hurdles next week.  She had a bye into Worlds as the defending champion, so she ran the open 400 at U.S. Nationals.  It was always incredibly unlikely that she would double at Worlds, so once she made the team in the 400 (by winning), that pretty much guaranteed she wouldn't be running the hurdles.

As it turns out, she won't be running either.  McLaughlin has what she's calling a "minor" knee injury and withdrew from the 400, as well.  Should a "minor" injury be enough to keep her out of Worlds entirely?  Probably not.  But McLaughlin and her coach, Bobby Kersee, are clearly prioritizing next year's Olympics in Paris.

Athing Mu is also coached by Bobby Kersee.  Athing Mu also had a bye into Worlds as defending champion in the 800.  So, like McLaughlin, she raced a different event at U.S. Nationals (the 1500), and ended up making the team in that event, too.  Mu did the opposite of McLaughlin and scratched the 1500 to focus on her primary event, the 800.  Then the report came out that Mu, who isn't injured, might skip Worlds to focus on next year.  Fortunately, it doesn't look like that will happen.

Michael Norman is another American who won a World title in Oregon last year.  He's been wanting to move down from the 400 to the 100, so, since he had the bye in the 400, he only ran the 100 at U.S. Nationals.  Norman was eliminated in the first round of the 100, then, when asked about racing the 400 at Worlds, said "We'll have to wait and see."  However, citing "setback after setback" and frustration with his season, he decided to end his season early and not use his bye for Worlds.

Nafi Thiam, meanwhile, was a huge favorite to defend her title in the heptathlon.  She, too, has withdrawn from Worlds.  Thiam has an Achilles injury.  She didn't indicate how serious the injury is.  Just that she didn't want to aggravate it.  So, she's sacrificing a major championship in order to be fully ready for the Olympics.

That's four defending World Champions, three of whom are American, two of whom have the same coach, who either are or were contemplating skipping this year's World Championships.  Michael Johnson, who's been broadcasting track & field for the BBC pretty much since he retired competitively, was very critical of them for that decision.  He thinks that athletes who aren't injured should be prioritizing the World Championships, which are obviously the marquee event of the year in the sport.

Under normal circumstances, I'd agree with him.  However, we're in the midst of a very unique cycle.  Because of the Tokyo Olympic postponement, there's an Olympics or World Championships five years in a row from 2021-25.  That's great for the sport.  Athletes are used to having one "off" year without a championship in the normal four-year cycle, though.  In that "off" year, they'd get a chance to take things a little lighter or maybe try a different event.  With no "off" year, though, they can't do that.  Which completely changes their training cycle.

Last year would've been that "off" year had the Tokyo Olympics taken place in 2020 as scheduled.  However, since those Olympics were delayed, the 2021 Worlds were moved to 2022.  And those Worlds didn't just take place on U.S. soil.  They took place on the very familiar track at Hayward Field.  Combine that with the fact they were the first World Championships in three years and there's no chance any healthy American who made the team wasn't competing in Oregon.

Five major championships in five consecutive years is a lot to ask, though.  And the cycle goes back to normal in 2026 (yes, there's still a European Championships and Commonwealth Games, but I'm only talking about Americans for a second here).  So, they'll already get that off year after the 2025 Worlds.  Which means the only year they realistically can skip a global meet in this abbreviated five-year cycle is this year.

I'm not saying I think they should've decided to skip this year's Worlds.  What I am saying is that this is the only year where it made sense to do it.  They had a bye, so they didn't take somebody else's spot.  Likewise, that spot is theirs, so it couldn't be given to another American instead.  And there are no byes for the Olympics.  They've got to qualify at Olympic Trials like everybody else.

And, yes, the Olympics are the priority.  They always have been.  That's never been a secret.  The Olympics are only once every four years.  The World Championships are (ordinarily) every other year.  While I'm sure nobody ever wants to sit out a major championship for any reason, Worlds are likely easier to miss.  Especially if you think sacrificing a trip to Worlds might improve your chances of at the Olympics.

While not nearly as publicized, Courtney Frerichs made a similar decision at U.S. Nationals.  She fell in the first round of the women's steeplechase, aggravating a nagging injury, and withdrew from the final.  Frerichs gave up her chance to go to Worlds in 2023 so that she'd be 100 percent next year.  Going to Worlds banged up would potentially impact her performance both this year AND next year!  What Sydney McLaughlin and Michael Norman are doing really isn't much different.

This is also a situation that will be unique to 2023.  This is the only time an edition of Worlds will be both the year after the previous Worlds and the year before the next Olympics.  Other than an injury that actually prevents them from competing, there's no reason to skip the next Worlds in 2025.  So, while it's obviously not a good thing that they've decided not to go to Worlds this year, it's a stretch to suggest it's the start of a trend.  It's really nothing more than a result of the circumstances.

Would I prefer to see Sydney McLaughlin at the World Championships?  Of course!  She's one of the biggest names in the sport, and the sport could definitely use all the stars and exposure it can get.  But I get why she's not going.  I don't like her choice, but I get it.

The Death of a Conference

As it turns out, the Pac-4 might not be on its last legs as a conference after all.  The four schools have hired Oliver Luck to "consider their options," and everything's on the table, including expansion or merging with another league.  While the chances of the conference's long-term survival are still incredibly slim, what would it say if Luck is able to secure a media deal and essentially keep the league alive in a few weeks while the Pac-4's commissioner spent the last year watching two-thirds of the conference leave and not really doing anything about it?

The Pac-4 remaining a sustainable athletic conference beyond this school year is a long shot.  Everyone understands that.  Everyone also understands that these are likely the final days for the "Conference of Champions."  While the entire idea of a Power 5 conference simply ceasing to exist was somewhat unfathomable, we really shouldn't be surprised.  Because this isn't the first time it's happened.  In fact, we've seen it before.

It wasn't too long ago that we were lamenting the demise of the Big East, which the ACC gutted for its football teams.  That led to the Big East being split in two, with the basketball-playing schools keeping the Big East name and the football schools forming the American Athletic Conference.  More recently, people thought the Big XII was done after Texas and Oklahoma announced they were leaving for the SEC.  Well, as we just saw, the Big XVI is very much not done.  In fact, that conference is stronger than ever.

Both of those conferences were left for dead, then managed to reinvent themselves.  Same thing with the WAC, which tried to be the first 16-team superconference in the late 90s before seeing half of its members break off and form the Mountain West.  The WAC ended up dropping football as a conference sport for a number of years as a result, and when it came back as a football conference in 2021, it was as an FCS league.

I'm not saying that's what will happen with the Pac-4.  In fact, I think the most likely scenario is still that there'll end up being some sort of absorption/merger with either the Mountain West or American, leaving the Pac-# as nothing but a piece of history.  Which is also something we've seen before.

Formed in 1915 primarily as a home for the schools based in Texas, the Southwest Conference was a football powerhouse.  In its heyday, it consisted of Arkansas and eight teams in Texas--Baylor, Houston, Rice, SMU, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and TCU.  SWC schools won multiple National Championships during the conference's history, and the conference champion was the "home" team in the Cotton Bowl every year.

That prestige began to wear off in the 80s, when pretty much every Southwest Conference school was on some sort of NCAA probation.  The most obvious example of that was SMU's "death penalty" in 1987.  That was the beginning of the end for the Southwest Conference, since the other conferences were starting to think about expansion right around that time.

Arkansas was the first to go, joining the SEC in 1991.  Then the Big 8 became the Big XII with the additions of Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor in 1996.  The four remaining SWC schools ended up dividing themselves between the WAC (TCU, Rice, SMU) and the newly-formed Conference USA (Houston).  Sound familiar?  (Ironically, come next season, seven of the nine will be in either the Big XVI or SEC, with Rice and SMU, both in the American, rumored to be targets of the Pac-4.)

More recently, we've seen it in college hockey, which doesn't have that many conferences to begin with!  When Penn State made its men's program varsity, that gave the Big Ten six hockey-playing members, which is the NCAA minimum for the conference to sponsor the sport.  They also pulled in Notre Dame to get seven members in Big Ten hockey.  Which meant all of the Big Ten schools left their other conferences to join the Big Ten.

Three Big Ten teams were in the CCHA and the other two were in the WCHA.  Six of the remaining schools in those two conferences seized the opportunity to create the National Collegiate Hockey Conference.  And, since there weren't enough teams left to fill both the WCHA and CCHA after the creation of the two new conferences, the two of them effectively merged under the WCHA banner.  (The men's WCHA ended up folding when seven of its members re-formed the CCHA in 2021-22.)

Granted, hockey is a completely different animal, so that's not exactly an equal comparison.  But the death of the Southwest Conference certainly is comparable.  Except there's one big difference between when that happened 30 years ago and what's happening to the Pac-4 now.  Media rights were obviously a thing then, but nowhere near what they are now.  And, let's be honest, media rights are the entire reason why this is happening.

TV networks spend tons on money on college sports, with football the biggest driver of that.  And since the networks want more inventory, specifically more football games, we really should've seen these massive super-conferences at inevitable.  In hindsight, there's no way that the eight- and 10-team leagues we saw in the 90s were gonna last.  As it turns out, even 12 teams was "too few."

Thirty years ago, the Southwest Conference became the first casualty.  The Power 6 turned into the Power 5.  Now it looks like the Pac-# will be the next conference relegated to history, and the Power 5 will become the Power 4.  Is it just a matter of time until it's the Power 3?  Will we eventually end up with just a Big Ten and SEC?

What's happening to the Pac-4 didn't need to happen.  It's a result of the conference's own mistakes and missteps, as well as other leagues being more ambitious and having more resources.  And that's the key.  There's only so much revenue to go around.  So, while it didn't "need" to happen, it also seems like it was bound to eventually.  Unless Oliver Luck manages to pull the Pac-4 out of the abyss, that is.

Move Back the Deadline

Baseball used to have two trade deadlines.  There was the regular, non-waiver deadline at the end of July/beginning of August and a second deadline at the end of August.  Players had to be on the roster before September 1 to be playoff-eligible, so we'd often still see significant movement in the month of August.  That's actually how the Astros got Justin Verlander the first time, and it was also in August when the Red Sox and Dodgers pulled off that massive nine-player trade with Adrian Gonzalez as the centerpiece.

That second deadline was convoluted and confusing, though.  Players could only be traded if they cleared waivers, and teams could pull that player back if they didn't want to trade him to the team that made the waiver claim.  It was also kind of ridiculous that the "trade deadline" wasn't actually the trade deadline.  So, they removed the second deadline a few years ago and now there's just the one trade deadline.  Nobody's clamoring for the second deadline to come back, but moving the single deadline back a couple weeks could definitely be something worth considering.

The current timing of the trade deadline gives teams two months with whoever they acquire.  That's roughly 55 games.  That sounds like plenty, and 55 games is definitely enough to make a run.  However, teams also need to decide whether they're buyers or sellers at the end of July, and a lot can happen between the end of July and mid-August.

Simply put, July 31 is too early for teams to make that decision.  That's especially true when you consider the fact that 12 of the 30 teams now make the playoffs.  Very few teams are truly out of it at the All*Star break, and the trade deadline is just two weeks later.  Yes, everybody's more than 100 games into the season by that point, but so teams many are still "in contention," even if their chances are slim, that there will be so many buyers and not enough sellers, as well as GMs and owners who need to justify their movement/non-movement at the deadline.

At the All*Star break, there are only a handful of teams that are truly out of it.  That's not gonna change two weeks later at the trade deadline, and those are the only teams you know will be sellers.  The expanded playoffs are great for giving more teams hope down the stretch, but it has also made the trade deadline significantly harder.  Because two months is a third of the season!  That's an awful lot of time still!  Especially when you're close and can't really decide if you're good enough to make the playoffs and, if you're not, if making a trade would change those odds.

Two weeks later, the playoff picture is much clearer.  Which is why an August 15 trade deadline would be better and make much more sense.  Instead of two months, players will have six weeks with their new team.  Yes, six weeks is "only" about 40 games, but that's still enough to make a difference.  And, more importantly, more teams will know where they actually stand and have a more realistic picture of their playoff chances in the middle of August.

Let's look at just a few examples from this season to illustrate my point.  The Angels were dangling Ohtani for a little while, then got close enough to the wild card that they decided to become buyers, acquiring Lucas Giolito from the White Sox and both Randal Grichuk and C.J. Cron from the Rockies.  They proceeded to immediately lose seven in a row, fell below .500, and were surpassed by the Mariners in the standings.

Speaking of the Mariners, they didn't really do much of anything other than shipping closer Paul Sewald to the Diamondbacks.  Seattle lost to Boston on August 1, then went on a nine-game winning streak to move within striking distance of the third wild card.  Think they might've approached the deadline differently if it was two weeks later?

Now let's take the Yankees, an incredibly flawed team that's trying to convince itself that it's a playoff contender, yet did absolutely nothing at the break to actually improve the team.  (Sorry...they got reliever Keynan Middleton, who's clearly the missing piece!)  Doubling down on a last-place roster was one thing.  In the two weeks since then, the Yankees' rotation has been completely decimated by injuries, and thinking about the playoffs is nothing more than a delusion at this point!

For argument's sake, let's say the Yankees still had a realistic chance at the playoffs.  In the last two weeks, their need for starting pitching has become urgent.  They'd be in the market for at least one, probably two starters right now.  That wasn't the case (at least the need wasn't as urgent) on July 31.

Last season, the Padres made a splash at the deadline and rode the additions of Juan Soto, Josh Bell and Josh Hader to the NLCS.  They were the preseason favorites in the NL West this year, but instead have been right up there with the Yankees and Mets as one of the most disappointing teams in baseball.  Like the Yankees, the Padres also didn't do anything at the deadline, thinking they were still within striking distance.

San Diego is 2-7 in its last nine games and has fallen 5.5 back in the NL wild card race.  More significantly, there are three teams between the Padres and Marlins, who currently hold the third NL wild card.  Can they still make a run?  Sure.  Is it likely?  No.  And, with that in mind, would they theoretically be more willing to listen to offers for Hader (or Blake Snell) now than they were at the beginning of the month?  Probably.

Then there's the Cubs.  They were in the same boat as the Angels, dangling Cody Bellinger before pulling him back.  They also added a piece, picking up Nationals third baseman Jeimer Candelario, but didn't do anything else.  They were in a kind-of in-between place.  Not close enough to go for it, not far enough out to be sellers.  Two weeks later, they're very much still in it--just a half-game out of the last NL wild card.  If they'd had those extra two weeks to assess their team and make trades, you can bet they'd have been aggressive buyers!

Nobody wants the second trade deadline to come back.  It was too confusing for the casual fan.  Players can't get traded after a certain date.  Period.  What I do think, though, is that date should be later.  Making it two weeks later and moving the deadline to August 15 (or thereabouts) could make a massive difference.  I'm not saying they should definitely do it.  But it's certainly worth considering.

Putting Logos On Their Hats

When Fred McGriff went into the Hall of Fame last month, he went in without a logo on his hat.  McGriff spent five years each in Toronto, Atlanta and Tampa Bay and couldn't choose between the Blue Jays, Braves and Devil Rays, so he decided to not go with any of them.  We've seen that more and more in recent years.  Hall of Famers who don't want to offend the fans of one of the teams they played for by representing another for eternity. 

While that's a reasonable stance and the Hall of Fame should definitely take it into consideration, that doesn't mean they should automatically go with a blank hat.  Frankly, it should be a collaboration.  Because even though most players will likely play for multiple teams in their career, they're still going to be identified with one of those teams more than the others.  And that's the team that should be on their plaque in Cooperstown.

I'll take a few soon-to-be Hall of Famers as an example.  Adrian Beltre played for four teams.  Everybody thinks of him as a Texas Ranger.  That's the hat he should be wearing when he goes in next year.  You could make the argument for Justin Verlander going in as an Astro, but he spent most of his career in Detroit and really should be a Tiger.  Meanwhile, when you think of Max Scherzer, the Nationals are the first team that comes to mind.

So, with that in mind, let's go back, take some of the Hall of Famers who went in with logo-less hats and put a logo on it.  And, since this whole thing started because of Fred McGriff, let's start with him.

Fred McGriff: Braves-Was there ever a better trade deadline deal than the one that brought the Crime Dog to Atlanta in 1993?  (OK, maybe Verlander to Houston in 2017.)  He was the missing piece.  And it was in Atlanta where he had his greatest individual success too.  All*Star Game MVP in 1994, a World Series ring in 1995, another pennant in 1996.

Greg Maddux: Braves-OK, the main reason those 1990s Braves teams were so dominant was because of their trio of Hall of Fame pitchers.  And this is an example of exactly what I was talking about by not wanting to offend a fan base.  Maddux spent nearly the same amount of time with Cubs and Braves.  But, who we kidding?  He's a Hall of Famer because of what he did in Atlanta.

Roy Halladay: Blue Jays-Halladay was elected posthumously, and his wife didn't want to speak for him when choosing his Hall of Fame team.  He had four excellent seasons with the Phillies, including that tremendous first year in 2010 when he threw a perfect game in the regular season, another no-hitter in the playoffs and won the Cy Young.  Still, though, he spent 12 of his 16 Major League seasons in Toronto.

Mike Mussina: Orioles-Mussina is an interesting case.  He played 18 seasons, split almost equally between the Orioles and Yankees.  Ten years in Baltimore, eight in New York.  The team success came with the Yankees.  The individual honors came mainly with the Orioles.  It's close, but I'd say he should be representing Baltimore.

Tony La Russa: Cardinals-This problem isn't exclusive to players.  You could make arguments for both Oakland and St. Louis when it comes to La Russia.  His 10 years in Oakland featured three consecutive pennants and a 1989 World Series title.  He won two World Series during his 15 years in St. Louis, though, and the Cardinals were in the playoffs seemingly every year.  That's why I'd say he should have an "STL" on that blank hat.

Catfish Hunter: Athletics-For a while, until this recent stretch of logo-less hats, Catfish Hunter was the guy who stood out for not having one.  He won three World Series in Oakland and two with the Yankees, where he went as one of baseball's first-ever free agents.  I could understand the rationale for wanting to be a Yankee, but he's a Hall of Famer because of what he did in Oakland (and Kansas City before the move).

Johnny Mize: Cardinals-Johnny Mize's hat not having a logo comes with an asterisk.  The Cardinals didn't have a logo on their hats when he played there in the late 30s, so it's actually historically accurate for it to be blank.  And, seeing as he also played for the Giants and Yankees, but his plaque doesn't have an "NY" on the hat, we'll just go ahead and say that's a Cardinals hat he's wearing.  (There are several other St. Louis Cardinals from this era who also have blank hats, and I'm guessing that's why for them, as well.)

Yogi Berra: Yankees-Yogi Berra's head is turned on his plaque.  That's literally the only reason why there isn't a logo on the hat.  Because what other team would be on it?!  He's synonymous with the New York Yankees!

There are a bunch of other players from the Hall of Fame's early days who don't have a logo on their hat, but, like Mize, that's not necessarily because they aren't representing a specific team.  It's just because that team didn't have a logo on their hat at the time.  Then there are some like Yogi, where their head is turned, or where they just aren't wearing a hat at all, thus really solving the problem!

That may actually be the best solution.  If a Hall of Famer can't decide between teams or his contributions were equal, have him looking to the side so the logo can't be seen.  If he's facing forward, though, there should be a logo!

Interesting Alternatives

Ever since the Pac-12 imploded around them last week, Stanford, Cal, Washington State and Oregon State have been in survival mode.  The four of them know there's urgency to their situation, too.  A four-team conference not only isn't viable, it wouldn't meet the NCAA minimum for number of schools to qualify for postseason play (although, conferences can sometimes get a waiver if they temporarily dip below, but have new members joining).  So, they have to do something--and fast--to secure their status for 2024-25 and beyond.

What's interesting is that, while they were all left out in the cold by last week's turn of events, suddenly they appear to have multiple options each.  The four of them have stressed that, if possible, they'd like to stick together in a reimagined Pac-#.  But, as last week proved, this is everybody for themselves.  And their best option might not necessarily be sticking together.

As ridiculous as it sounds, the Stanford and Cal to the ACC option actually does seem like the most viable.  Yes, having two schools in the Pacific time zone playing in the Atlantic Coast Conference makes absolutely no sense on paper!  But, as we saw last week, conferences don't seem to care much about geography and travel anymore.  ("We're getting all this football TV money!  So what if the volleyball team will be spending every other weekend at an airport to go play a conference road match?!")

The ACC had discussions about Stanford and Cal almost immediately after the Pac-12 disintegrated.  Notre Dame, in particular, really wants Stanford, who they already play annually in football.  (As I've said repeatedly, it blows my mind how all this realignment happened, yet nobody went after Stanford, which has a ton of sports, is good at most of them, is great academically, and is located in San Francisco.)  Stanford and Cal would seem to be a package deal, which they almost have to be, since adding only one wouldn't work logistically for any conference, especially one on the complete other side of the country!

Stanford and Cal aren't the only schools that were discussed, either.  SMU, which was also a reported expansion target of the Pac-4, has been mentioned as having talks with the ACC, as well.  Those talks have evidently hit "significant roadblocks," however.  So, whether it happens remains to be seen.  Because the ACC knows it could be next, so making moves now to solidify the conference would be prudent.  Especially since Florida State has made it known they're not happy in the ACC right now!

Next season, the SEC and Big XVI will both have 16 members, while the Big Ten + 8 will be an 18-team behemoth!  And you can bet the SEC will want to get to 18 itself eventually, with Florida State and Clemson as the obvious targets.  The ACC, meanwhile, only will only have 15, the fewest members of the Power 4.  So, adding Stanford, Cal and SMU wouldn't just help them keep pace numbers-wise, it would also be a bit of a backup should they lose Florida State and Clemson.

Even though it looks like ACC thing has fallen through, Stanford and Cal might have another option.  The option that has been the most logical and obvious all along.  The Mountain West.  They've expressed interest in adding all of the remaining Pac-4 schools.  Since they seem to be the only ones willing to take Oregon State and Washington State, it looks like that's where the Beavers and Cougars are headed either way.  Or are they?

One of the more interesting scenarios I've seen thrown out there is that the four of them try to recruit some new members and rebuild the Pac-#.  The Mountain West's exit fee would make it difficult for any of those schools to depart next season (which was the biggest issue with San Diego State's will they or won't they about leaving), so it would seem they'd need some sort of transitional plan before they can add Mountain West teams in 2025-26.  That could simply be adding the Texas schools from the American (SMU and Rice) before bringing in the Mountain West program to get to a viable number.

Speaking of the American, despite just adding six schools from Conference USA (to replace the three that left for the Big XII), they've publicly expressed their openness to bringing in all of the remaining Pac-4 members.  Is that an option?  Sure!  Is it their best option?  I don't think so.  Especially since the Mountain West is both a stronger league and a league that would require significantly less travel.  Which is an important consideration when you take into account how much revenue they stand to lose by not being in a Power 5 conference.

That's an interesting factor at play here, too.  Stanford's coach has said he can't envision not playing Power 5 football.  Except Stanford's not in a Power 5 conference at the moment!  And, even if they can somehow keep the Pac-# alive, they won't be next season.  Could a Mountain West with the Pac-4 schools added eventually reach that level?  Yes.  But, if Stanford wants to remain a "Power 5" football team, there is another option.  They could do what BYU did.

BYU left the Mountain West to become independent in football and a member of the West Coast Conference in everything else.  That setup worked very well for them for more than a decade until they joined the Big XII in this summer's round of expansion.  It could easily work for Stanford, too.

Ordinarily I wouldn't advocate being an independent, but that could actually be Stanford's best move.  They could join a non-football conference like the West Coast Conference or Big West in everything else and play football as an independent, which would give them complete control over their schedule.  Stanford already plays Notre Dame every year and, you would assume, would also keep its annual matchup with Cal.  And, with no conference games to worry about, they could continue playing all of the other West Coast schools and not have to regularly deal with ridiculous coast-to-coast travel.

I'm not saying that's what Stanford should do.  I'm just saying it's an option that only they have the luxury of having.  The other three need to find a conference.  Ideally, all four of them will be able to stay together somewhere.  Or maybe they end up in different leagues.  What they've got to figure out is what's best for themselves.  And quickly.

Ultimately, I think the four should really be considered as two pairs.  Cal and Stanford as one pair, Oregon State and Washington State as the other.  With the ACC thing falling through for Cal and Stanford, the most likely scenario still seems to be all four joining the Mountain West.  But don't count out the possibility of Cal and Stanford going to one conference while Oregon State and Washington State join another.

Commonwealth In Crisis

Almost exactly one year ago, the 2022 Commonwealth Games came to an end in Birmingham, England.  By all accounts, they were a tremendous success and Birmingham was an exceptional host.  Birmingham's triumph is made even more spectacular when you consider it wasn't even the original host.  It stepped in as a replacement in 2017 when the original host--Durban, South Africa--was stripped of the Games due to financial issues.

The next edition of the Commonwealth Games was originally set for 2026 in the Australian State of Victoria.  However, Victoria withdrew as host a few weeks ago, leaving the Commonwealth Games Federation in quite a bind.  Such a bind that, because of the short notice for whoever agrees to be the replacement host, they're considering delaying the event until 2027.

Having a second straight edition in Birmingham was floated as a possibility, but it seems the enthusiasm for that has cooled.  The Mayor of London said he was "ready" to support a bid, and there's a chance that Scotland might be willing to hold at least some of the events.  But, regardless of where they end up, Australia's late withdrawal will give the replacement host less than three years to prepare (assuming the Games aren't delayed until 2027).  And who knows how long it'll take to find a new host city?!

They're also having issues finding a host for 2030, which will mark the centennial of the Commonwealth Games.  Edmonton and Calgary were originally exploring a joint bid, but the Government of Alberta cancelled the bid last week.  That would seemingly leave Hamilton, Ontario, which hosted the inaugural Commonwealth Games in 1930, to do the honors again a century later.  However, Commonwealth Sport Canada had previously announced in February that Hamilton is no longer Canada's "preferred candidate" for 2030.  So, much like the 2030 Olympics, the host of the 2030 Commonwealth Games is very much a mystery.

That's three Commonwealth Games in a row where finding a host has been a problem.  Two saw the Games awarded, only to have that host withdrawn, either voluntarily (2026) or not (2022).  They obviously have to figure out 2026 before they can worry about 2030, but it sure looks like they'll have the same problem there.  And likely in 2034 and beyond, too.

If you thought the Olympics had a problem finding host cities, what's happening with the Commonwealth Games is proof that those issues aren't exclusive to the Olympic Movement.  And the issue is the same.  Money.  Hosting these things are expensive and it's hard to justify the investment, especially when the initial cost projections prove to be way off.  The Olympics at least have billions of dollars in TV revenue from around the world to soften the blow.  The Commonwealth Games don't.  Which makes their problem slightly bigger.

With the cost involved and the size of some of the participating nations, it shouldn't really come as a surprise that it often comes down to Australia, England, Scotland and Canada taking turns as host of the Commonwealth Games.  In the six editions of the Commonwealth Games since 2002, England and Australia have both hosted twice, while the 2014 Games were in Glasgow.  Australia last hosted in 2018, so it would've been just eight years between hosting turns.  Should England be chosen as the replacement host, they'll do the honors back-to-back.  You can't ask the same countries to simply rotate hosting duties.  Especially since they'd also like to host other major international events...which also require a significant financial investment.

Events like the Olympics.  The Australian Olympic Committee has made it very clear that Victoria's decision to back out of hosting the 2026 Commonwealth Games has no impact on Brisbane's preparations for the 2032 Olympics.  Everything is still on track for Brisbane, which is in a different province (Queensland) and will actually be using a lot of the venues and infrastructure from the 2018 Commonwealth Games on the neighboring Gold Coast.  In fact, if anything, it's because Brisbane is hosting the Olympics that they feel they can't afford to host both.

So, it really is an interesting predicament.  The cost of hosting the Commonwealth Games is too restrictive for many of the Commonwealth nations to even consider it.  But it's unfair to continually ask the same handful of larger countries to take on the hosting responsibilities.  And, now they're balking at the cost, too.  Which really limits the options.

As a result, the Commonwealth Games are at a crossroads.  They're nearly a century old and an important event on the sporting calendar of the participating teams.  Some of these British territories don't have their own Olympic Committees, so for their athletes, the Commonwealth Games are their only chance to represent that flag.  Likewise, for athletes in some Commonwealth sports that aren't part of the Olympics, it's THE major international stage.

It's also not a coincidence that the Commonwealth Games are held in the even year between Olympics.  The Winter Olympics and World Cup are in the same year, but the three never conflict.  And World Championships in summer sports are typically held in odd years, meaning the Commonwealth Games are the biggest event for those athletes that year.  Last year, in fact, some athletes in swimming and track & field opted for the Commonwealth Games over the rescheduled World Championships.  The Commonwealth Games are THAT important.

Simply put, this nothing more than a bump in the road.  The Commonwealth Games are too big and too important and have been around for too long for somebody to not step up and host (even if it's reluctantly).  But it's an alarming trend nonetheless.  Because they can't keep getting put in this same position where they're looking for a host to bail them out at the last minute.

I've seen some gloom and doom predictions about the future of the Commonwealth Games over the past few weeks, but to say that the Commonwealth Games themselves are in any sort of danger as a result of these recent snags would be a stretch.  What they need is a better model.  Something that will keep costs down and make the prospect of bidding and eventually hosting much more attractive.  It would also, just as importantly, potentially get more countries interested in hosting.

While this is obviously a setback, I have very little doubt that there will be a Commonwealth Games in either 2026 or 2027.  Where those Games will be is a very different question, but I'm confident they'll figure it out.  And I'll bet that last-minute host ends up doing as great a job as Birmingham did in 2022.

RIP: Conference of Champions

Well, that sure happened quick, didn't it?  After a whirlwind 48 hours, the Pac-12/10/9/4, the "Conference of Champions," is on the brink of extinction.  A turn of events that was simultaneously both entirely unbelievable and totally predictable.  And that's why I don't feel bad for the Pac-12/10/9/4 about its imminent demise.  Because they should've seen it coming, but they didn't.  So, this is really no one's fault but their own.

I've said this all before, and I'll say it again.  The Pac-12/10/9/4 severely overvalued its brand.  They thought they'd be able to weather the storm after losing UCLA and USC.  So, instead of seeking replacements, they went to work on a TV deal that was never going to be what they thought it would.  Not after losing two marquee programs in a major market and doing nothing about it.  That was the beginning of the end.

They were so confident that the TV deal would leave everyone happy once it was finally completed.  So happy, in fact, that they'd forget about the months of waiting for the more attractive offer that never came.  Once the deal finally was presented, the schools were anything but happy.  And who could blame them?  They saw the Big Ten, SEC and Big XII all add members and sign TV contracts that will bring the schools millions annually.  Meanwhile, the best the Pac-12/10/9/4 could do was a subscription-based, streaming-heavy deal with Apple?!

Even after Colorado left to go back to the Big XII, there was still some confidence that the remaining Pac-12/9/4 programs would stick together.  That confidence evaporated once Arizona went into serious talks with the Big XII.  Then Oregon and Washington with the Big Ten.  Then, with the writing clearly on the wall, Utah and Arizona State decided to go with Arizona and Colorado to the Big XII, leaving the Pac-12/9/4 on life support with just four remaining members.

There have long been predictions that the football-focused conference realignment would result in one of the Power 5 conferences being absorbed by the others.  For a while, it looked like that might be the Big XII.  But the Big XII not only ensured its survival despite the loss of Texas and Oklahoma, arguably its two biggest programs, it's coming out of this stronger.  They jumped the line in negotiating their TV contract and are probably in a better position than the ACC moving forward.

After adding four teams this season, they're adding four more next season, and the Big XII will become the Big XVI.  The SEC will also be at 16 members, while the ACC will be at 15.  The Big Ten, meanwhile, will become the largest conference in the country, a coast-to-coast behemoth with 18 members.  And don't be surprised if they stop there.  I can easily see the Big Ten+8 adding two more becoming the Big Ten x 2.  Especially since there are some unhappy ACC programs.  (Or would they go for Stanford and Cal to give them a presence in San Francisco?)

What's funny is that while this seemed inevitable eventually, none of the conferences wanted to be responsible for it happening.  Even all the realignment and the "poaching," nobody wanted to see another conference completely disappear as a result.  Yet that's exactly what's about to happen.

Where Cal, Stanford, Washington State and Oregon State go from here is unclear.  (The fact that Stanford has never even been considered in all of this realignment still boggles my mind, but that's a completely separate issue!)  The four of them have vowed to stick together, but they also heard that from their former conference rivals.  This is no longer about the conference's survival.  This is an everybody for themselves situation.

The most logical thought is some sort of merger or partnership with the Mountain West (something I suggested as a possibility a few months ago).  The Mountain West seems receptive to the idea.  And why wouldn't they?  Stanford's a national brand and, even though it's just the leftovers from a conference that's been thoroughly picked apart, the four of them would make an already strong league even better. 

Most significantly, it would bring the Mountain Pac's membership to 15 (plus Hawaii in football).  SMU had already been dangled as a possibility for the Pac-12/10/9/4.  Would a combined Mountain Pac also look to the Mustangs, which would get them to that magic number of 16 while also giving them a presence in Dallas?

Should that merger go ahead, how will the new conference look?  The Mountain West is the one with the leverage.  They don't have an expiring TV deal.  They have 11 members.  Who will have to pay a massive exit fee if they leave before the 2024-25 season.  Meanwhile, it's the Pac-4 who don't have a home or a TV contract.  They need the Mountain West more than the Mountain West needs them.

So, what do the Pac-4 bring to the table then?  They bring the Pac-(insert number) name.  Which, even though it clearly doesn't mean as much as it once did, still has a lot of value.  There's 100 years of history and that "Conference of Champions" moniker.  The Pac-4 will likely go into any merger talks wanting to keep the name.  Whether that happens or not is a different question.

Another thing worth considering is the structure of the 12-team College Football Playoff.  The top six conference champions will receive an automatic bid when the CFP expands next season.  That expansion was designed to give each of the Power 5 and one additional conference champion a spot.  With no Pac-12, there's only four.  And, outside of those four, the Mountain Pac will be the strongest of the remaining conferences.  It's not hard to envision their champion ending up in the CFP every year.

That's the craziest thing about all of this.  The Big Ten and Pac-10 had their longstanding relationship with each other and the Rose Bowl going back decades.  Yet it was the Big Ten that effectively began that process that resulted in the dismantling of the Pac-10.  Was that their intent?  Certainly not.  But the Big Ten adding UCLA and USC out of nowhere is what set all of this in motion.

Don't think I'm blaming the Big Ten+8 for any of this.  Again, I think the blame lies squarely on the Pac-4's shoulders.  More specifically, the Pac-4 leadership.  They saw what was happening and knew the sharks were circling, yet they did nothing about it until it was too late.  When the Big XVI was under threat, they acted aggressively to ensure their survival.  The Pac-4, meanwhile, made a series of missteps that hastened their demise.

Would this have still happened had the Pac-12/10/9/4 actually done the smart thing and added San Diego State a year ago when it should've?  It's hard to say.  I think it would've been less likely, though.  Instead, we're sitting here talking about the demise of the Pac-12/10/9/4.  A demise that easily could've been avoided.