Long Jump On Leap Day

Have I been thinking about doing this post for more than a week, but decided to hold it off until Leap Day?  It's possible.  But, like the Olympics, Leap Day comes around only once every four years (coincidentally, in the same year), so why not celebrate the occasion by talking about leaping?  Specifically, the long jump and the ridiculous World Athletics proposal that would completely change the event.  And not necessarily for the better. 

The proposed change would involve replacing the takeoff board with a "takeoff zone," with the jump being measured from where the athlete actually took off as opposed to the end of the board.  The thought process behind this is that it will produce fewer fouls and make the event more exciting.  At the 2023 World Championships, a third of all jumps ended in fouls, which is what prompted the discussion.

Long jumping isn't and never has been about who can jump the longest.  As Dwight Stones says every time they show the long jump on TV, "It's actually the long jump for accuracy."  That description is apt.  They want to get as close to the edge of the board as possible without going over it.  Measuring their step properly is just as important as their form, if not more so.  And getting the step right is just as much of a skill.  In fact, competitions have been won or lost because of how distance a jumper gave away by taking off too far from the board.

By introducing a "takeoff zone," that important skill would no longer need to be mastered.  Instead, they'll just be measured from where they jumped (assuming it's still within the zone).  Not only would that reduce (or completely eliminate) fouls, it would be a more accurate measure of how far the jumper actually jumped.  They'll no longer lose those six centimeters they lost because they took off six centimeters behind the board.

On the surface, the idea of a "takeoff zone" sounds more fair.  You get measured for how long you actually jumped.  But is it really more fair?  Because now athletes who can't get their step correct not only aren't penalized, they're rewarded.  Meanwhile, those who actually get their step right don't benefit at all, since their losing little to no distance on the board won't even matter.  So, what's even the point of getting your step down, then?

Eliminating the possibility of fouls would also take away one of the most dramatic aspects of the long jump.  How many times have we seen a top contender commit two fouls on their first two jumps needing a mark in their third?  Do you take a safety jump, just to have a legal mark?  Or do you risk it all by going for it on that third attempt?  It's up to you to figure that out.

One of the most legendary Jesse Owens stories involves that exact situation.  At the 1936 Olympics, Owens fouled on each of his first two jumps in qualifying, so his German rival Luz Long suggested he take off well behind the board, knowing that Owens would easily qualify with a legal jump.  The story may be apocryphal (it's true that he had two fouls, unclear whether Long actually gave him the advice), but the point remains.  Owens doesn't win four gold medals in Berlin if he doesn't make that adjustment.

Carl Lewis, possibly the greatest long jumper in history, is, not surprisingly, not happy about the proposed change.  His response, in fact, was, "You're supposed to wait until April 1 for April Fool's jokes."  He isn't the only one opposed to the change.  So is two-time World Champion Tianna Madison.  The current long jumpers who've spoken out don't really seem too keen on the idea, either.  Ivana Spanovic, the reigning World Champion, said it would take the "authenticity" out of the event, and British jumper Jazmin Sawyers posted a lengthy Instagram Story where she talked about how having the board creates more drama.

Part of World Athletics' argument is that they think this format is better for TV because "people don't want to watch fouls."  I'm calling their bluff on that one.  Because the long jump coverage on TV broadcasts of track & field is usually just an edited compilation of the best jumps from each of the top three.  Unless you're watching the live stream of the event and see every jump, the only chance you have of seeing a foul is if they go to the event live (or if somebody has two fouls and needs a legal jump on their third attempt).

This isn't the first time they've tried to tinker with the long jump to make it more TV-friendly, either.  A few years ago, they changed the Diamond League format so that the top three would have their results over the first five rounds thrown out, with the winner being the one who had the best jump in the final round.  That controversial format was universally panned--and rightly so--and dropped after one year.  Now, they still have the top three, but all of the results throughout the competition still count, and the leader goes first in the final round, followed by the person in second place, with the jumper in third going last.  The idea is that the final jump can still win the competition.  But that's not exactly the fairest format, either, since the person who's been in the lead the whole time won't get the chance to counter if their mark is surpassed.

It's important to note, too, that this is just a proposed change right now.  It'll be tested throughout the year all over the world with "very good athletes."  World Athletics also clarified that if it doesn't pass the test, it'll never be introduced.  They emphasized that they aren't trying to reinvent the wheel.  Rather, a 150-year-old sport needs to remain innovative to stay relevant for another 150 years.  Would changing the format of the long jump achieve that goal?  It's hard to say whether it'll move the needle one way or the other.

Track & field's biggest showcase has always been and always will be the Olympics.  At this summer's Paris Games, they'll still be using the traditional format.  So, the earliest we could possibly see the "takeoff zone" at an Olympics is four years from now in Los Angeles.  That is, if we ever see it in the Olympics at all.  And, frankly, the only people who'll even care between now and then are track & field fans.

What's far more likely is that if World Athletics deems the "takeoff zone" format to be a success, they'll roll it out gradually next year, with full implementation probably not until 2026 (which is the next year without a senior global championship).  I doubt we'll see it at next year's World Championships in Tokyo.  It won't be widely-used enough yet to make such a drastic change at such an important meet.  So, if we ever do see it in action, my guess is the 2027 World Championships in Beijing will be the big debut of the "takeoff zone."

Frankly, I hope it never comes to that.  Some changes are good.  For example, they no longer use an old-fashioned tape measure.  It's all done digitally, and the athlete's mark comes up digitally on the board after each jump.  This feels like change for the sake of change, though.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  The long jump ain't broke.  Even if some people in World Athletics want to believe it is.

The MAAC's No. 1 Fan

Anyone who's been around MAAC basketball at any point in the past 20+ years (maybe even more) knows the name "Ronnie Weintraub."  He was often annoying, but that's only because he was so passionate.  So, when I got the news that Ronnie passed away, a flood of memories came rushing back.  Ronnie was such a unique individual whose presence will be missed.

My first interactions with Ronnie came when I was a student at Canisius and would see him at the MAAC Tournament every year.  I could tell even that early on that the "MAAC's No. 1 Fan" on his credential was extremely accurate.  Then I started working at Manhattan, which was "his" school, and saw the extent of his fandom at a completely different level.  Was dealing with him challenging at times?  Absolutely!  But everybody has their Ronnie stories, and, because I worked so closely with him for so long, I had a lot!

Ronnie's affiliation with Manhattan began sometime in the 1990s.  Manhattan hosted a Special Olympics event in which Ronnie was a participant and he struck up a friendship with then-AD Bob Byrnes.  From that point forward, Ronnie was a fixture at Manhattan games.  He'd even show up at road games (which often left us wondering how he got there), and part of his deal with Bob was that if he found his way to a road game, he was guaranteed a ride home on the team bus.  And Ronnie bus stories were some of the best ones!

There are a few Ronnie stories in particular that stand out.  He arrived shortly after the team for a game at Army.  As one of the Army players was coming into the gym and started walking to the locker room, Ronnie asked her how long until she graduated.  After she told him she was a senior, he said, "A few months, then off to Iraq."  Completely inappropriate, obviously.  But also classic Ronnie!  He had no filter!

Another time, he made his way down to Baltimore for a game at Loyola (on like a Tuesday or Wednesday night).  On the way back, it was snowing, so the trip was even longer than usual.  Our coach gave Ronnie his postgame sandwich, but it didn't agree with him.  So, for most of that bus ride, Ronnie was going back and forth to the bathroom.

Then there was the Ronnie photo bomb.  When Rick Pitino was still the head coach at Louisville, he came to see his protege, Steve Masiello.  Our play-by-play announcer, Christian Heimall, a big Louisville fan, interviewed Pitino at halftime, then asked to take a picture with him.  Pitino agreed, and when Christian's looking at the picture afterwards, there's Ronnie in the background, with his head perfectly positioned between the two of them!

Perhaps the funniest Ronnie "sighting" I've ever had came when he wasn't even there!  We were in Canada on the women's basketball team's foreign trip in 2010.  On the sidewalk in Ottawa, we see a man with his back to us who looked exactly like him from behind.  We even all started turning to each other going, "Is that Ronnie?"  It wasn't.  Obviously.  But for a minute there, we thought he'd somehow made his way to Canada for the foreign trip!

One last Ronnie story that sticks out.  The women's team would always have a postgame reception with their families and friends after their Senior Day game.  Johnny O usually gave a speech about each of the seniors.  Then it was Ronnie's turn.  It wasn't planned, of course, but Ronnie just started talking and nobody was gonna be able to make him stop!

Those are just a few of my Ronnie stories.  Everyone else who's been involved with MAAC basketball at any point over the past two decades has their own, and they're all uniquely Ronnie.  It was almost a rite of passage for any new MAAC coach to have their Ronnie initiation.  You almost weren't part of the conference until you had one.  In that way, he really became iconic throughout the league.  Everybody knew him and everybody had their own story (or two...or three...or more).

It wasn't just basketball, either.  One year, Ronnie made his way to Rider for the Outdoor Track & Field Championships, and he loved his Jaspers baseball just as much.  But it was courtside at basketball games where you could be 100 percent certain to find him.  And it was a truly one-of-a-kind experience.

If you ever sat anywhere near Ronnie (or even within earshot) during a game, you couldn't miss him sitting there doing a full play-by-play broadcast...to himself!  Then there were his handwritten stat sheets, which he would always be sure to hand to the coaches (even though they were completely illegible).  At the MAAC Tournament, he'd even print out copies and leave them on the table with all of the other media materials!

The tables in the media room at the MAAC Tournament also had another distinctly Ronnie document.  His bracket!  Ronnie would fill out his bracket for the whole tournament and leave copies right there with his stat sheets.  And, no matter the team's record, he always had Manhattan winning both the men's and women's titles!  You've gotta love that confidence, even if it wasn't always entirely realistic!  Always a fan of the Jaspers first, the MAAC second.

Eventually, after some staff changes at Manhattan, he shifted his allegiance to Saint Peter's.  But he was still Ronnie.  All of his passion and enthusiasm remained.  So did his handwritten stats and infectious personality.  It was just on the other side of the Hudson.  Instead of Jasper green, it was Peacock blue.  I can only imagine how excited he was when Saint Peter's went on that NCAA Tournament run!

I was still working at Manhattan then, so my dealings with Ronnie obviously became fewer and further between after that.  I can't even recall the last time I saw him.  But he was such a unique individual who'll be impossible for me to ever forget.  I bet that's probably the case for anybody he ever came across.  He was one-of-a-kind.  And he'll definitely be missed.

Time to End Court Storming

Storming the court has always been considered a rite of passage in college basketball.  Your team pulls off the big upset win over a highly ranked opponent, and you're so overcome with joy and excitement that you just can't contain yourself and have to join in the celebration.  However, storming the court is also incredibly dangerous and, frankly, overplayed.  Which makes me think it might be time for the practice to be completely banned.

There are really only a handful of situations where storming the court is even acceptable.  You win the conference tournament final on your home floor?  Absolutely!  You upset the No. 1 team?  Go ahead!  You beat your archrival for the first time in years?  Sure!  If said rival is 4-18 entering the game?  Definitely not.  You win a random non-conference game on a Tuesday night in December?  No.

Purdue has lost three road games this season.  The opposing fans stormed the court each time.  One of those games was at Nebraska...where they've stormed the court three times this season.  Sorry, but you're Nebraska basketball!  I'll let you have Purdue, but why did you storm the court the other times?  There's no logical explanation that it was warranted three different times in one season!  In fact, that brings me to another rule.  You're only allowed to do it once during the regular season.  You waste it in November, that's your problem.

Of course, there's a reason why courts get stormed so often, and we all know what that reason is.  It's a viral moment.  The video of the court getting stormed always gets shown on SportsCenter and immediately shared online.  Then there's the video that the people doing the storming take themselves, which they post on their own social media pages.  And, in this day and age, getting those social media likes is all that matters to some people.  Which is another part of the safety problem...people who aren't paying attention because they're more preoccupied with storming the court and taking video of themselves doing it.

All of this came to a head on Saturday after Wake Forest beat Duke.  Duke center Kyle Filipowski, a top NBA Draft prospect, had to be helped off the floor after he got run into by a Wake Forest fan during the court storming (which I think started before the clock even hit 0.0).  He escaped serious injury, but the fact that it even happened is unacceptable. 

That's just one example from this season.  The same thing happened when the Ohio State women beat Iowa in January and Caitlin Clark was knocked over by a fan.  Clark, too, was uninjured, but imagine if she was and that's how her pursuit of the all-time scoring record ended?!  And, frankly, it seems like it's only a matter of time until a player, major star or not, IS injured by an opposing fan storming the court.

Some coaches have seen enough.  During the ACC media teleconference on Monday, Duke Head Coach Jon Scheyer (who reported that Filipowski is "sore" but otherwise fine) called for the conference not to wait until the offseason and implement an immediate ban.  Kansas Head Coach Bill Self agrees.  He's seen an official break an arm in a court-storming incident and prepares his team for any potential court-storming situation by making sure they're near the sidelines and able to get out of harm's way quickly.  It shouldn't have to come to that, though.

Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark is on the same page as the coaches.  He plans to speak to the other conference commissioners so that they can address it collectively.  It's not isolated to a single school or a single conference, so they should deal with it together for the sake of the entire sport.  Those conversations will take place.  Whatever type of an agreement is reached, if any, would benefit everyone.

Eleven different conferences--the Atlantic 10, Big East, Big South, Big Ten, Big 12, Conference USA, MEAC, Pac-12, SEC, WAC and WCC--already have a policy in place where the home team is fined under certain circumstances when their fans storm the court.  In the SEC, that goes to the opposing team, so Kentucky has actually collected two different court-storming fines this season.  The ACC, notably, is not among the conferences that has any sort of policy.  As a result, the conference doesn't plan to penalize Wake Forest in any way for Saturday's incident.

While those 11 conferences do have a policy, the others don't.  And those policies differ from conference to conference.  Some have clearly-defined language where it spells out what constitutes a violation and any potential penalties.  Others leave it a little more vague.  So, frankly, a uniform policy across the NCAA would probably be good.  Everything would be the same across the board.  Of course, making sure it's enforced is something else entirely.

Fining schools doesn't really seem like much of a deterrent, either.  Jay Bilas, for one, has been very vocal in his opposition to court storming, and thinks that making the penalty only financial is part of the problem.  His argument is that a school could simply get its boosters together and they'll gladly pay it, which sends a completely contradictory message.  Nany Lieberman, meanwhile, has suggested that maybe fines should increase for each offense, with a potential maximum penalty after it happens a certain number of times.

So, if fines aren't the answer, what is?  Alabama AD Greg Byrne thinks teams should have to forfeit in situations where it gets out of control like on Saturday.  Fans wouldn't be so jubilant when the upset "win" suddenly turns into a loss.  And you know the coaches wouldn't be happy about it.  It's extreme, yes.  But it would also be effective.  That would shut it down real fast.  

Although, ultimately, enforcement is up to the schools.  The conferences can implement all of the policies and issue all the fines they want, but it's the schools that are ultimately responsible for the actual event management.  So, it's on the schools to, at the very least, guarantee the safety of the players, officials and other game day personnel.  Not to mention those in the crowd doing the storming!

Enough people are in agreement that something needs to be done.  Storming the court is part of the thrill of college basketball for students and fans.  But it's also become far too dangerous.  And there have been far to many close calls this season to continue ignoring the problem.

NFL Not Happy With CFP

The NFL was able to take advantage of a loophole in their broadcast agreement this season.  They're not allowed to have any games on Friday night or Saturday between the second week in September and the second week in December.  However, since Labor Day is early this year, the NFL season actually starts on the first weekend of September, when they don't have a restriction.  That's how they were able to schedule the Eagles' Week 1 game in Brazil for Friday night.

That's also why the NFL doesn't play on Saturdays until mid-December, which is after college football season ends.  For the past few years, they've had a Saturday tripleheader on NFL Network where all three matchups are TBA until a few weeks before the game.  They normally designate five as potential Saturday games, then choose three that have playoff implications.  And they're all on NFL Network as part of their eight-game package.

This season, however, there may not be the Saturday tripleheader.  Or, if there is one, it may be a week later.  And the reason why?  The expanded College Football Playoff.  Three of the four CFP first-round games are on Dec. 21, which is when the NFL Saturday tripleheader normally is.  That date is already set.  And the league is not happy about it.

When the College Football Playoff expanded to 12 teams, it was obvious that it would have to schedule around the NFL in January.  The NFL doesn't schedule a Monday night game in Week 18, so the College Football Playoff was able to schedule the National Championship Game for that Monday night the day after the NFL season ended.  It was actually the perfect scenario for ESPN, too, since they could just insert the CFP National Championship on that off week between the final regular season Monday night game and the Monday night Wild Card Game.

With the expanded playoff starting this season, though, the CFP schedule changes completely.  The New Year's Six are now the quarterfinals, which means the National Championship Game can no longer be on that Monday night between the regular season and playoffs.  Instead, it'll be the week after the Wild Card Games on Martin Luther King Day.  (Coincidentally, next season's CFP National Championship Game falls on the same day as the Presidential Inauguration--Jan. 20, 2025.)

Since college football will be played much deeper into January than ever before, they had to schedule around the NFL Playoffs.  The New Year's Day bowl games are now quarterfinals, with the semifinals the following week.  However, that coincides with Wild Card Weekend, when the NFL is playing on Saturday, Sunday AND Monday.  As a result, the CFP semifinals will be on Thursday and Friday night, leading into the Championship Game on the following Monday (Martin Luther King Day).

In January, the NFL Playoffs were always going to take precedence, so the CFP scheduled around them.  In December, though, with the NFL still in the regular season, no such concession was made.  The four first-round games need to be played early enough so that there's enough time for the winners to prepare for their New Year's Eve/Day quarterfinal (I'm just going to assume that the team that plays the Friday first-round game is the one that advances to the New Year's Eve quarterfinal).  So, that Saturday after the conference championship games really was the only realistic option.

Having a College Football Playoff first-round tripleheader on that Saturday makes complete sense, actually.  Fans are already used to spending their Saturdays watching college football, and it's basically just adding an extra college football Saturday.  That's the day people are used to watching and attending college football games, and, with the NFL's domination of Thursday, Sunday and Monday, there's really no other day of the week available.

Of course, that Saturday is also the first one available for the NFL that doesn't violate the broadcast regulations.  And, since that's normally a free Saturday between the end of college football's regular season and the bowls, they've taken full advantage and scheduled that NFL Network tripleheader.  Moving forward, though, it's no longer a "free" Saturday.  In fact, it'll become one of the more important Saturdays for college football.  So, what will the NFL do?  Especially since this won't be just a 2024 problem.

Since the games are on different networks, there's no stopping the NFL from continuing to schedule the Saturday tripleheader opposite the first-round of the CFP.  I can't see anybody being happy with that option, however.  The College Football Playoff went out its way to schedule around the NFL in January, so they'd be justifiably angry if the NFL doesn't return the favor in December.  Likewise, ESPN likely wouldn't be happy since it would impact their ratings for the first-round games.  And not to mention the fans who want to watch both the NFL and the CFP.

Another option would be for the NFL to move its Saturday tripleheader back a week.  Week 16 doesn't conflict with the College Football Playoff at all, so the NFL could schedule three Saturday games no problem.  Although, that wouldn't always be the perfect solution.  Week 16 is Christmas Week, and the NFL doesn't like to tinker with the schedule during Christmas Week so that players and fans don't have to adjust their holiday plans.  Which means moving the Saturday tripleheader to Week 16 only works if Christmas doesn't fall on the weekend (not to mention the Christmas games that are on other networks as part of the TV contract).

They could also do away with the NFL Network Saturday tripleheader, but I'm not sure how that would work with the TV contract.  They save eight games for themselves to broadcast exclusively on NFL Network.  The Saturday tripleheader obviously accounts for three of those games.  They also do most of the International Series games from Europe on Sunday mornings (the Jaguars' London game is on ESPN+, but they have the other four), with a special Saturday night or holiday game rounding out the schedule.  How would they make up for those three Saturday games if they cede Week 15 to the College Football Playoff, though?

There's a solution here that will work for everybody.  I'm just not sure what it is.  Because I can see where the NFL's coming from and why they're upset that the College Football Playoff interferes with their Saturday tripleheader.  But, at the same time, it's reasonable for the College Football Playoff to expect to be featured on that Saturday without having to go head-to-head against the NFL.  Especially since they purposely ceded January to the NFL playoffs, so having the NFL return the favor in December isn't that crazy an ask.

Frankly, what surprised me most is that it took this long for the NFL to say something.  The College Football Playoff schedule has been set for a while, so they've known about this issue that whole time.  I am curious to see how they figure it out, though.  For this season and beyond.

A Free Agent Window?

Spring Training has begun and there are still a lot of big-name free agents who remain unsigned.  Scott Boras unironically pointed out this fact the other day.  The part he conveniently forgot to mention, of course, is that most of the unsigned players are his clients.  So, maybe this is more a Scott Boras problem than an MLB-wide problem.  That point aside, however, it's still telling that we've once again reached Spring Training with a good number of free agents who still haven't found a new team.

The owners are just as annoyed by this as the players.  Because the reason many of these free agents remain unsigned isn't because they haven't received an offer.  Some of them have received multiple offers, in fact.  No, it's because they don't like the offers they've received and are holding out for a better one...which hasn't come and may not.

Blake Snell, for example, had an offer from the Yankees.  He turned it down because he wanted more years.  The 31-year-old Snell, who's a five/six inning pitcher, wanted a contract that paid him in the $35-40 million a year range until his late 30s.  That's simply unrealistic, which is something that Snell has learned since the Yankees' offer is the best one he's gotten so far.  So, the reason Snell hasn't signed yet isn't because nobody wants him.  It's because his (Boras') price is too high.

A few years ago, of course, was the big Manny Machado/Bryce Harper offseason.  They both waited until Spring Training to get their massive deals, Machado with the Padres and Harper with the Phillies.  That time, it impacted other free agents, too, because everyone had to wait for Machado and Harper to sign before they could make other moves.  Teams had to pivot to their second or third choices, while other free agents were using those two big-name players to set their own markets.

This is obviously not an ideal situation for anybody.  Unfortunately, there's also very little anybody can do about it.  That hasn't stopped the owners from trying, though.  It was brought up in the most recent CBA negotiations and not very well-received by the MLBPA.  Rob Manfred mentioned the idea of a free agency window again during his preseason press conference (when he also announced he'd retire after his contract expires in 2029), and, I must say, it's a very intriguing idea.

Each of the other major sports has a free agent window where we see a flurry of activity.  In the NFL, especially, players announce where they intend to sign before they even can.  Then, once free agency officially begins on April 1, they formally sign.  And, for the most part, free agency is done before the NFL Draft in late April.

Major League Baseball would love to have something similar.  The Winter Meetings in early December is generally where the first major moves of the offseason take place.  That was certainly the case this offseason, with the Dodgers inking both Shohei Ohtani and Yoshinobu Yamashito in December.  That's also when the Yankees made their offer to Snell.  Since then...nothing!  Which is why we still have a number of big-name free agents left on the board.

If it were up to the owners, the Winter Meetings would be the start of the free agent window, which would ideally last around two weeks in December.  That way, everything would be done by Christmas, allowing teams and players to make their plans for the upcoming season with plenty of time to spare.  While it's unrealistic to think there would be no player movement between the start of the New Year and the beginning of Spring Training, implementing a free agent window would theoretically make things easier for everyone.  And, not to mention, getting things going much more quickly than usual.

Of course, the MLBPA doesn't like the idea of anything that limits players' options, so the union will almost certainly remain opposed to any attempt at establishing a free agent window.  I get it from their perspective, too.  Free agency is their one chance to decide where they want to play, so it's understandable that they'll want to take as much time as possible to get what they think is the right deal for them.  If they're willing to wait until Spring Training, so be it.

While a free agent window isn't a non-starter with the union in the same way a salary cap is, the MLBPA is just as concerned about what it could mean.  It would create a flurry of activity in a much shorter amount of time, but that's exactly what they're afraid of.  Would imposing an artificial deadline result in players settling for deals that they don't consider to be fair market value out of fear they might not get anything at all?  Would teams wait until right before the deadline, essentially giving the players no choice but to accept their initial offer?

With that in mind, it's hard to imagine the MLBPA being any more receptive to the idea when it's brought up again during the next round of CBA negotiations after the 2026 season.  While some players want to get their free agency over and done with as soon as possible, others are more than happy to wait.  So, that leaves the players and owners at an impasse.  

What I can see, however, is some sort of compromise being reached.  While there wouldn't necessarily be a hard "deadline" for signing, they could follow the lead of the other sports and set a date that players can't sign before.  Say December 1 (or whenever the Winter Meetings open).  Players can negotiate with teams before then, but they have to wait until December 1 to sign.  Then, there's a soft deadline sometime in December where teams can't do anything over the holidays, with a date in early January when activity can begin again.

Would that lead to more free agents signing earlier in the winter?  I have no idea!  But there are definite benefits for both players and teams.  Having a break during the holidays would give the clubs a chance to assess their team and reset their priorities based on what needs they still have.  The players, meanwhile, could use that early signing period to read their market.  If they find the right fit, great.  If not, they can also use that break to sit down with their agents, discuss the offers they've received and make plans of their own for free agency to reopen in January.

MLB free agency will never move at the breakneck pace of the other major sports, all of which have salary caps and floors, which MLB does not.  But it doesn't have to move as slowly as it often does, either.  Because too many impact players remain unsigned into Spring Training every year.  And that's one part of free agency that needs to and can be fixed.  So, even if there isn't a fixed free agent window, it's worth giving some sort of soft deadline a try. 

An All*Star Farce

All*Star Games are always a tricky balance for the leagues and the players.  They're a marquee event on the schedule, and teams are eager to host them.  Whenever somebody builds a new stadium or arena, you can bet that an All*Star Game will be played at that venue pretty soon after it opens.  And, while the players seem to enjoy the idea of being selected as an All*Star, getting them to take the game seriously enough to be competitive is a different issue entirely.

That lack of competitiveness came to a head Sunday night in the NBA All*Star Game, where almost 400 total points were scored and the East broke 200.  Defense has always been optional in All*Star Games, but this took it to an extreme.  It was nothing more than dunks and open threes.  Even Commissioner Adam Silver couldn't hide his disgust with what he witnessed.  During the awards ceremony, he said (in a very sarcastic tone), "To the Eastern Conference All*Stars, you scored the most points.  Well, congratulations."

What's ironic is that the NBA made changes to the All*Star Game this year, hoping it would make the game more competitive.  After six years of players drafting their own teams (a change that was made because the West scored 196 and 192 in back-to-back years prior to that) and four of using the "Elam ending" with a target score during an untimed fourth quarter, the NBA reverted back to the traditional East vs. West format this season.  It obviously did NOT lead to the desired result.

The NHL, meanwhile, went the other way.  They've tinkered with their All*Star format the most over the years, and was the first to go to the "player draft" format in 2011.  When the NHL realigned into four divisions for the 2015-16 season, they dropped the player draft for a four-team three-on-three tournament between the four divisions, with the winners of the final splitting $1 million.  This season, they kept the four-team three-on-three tournament, but instead of doing it by division, they went back to the player draft and had four captains choose their own teams.

Not only that, the NHL changed up the Skills Competition this season.  That was the element of their All*Star Weekend they felt needed an overhaul, so it was completely revamped with input from the players (mainly Oilers star Connor McDavid).  Instead of having it as a series of individual events, each having its own winner, and having every All*Star compete in at least one, this season, it was only 12 players competing for points, with just one overall winner (who turned out to be McDavid) taking home $1 million.

I'd say they had mixed results.  Both semifinals went to a shootout, and the final pitted the teams captained by McDavid and Auston Matthews.  So, with the All*Star Game itself, it seems like they got what they were looking for.  As for the Skills Competition, though, Nikita Kucherov was one of the participants and he looked like he would've preferred to be doing anything else, drawing boos from the entire arena for his obvious lack of effort.  McDavid's Skills Competition victory also seemed a bit predetermined, seeing as McDavid is the one who suggested the changes.

Then there's the Pro Bowl, which has been the bane of Roger Goodell's existence since he became Commissioner.  Although, I must say, some of the "problems" with the Pro Bowl were directly caused by Goodell.  He's the one who chose to move the game out of Hawaii after 30 years, and he's the one who decided it would move from the week after the Super Bowl to the week before, guaranteeing that players from the two best teams in the league wouldn't be able to participate.

With the Pro Bowl, it's always been tricky because there are so many injury replacements to begin with, then you had guys pulling out for other reasons.  And football's a pretty violent game, so it makes sense that players wouldn't want to risk injury by going all-out in a postseason exhibition game.  But once the game basically turned into a glorified pillow fight, Goodell threatened to eliminate the Pro Bowl entirely.

After pushback from the NFLPA, Goodell backed off that stance, so instead, they completely revamped it.  Instead of a single tackle football game, they turned it into the "Pro Bowl Games," a series of skills competitions capped by a flag football championship game.  Goodell loved it and the players seemed to embrace it, so it looks like the Pro Bowl Games are here to stay.

Baseball, meanwhile, is the sport that most lends itself to the All*Star format.  It's pitcher vs. hitter, and everyone gets their individual chance to shine.  But even that hasn't stopped MLB from tinkering with the All*Star Game.  For a while, after the 2002 game in Milwaukee finished in a tie, they tied the All*Star Game to the World Series, giving the winning league home field advantage.  Then, after the 2016 Cubs had to win Games 6 & 7 on the road despite having the better record (because the AL won the All*Star Game), they dropped that element and the All*Star Game went back to being strictly an exhibition in 2017.

One other change MLB has made to the All*Star Game we haven't seen yet, but almost certainly will eventually.  The All*Star Game can no longer go into extra innings.  Now, if the score is tied after nine, it'll go to a Home Run Derby.  Hopefully, that never happens.  Because it's as dumb as the automatic runner on second!  (For the record, I have no issue with the shootout in hockey.)

It would be unfair to lump the four All*Star Games together and say that lack of competitiveness is a problem across the board.  It's also a fairly recent phenomenon.  For a long time, it was always a source of pride to win the All*Star Game and say you're the best league/conference.  The intensity is certainly no longer the same, and the amount of effort the players put in varies by sport.

Ultimately, though, the onus is on the players to do something about it.  Because no one wants to do away with the All*Star Game, and none of the leagues will ever do it even if the players did (when the NFL tried, the players fought to keep the Pro Bowl).  The All*Star Game generates too much money for the league and the host city, and it's one of the events fans look forward to the most each season.

Players would be wise to remember that.  The All*Star Game is for the fans.  They're the ones paying exorbitant ticket prices to see all of the game's best players in the same place at the same time.  No one's asking for playoff intensity.  But some effort would be nice.  Because Sunday night's embarrassing display wasn't a showcase.  It was a mockery.  And the fans deserve better.

It's Her Record...But Also Hers (For Now)

We all knew Caitlin Clark was going to break the NCAA women's scoring record, and, when the day came, she sure did it with style!  Clark scored a career-high 49 points against Michigan on Thursday night to break Kelsey Plum's record, and the record-breaking points came with what else?  Her signature "logo three."

Clark's pursuit of the record has been the talk of college basketball this season, and it's certainly drawn a good amount of attention.  Everyone seems to have an opinion about Caitlin Clark, even if that opinion is completely off-base and makes the person look like an idiot.  Sheryl Swoopes is certainly entitled to feel however she feels about Clark and her prospects for the WNBA, where she'll be the likely No. 1 pick by the Indiana Fever in April.  Swoopes got one very important detail wrong in her criticism of Clark, though.

Swoopes suggested that the record is illegitimate because Clark "had an extra year."  That's the exact same argument I used against Detroit Mercy's Antoine Davis last year as he was chasing Pete Maravich's men's record.  There was even talk about inviting below-.500 Detroit Mercy to a postseason tournament just so he could have at least one more chance to break the record.

It's true that the NCAA gave every student-athlete who competed in 2020-21 an extra year of eligibility.  Davis took advantage of that extra year and played five full seasons at Detroit Mercy.  That's why I thought his record should've had an asterisk had he passed Pistol Pete.  Clark, however, is in her fourth year of eligibility.  She can use the fifth next year if she wants to return to Iowa, but she didn't need an extra year to break the record.  So, no Sheryl, it's not "illegitimate."

Questioning whether Clark will be just as good in the WNBA is one thing, but questioning the legitimacy of her record is something different entirely.  Caitlin Clark is the all-time leading scorer in Division I women's basketball.  Period.  End of sentence.  Kelsey Plum scored 3,527 career points.  Caitlin Clark has 3,569 and counting, with two weeks of the regular season, the Big Ten Tournament and the NCAA Tournament still to go.  The all-time women's college basketball record is within reach.

That record belongs to Lynette Woodard, who scored 3,649 points (without the benefit of a three-point line) for Kansas from 1977-81.  One of the greatest women's players in history, Woodard won a gold medal with the U.S. National Team at the 1984 Olympics and later became the first female member of the Harlem Globetrotters.  She even played in the WNBA during the league's first two seasons.

When Woodard was at Kansas, women's sports were governed by the AIAW.  The NCAA didn't begin sponsoring women's basketball until 1981-82, the year after Woodard graduated.  As a result, the NCAA record book starts with the 1981-82 season.  Since Woodard never played in the NCAA, she can't hold the NCAA record.

An argument has been made that the NCAA should recognize players' AIAW stats and incorporate the AIAW records into their own.  That's what the NFL did with the AFL, and MLB is in the process of adding stats from the Negro Leagues into its record books.  However, the NFL didn't include stats from the AAFC after absorbing that league.  Likewise, the NBA doesn't include ABA stats nor does the NHL with the WHA.  So, there's a precedent for both.

There's even an existing precedent within the sport of women's basketball.  Stanford Head Coach Tara VanDerveer is the all-time winningest coach with over 1,200 career wins.  She started her career in the AIAW at Idaho.  Those victories are included as part of her career total.  So, why should her AIAW wins count, but not Woodard's AIAW points?  It IS a legitimate question!

Whether the NCAA should or shouldn't include the records set by female athletes during the AIAW Era is a completely different conversation.  And it's one that won't be settled anytime soon.  They've given no indication that it'll happen, and I'm not sure how much it was even discussed before Clark's record pursuit thrust Woodard back into the spotlight after all these years.  But it does highlight an era that should be recognized and is finally getting some long overdue focus.

Personally, I'm fine with there being two separate sets of records.  That's why it's not wrong to call Caitlin Clark the NCAA record-holder.  It doesn't take away anything from Lynette Woodard to say that.  Clark is NOT, however, the all-time leading scorer in women's college basketball.  That record still belongs to Woodard, at least for the time being.

Although, Woodard's hold on that record might not last too much longer, which would make the entire thing moot.  Clark is only 80 points behind her.  She averages nearly 33 per game.  Iowa has four regular season games left, so it's highly likely she'll have already passed Woodard before her Senior Day game against Ohio State on March 3.  And, after that, Pete Maravich's 3,667 points aren't too far away.  How cool would it be if she passes Pistol Pete on Senior Day?

Bottom line, it's ultimately not going to matter whose record she broke when.  Because she's going to pass all three.  Plum is already in Clark's rearview mirror.  Woodard and Maravich are next.  It's not a question of if she'll pass then.  It's when.  And how many she'll end up with.  It seems certain she'll break 3,700, and a long NCAA run by one of the best teams in the nation could easily bring her near or over 3,800, leaving little doubt over who the rightful record-holder is.

Despite what Sheryl Swoopes thinks, Caitlin Clark will go down as the greatest scorer in college basketball history.  Whether it's NCAA, women's or NCAA women's, it doesn't matter.  She'll have them all!

Playoff Overtime's Crazy Debut

In January 2022, the Chiefs beat the Bills in an incredible AFC Divisional Playoff game.  Kansas City trailed 36-33 with 13 seconds left, which turned out to be plenty of time for the Chiefs to get into field goal range, tie the game, then win in overtime.  Under the rules in effect at the time, the team that got the ball first in overtime could win the game with a touchdown, which is exactly what Kansas City did.  Bills fans were outraged that Josh Allen never touched the ball in OT (if they don't blow a three-point lead with 13 seconds left, the game doesn't go to OT, but I digress).

As a result of that game, the NFL changed the postseason overtime rules, guaranteeing both teams a chance to possess the ball unless there's a defensive score on the opening possession.  If it's still tied after each team's first possession, then it becomes sudden death (which was the NFL's long-standing overtime rule until the previous rule change in 2009).

No playoff games went to overtime during either the 2022 or 2023 postseasons...until Super Bowl LVIII.  Which meant the 49ers and Chiefs were truly entering uncharted territory on Sunday night.  Kansas City was prepared for it.  San Francisco wasn't.

Several 49ers players admitted after the game that they were unaware the postseason overtime rules are different than in the regular season.  Head Coach Kyle Shanahan said that he did discuss it with his staff, but it's clear that the players either didn't get the message or didn't understand it.  The Chiefs, meanwhile, went over each possible scenario and knew exactly what they were going to do.

Now, it's worth noting that the result would've been the same under the old playoff overtime rules.  Had San Francisco scored a touchdown on its opening drive of OT, that would've ended the game under the old rules (or in the regular season).  However, since they kicked a field goal, Kansas City still would've gotten the ball...just as they would have previously.  So, in that regard, nothing was different.  Or was it?

Most of the time, the team that wins the coin toss defers its selection to the second half.  In overtime, you don't have the option to defer, so you only have the choice to kick or receive.  In the regular season, that choice is an easy one.  You take the ball, you score a touchdown, the game's over.  In the postseason, though, the choice isn't as easy.  There's an argument to be made that you'd rather kick in OT...which it seems the Chiefs were prepared to do (I don't believe them, but it's also irrelevant since the 49ers won the toss).

If you think about it, when you know you're guaranteed to get the ball regardless, kicking and going on defense might be the way to go.  Not only will you know what you need to do on your possession, you'll have more options.  If you get the ball first and you have a fourth down that's in borderline field goal range, that's a tough decision whether you kick the long field goal, go for it, or punt.  If you get the ball second, the only reason you'd ever even consider punting is if they don't score and you're deep in your own territory.  Otherwise, it's four-down territory no matter where you are on the field.

You can also control the result if you kick in overtime.  If the other team scores a touchdown, they'll almost certainly kick the extra point.  But if you also score a touchdown, you can go for two and the win, ending the game right there one way or the other.  It becomes sudden death after each team has had a possession, so the idea of going for two is definitely worth considering.  Andy Reid even said that's exactly what he would've done had the situation presented itself.

Of course, the counterargument is that if you get the ball first, you can force them to match you, and the going for two argument becomes irrelevant if you prevent them from getting into the end zone.  Receiving the overtime kickoff is also a huge advantage if you do match scores because then it's your ball when the game becomes sudden death.  You also know that you can end the game by getting the job done on defense regardless of what your offense does.

The situation can certainly come into play, too.  Kansas City's offense had just been on the field, so Shanahan said one of the reasons he wanted to receive was to give his defense a break, which makes complete sense.  Likewise, if I'm the Chiefs and I do win the toss, I'm tempted to have Mahomes and Co. right back out there, knowing the San Francisco defense is tired.  Then, assuming the offense gets it done, I'm trusting the defense to do what it has to do.

It's interesting, too, that the new playoff format renders the clock somewhat irrelevant.  Kansas City scored with three seconds left, but there weren't really three seconds left.  Had the clock hit 0:00, it would've been like the end of a quarter.  They would've gone to commercial, the teams would've switched ends, and they would've continued.  Not having to worry about the clock is obviously a huge difference.

A lot of this is very similar to the college overtime rule, where the teams alternate possessions from the 25-yard line with no game clock (just a play clock).  I do like that it's different, though.  By still having a kickoff and making the offense drive down the field, you're playing overtime like the rest of the game.  If you score, you earn it.  And it leaves it up to the defense to make a stop.

Ever since they changed the rule, I'd been waiting for the first overtime playoff game to see how the new rule would impact anything, if at all.  I sure wasn't expecting to see it for the first time in a Super Bowl, that's for sure, but those strategy questions are still just as intriguing.  I can see why San Francisco took the ball.  I can see why Kansas City would've decided to kick.  And I can definitely see the logic in going for two if you score a touchdown second.

While the result of the Super Bowl would've been the same under the 2009-22 postseason overtime format, you know the day is eventually coming where an opening possession overtime touchdown isn't a walk-off win (unless it's a walk-off pick 6, of course).  And, now that we've seen it action and those various strategy elements can come into play, it'll be very interesting to see what other coaches decide to do with their season on the line.  If they don't change the rules again, that is.

Football's Streaming Future

Streaming was a hot topic during Super Bowl Week.  Thursday Night Football has aired on Amazon Prime for the last two seasons, and Peacock had an exclusive broadcast of the Chiefs-Dolphins wild card game that drew heavy criticism, but also set records for subscriptions and viewership.  That inevitably led to questions about the NFL's future plans regarding streaming, specifically whether there will be a streaming-only Super Bowl eventually.  Roger Goodell couldn't guarantee that it'll never happen, but he did say that if it does, it won't be anytime soon.

That answer, frankly, was expected.  The NFL just wrapped up the first season of its new 11-year broadcast contract that sees the Super Bowl split between all four of its primary broadcast partners (minus Amazon).  So, even if they wanted to, they wouldn't be able to make any changes until the next TV deal...which won't be for a while! 

There was such a backlash to the Peacock wild card game that people actually wondered if the NFL would go the other way and reconsider having a streaming-exclusive playoff game.  They didn't.  They even announced that the wild card game that was on Peacock this season will shift to Amazon Prime next season, a move that at least makes sense since Amazon already has Thursday Night Football.  Well, as it turns out, there's actually a clause in their Thursday Night Football contract that gives them the option.  They declined the option in 2023-24 but will pick it up next year.

When the NFL expanded the playoff field to 14 teams and added the two extra wild card games, they worked it out so that each of the four primary networks would get a game in their normal spot, the Saturday afternoon game would rotate between CBS, FOX and NBC, and the sixth game would go out to bid.  Amazon has the right of first refusal for that sixth game.  They can even come in with a lower bid if they want.  They didn't this season, so it went to Peacock.  Next season, it'll be on Amazon.

Back to the Super Bowl, though.  It's not like the game isn't available on streaming, so the cord-cutters aren't missing out on anything.  In fact, every NFL game is available on streaming, whether they're also on linear TV or not.  Paramount+ actually crashed because of the number of people trying to sign up just so they can watch the game on the service.  NBC's games are also streamed on Peacock.  Monday Night Football is on ESPN+.  FOX uses its app.  There's also NFL+ and YouTube TV (which has NFL Sunday Ticket), so they aren't exactly missing out.  Quite the contrary.  Games are actually more available when they're on both linear TV and streaming.

It simply doesn't make business sense right now to pull the Super Bowl off linear TV entirely.  Will it in the future?  Perhaps.  Streaming isn't going away.  We all understand that.  But linear TV isn't going away, either.  So why not continue utilizing both distribution methods to bring in as many viewers as possible?

Business reasons aside, I think there's a completely separate reason why the NFL is hesitant to go entirely all-in on streaming.  They have an antitrust exemption.  That antitrust exemption would very likely face legal challenges if the Super Bowl were ever moved behind a streaming paywall.  The NFL obviously doesn't want that.

The NFL's antitrust exemption dates back to the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, a landmark piece of legislation that overturned a lower court ruling that had determined the NFL's TV contract with CBS violated antitrust laws and was illegal.  The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 found that the various franchises in professional sports leagues, while technically "competitors," are also business partners in a broader sense, and the league is authorized to act as a representative of those business partners and negotiate on their behalf.  Therefore, it's permissible to negotiate a television "package" in which all league members share equally.

This has been a common practice ever since.  Not just with the professional leagues, either.  Every major college conference has its TV deal, as well (and we all know how lucrative those contracts are for the member schools).  But it's most relevant in the NFL since every game is nationally televised (with only preseason games negotiated and broadcast locally by the teams).  And because of how it impacts the NFL schedule.

Certain restrictions still apply regarding when the NFL can and can't broadcast games.  Specifically, from the second week of September until the second week of December, they can't broadcast any game on a Friday night or Saturday if there's any high school or college football game being played within 75 miles of the game site.  This effectively prohibits the NFL from holding any games on Friday night or Saturday until mid-December.

Sometimes there's a loophole they can exploit, though.  There are five Fridays in September this year.  The restriction doesn't kick in until the second week.  So, they were allowed to schedule a Friday night game in Week 1.  Which they did.  The Eagles will be the home team for the Brazil game, and it'll be on that Friday night, the day after the season opens in Kansas City.  (The Black Friday game doesn't violate the exemption because it's an afternoon game and the restriction doesn't start until 6 p.m.)

They're very cognizant of those limitations and don't want to do anything that jeopardizes their antitrust status.  That's why we don't see Saturday NFL games until mid-December.  And I think that's why it'll be a while until we see a Super Bowl that isn't broadcast on over-the-air TV (ESPN's Super Bowls will also be on ABC).  Sure, it may be allowed under the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961.  But there's also a chance it may not be.  Why take the risk and invite the inevitable lawsuits just to find out?

No one is denying that streaming is the future.  Not just for sports broadcasting, but for broadcasting in general.  The future isn't here yet, though.  And, even when it is, I don't think the NFL will ever completely abandon the traditional TV model.  Especially since, as I said, they can continue to do what they're already doing and broadcast the games both on linear TV and streaming.  That really does seem to be the model that makes the most sense.

Which isn't to say the NFL won't continue having games that are streaming-only.  There's already Thursday Night Football, it looks like the streaming-exclusive wild card game isn't going anywhere, and the Jaguars' London game this season was exclusively on ESPN+.  But a Super Bowl that's only available behind a streaming paywall?  We aren't there yet.  And we may never be.

Super Bowl LVIII

After two weeks of build-up, it's finally time for Super Bowl LVIII.  And it's one of those rare times where the matchup is exactly what a lot of people predicted before the season started.  Did they think the 49ers and Chiefs would take this exact route here?  Certainly not.  But here they are.  Kansas City's playing in its fourth Super Bowl in five years with a chance to become the first back-to-back champions in two decades.  San Francisco, meanwhile, can win its sixth Lombardi Trophy, tying New England and Pittsburgh for the most ever.

I get why a lot of people don't like the Chiefs.  They've become the Patriots.  They win all the time and people are sick of it.  (And, yes, it does seem like Patrick Mahomes and/or Travis Kelce is in every commercial on television.)  But there's no denying that what they've done over the last six years is pretty damn impressive!  And this season might've been one of their most impressive yet.  The team had its share of struggles during the regular season and even looked vulnerable at times.

Well, we all saw how the Chiefs reacted to that adversity!  In fact, it seemed like Mahomes almost relished being doubted and proving those critics wrong.  "He's never had to go on the road in the playoffs" was the common one.  (Even though that's not true.  Super Bowl LV was technically a neutral site, but they played the Bucs in Tampa, so it should count.)  Now he has.  And he won on the road twice.

Then there are the 49ers, who finally got over the NFC Championship Game hump.  They lost to the Rams and Eagles, and it sure looked like they were gonna make it three in a row in the first half against Detroit.  They had a great second-half rally against the Lions, though, and earned the trip to Las Vegas.  Did Dan Campbell help them out with some questionable play calls?  Sure.  But you can't take anything away from San Francisco.  They made the stops on fourth down and got the big plays while Detroit didn't.  That's the mark of a championship team.

All credit to Brock Purdy, too.  As everyone knows by now, he was picked last in the Draft.  Now he's starting the Super Bowl.  And one of his biggest weapons is a dynamic two-way threat who just won Offensive Player of the Year.  This is the first Super Bowl for both Purdy and McCaffrey, neither of whom was on the team four years ago.

When these two teams met in Super Bowl LIV, San Francisco took a lead into the fourth quarter, only to see Mahomes lead the Chiefs to 21 unanswered points in a 31-20 victory.  ("Fun" story about Super Bowl LIV...I went to my sister's house for the game, and the power went out right after kickoff!  It didn't come back on until the two-minute warning, so my brother-in-law and I spent three hours huddled around his phone watching the game.)  That win started the Kansas City dynasty, while the 49ers are still looking for their first title of the John Lynch/Kyle Shanahan Era that has otherwise been a remarkable success.

Four years ago, Kansas City was far-and-away the better team.  That's not the case this season.  The 49ers have been considered one of the two or three best teams in the league all year, and they actually come into the Super Bowl as the favorites.  It's easy to see why, too.  They always had that awesome defense.  Now they have the offense to go with it.

The Chiefs' defense, meanwhile, doesn't get anywhere near enough credit.  Mahomes and Kelce get all the attention, but, when the offense was having its struggles, it was the defense that kept them in (and won) games.  Kansas City hasn't given up more than 27 points in a game all season, and they've held their opponent under 20 eleven different times.  In the AFC Championship Game, they completely shut down the Ravens.  Baltimore scored just one touchdown and was held scoreless in the second half of a 17-10 Chiefs victory.

That Kansas City defense, I think, is one of the underrated keys to the game.  The Ravens had this season's MVP, yet Lamar Jackson wasn't able to do anything in the AFC Championship Game.  San Francisco has a few more weapons than Baltimore, but if the gameplan is to shut down (or at least limit) McCaffrey, it'll be up to Purdy to beat them.  That's a tall order, especially considering who he's going against on the other side of the ball.

Mahomes was the Super Bowl MVP in both of Kansas City's wins.  In the one they lost, Tampa Bay's defense wouldn't let him do anything.  He's also led a pair of fourth-quarter comebacks, partially because the Chiefs wore out exhausted 49ers and Eagles defenses.  That's how San Francisco won the NFC Championship.  They had the ball for pretty much the entire second half, so the Lions' defense was spent.  And there's currently no one better at the long, sustained, tire-the-defense-out drives in the NFL than Patrick Mahomes.

There have only been three Super Bowls in history where the losing team didn't score a touchdown.  Tony Romo has called two of them (they're the only two Super Bowls he's called, too).  So, that stat and the fact that Romo's doing the game would seem to indicate that we might have a defensive struggle on our hands.  While that seems more likely than last year's shootout, the two offenses are too good to be kept out of the end zone completely, so I do think Tony will see both teams score a touchdown in the Super Bowl for the first time in his broadcasting career.

If it does turn into a shootout, it's advantage San Francisco.  The 49ers have had no trouble scoring this season, and Purdy has plenty of weapons at his disposal.  And, as we saw in the NFC Championship Game, they're capable of the big play.  It was two big plays that turned that entire game around.  On the other hand, if it's a defensive battle, I've got to give the advantage to the Chiefs.  Especially if they go ahead early.  Kansas City is so good at playing with the lead and, outside of the NFC Championship Game, San Francisco hasn't really played from behind that much, and their style of play doesn't really lend itself to it.

Ultimately, though, I think we'll have something in the middle.  The defenses are too good for it to be a shootout, but the offenses are too good to think they'll both be shut down completely.  It'll be the defenses that decide the game, though.  Whoever limits the big plays on offense and/or makes them on defense will win.  If that sounds simple, it's because it is.  With the star power on defense, they'll be just as big of a factor as Mahomes, Kelce, Purdy and McCaffrey.  If not more so.

This game really got me thinking about the last time we had a Super Bowl rematch, which also came four years later.  It was Giants-Patriots, Part II in Super Bowl XLVI.  New England wanted revenge for Super Bowl XLII and went in as the favorites, but the Giants beat them again in a similar fashion.  Twelve years later, look for history to repeat itself.  Despite being the defending champions, the Chiefs enter the Super Bowl feeling like they have something to prove.  They'll prove it and become the NFL's first back-to-back champions since the 2003-04 Patriots.  Kansas City 27, San Francisco 20.

Last Week: 2-0
Playoffs: 9-3
Overall: 177-107 

2023-24 NFL Awards

They made a change to the voting system for the NFL Awards this season, and, I must say, I like the new format.  In the past, the voters would make their one selection for each award.  Now, they do it similar to what the BBWAA does for baseball where they vote for their top three (top five for MVP) and points are assigned based on the number of first- second- and third-place votes the player gets.  So, now it's not the most votes.  It's the highest point total.

What I'm curious to see is if that'll actually have any impact on the results of the voting.  I would imagine it probably won't.  The frontrunners were clear by the end of the regular season, and now they're likely to get more support since the voters are ranking their top three candidates instead of choosing just one.  So, even with a new voting system, I'd imagine we'll have the same winners.

Another thing they've started doing (I can't remember if this is also new or if they did it last year) is announcing the five finalists for each award.  It's obviously the top five finishers in the voting, and it's not like any of the finalists are a surprise.  But still, it's nice to have a better picture of who was considered beyond just the winner.  (Which is especially true when the winner is unanimous.)

This is also the third straight year in which the NFL Honors are being held on Thursday, so I guess we can consider that a permanent change.  Although, this is the first time since the 2020 season (the last time CBS had the Super Bowl) that the Super Bowl and NFL Honors are on the same network.  In 2022, NBC had the Olympics, so the NFL Honors were on ESPN instead, while last year, NBC had the NFL Honors while FOX had the Super Bowl.

Anyway, there are a bunch of stupid awards to give them enough material to fill a two-hour show, but the focus is on the Hall of Fame announcement and the nine major awards.  Eight of them are presented by the AP, and the ninth is the NFL's highest honor, the Walter Payton Man of the Year, where all 32 teams nominate their candidate.  My predictions for the winners of those awards are...

MVP: Lamar Jackson, Ravens-Until Christmas, it really looked like it would be a neck-and-neck race for MVP between Lamar Jackson and Brock Purdy.  Then the Ravens absolutely destroyed the 49ers and Lamar left no question who the winner would be.  Baltimore had the best record in football this season, and their quarterback was the primary reason why.  He had 24 TD passes to just seven interceptions and had a league-best QB rating of 102.7.

Offensive Player: Christian McCaffrey, 49ers-It's no longer a lock that the MVP will also win Offensive Player of the Year.  Nor should it be.  Because they're two separate awards.  Case in point--there's no debate that Lamar Jackson was the most valuable.  Just as there's no debate that Christian McCaffrey was the best offensive player in the NFL this season.  He led the league in rushing and gained over 2,000 total yards when you add in receiving.  McCaffrey had 21 touchdowns and scored in 13 of his 16 games played.

Defensive Player: T.J. Watt, Steelers-J.J. Watt won Defensive Player of the Year three times in four years a decade ago.  Now his little brother T.J. will pick up his second in three seasons.  T.J. had three sacks in Week 1 against the 49ers and finished the season with 19.  He also forced four fumbles and recovered three.  The Steelers made the playoffs despite being outscored by 20 points this season.  That tells you how valuable T.J. Watt and the defense were.

Offensive Rookie: C.J. Stroud, Texans-Talk about an easy one!  The Texans took Stroud No. 2 in the Draft and quickly realized they had a franchise quarterback on their hands.  He threw for over 4100 yards and threw a grand total of five interceptions all year.  Five!  Stroud led Houston to an AFC South title and a playoff win.  As great as Puca Nacua was for the Rams, Stroud was just a touch better.

Defensive Rookie: Will Anderson, Texans-Can we see both Rookies of the Year come from the same team in back-to-back years?  Last season, it was the Jets with Garrett Wilson and Sauce Gardner.  This year, Houston's got C.J. Stroud and Will Anderson.  He isn't a lock the way Sauce was last year or Micah Parsons was in 2021, but he's the best of the lot.  Anderson played in 15 games, made 45 tackles and had seven sacks.

Comeback Player: Damar Hamlin, Bills-Damar Hamlin won this award the second he stepped on the field for the first time this season.  Nobody can forget the scary sight of his on-field cardiac arrest against the Bengals on that Monday night last January.  It's remarkable that he's even playing football again.  Even Joe Flacco, who'd be the likely winner under any other circumstances, has conceded that Hamlin is the only person who deserves to win.

Coach of the Year: Kevin Stefanski, Browns-Dan Campbell, John Harbaugh and Kyle Shanahan are all finalists.  In any other year, the case could be made for each of them to win.  But for the 2023 season, it's a two-man race between Kevin Stefanski and DeMeco Ryans.  The Browns and Texans were the two biggest surprises in the league this season, and they ended up facing each other in the playoffs.  Cleveland came even more out-of-nowhere, which is quite a testament to their coach.  

Assistant Coach of the Year: Mike MacDonald, Ravens-Assistant Coach of the Year is always a tough one, but Baltimore Defensive Coordinator Mike MacDonald is sure deserving of the nod.  The Ravens led the league in scoring defense, giving up just 16.5 points per game.  They allowed only 24 touchdowns all season, and only six of those were on the ground.  They held their opponent to 10 points or fewer six times and 20 or under 12 times (as well as in both of their playoff games).  Baltimore forced 31 turnovers, including five at San Francisco on Christmas night, and had three safeties, too.

Walter Payton Man of the Year: Patrick Mahomes, Chiefs-We all know what Mahomes has done on the field, leading Kansas City to its fourth Super Bowl in five years.  What he's done off the field is just as impressive.  His foundation, 15 and the Mahomies, donated $1,500 for every Mahomes touchdown and also made a $1.625 million contribution to the Boys & Girls Club of America for facility improvements both in Kansas City and his native Texas.  Mahomes is also combatting illiteracy through his Read for 15 program, and he fulfilled 10 Make-a-Wish experiences during Training Camp.  Hate Mahomes and the Chiefs all you want, but this is exactly why he's one of the Faces of the NFL right now.

2024 Football Hall Call

With Super Bowl Week now underway, the NFL will be pretty much everyone's focus from now until game time.  The NFL was smart enough to spread Super Bowl Week out a little by moving the NFL Honors to Thursday night a few years ago, which was also good for me because it gave me the opportunity to spread out my Super Bowl-related posts.

One of the things that takes place at the NFL Honors every year is the announcement of the new Pro Football Hall of Fame class.  They changed the number of honorees in the Senior and Coach/Contributor categories again, so there are now four finalists in addition to the five Modern Era candidates who'll be voted in.  Technically, it's a maximum of nine new Hall of Famers, but, who are we kidding?  Once they get to that point, there's no chance they're not getting in!

While there's no sure-fire first-ballot name on the list, I do think both of the first-year candidates will get in.  I feel more confident about Antonio Gates than Julius Peppers, but I do think Peppers will get enough support in the room.  He was also better than both Dwight Freeney and Jared Allen, so, if they only want to go one defensive end, that's the way I think they'll go.

But it's also a realistic possibility that neither one will get in.  Neither screams "first-ballot Hall of Famer" the way Larry Fitzgerald and those three quarterbacks (Ben Roethlisberger, Drew Brees, Tom Brady) will in a few years.  For some voters, that's an important distinction reserved for the absolute best of the best.  Which is why I can just as easily see neither one getting in.  Or both getting in.  Or one and not the other.  

So, really, I have absolutely no idea who'll get in!  There are a lot of players who've been waiting a while, so this could be one of those "clean up" years where they get some of those deserving names off the board.  I especially hope they do that with the wide receivers.  Reggie Wayne, Torry Holt and Andre Johnson have all been finalists together three years in a row.  I think one of the reasons for that is because the voters can't decide between the three!  (Last year, they all made the cut from 15 to 10, but didn't from 10 to 5, most likely because they split votes.)  Well, they're eventually gonna have to decide.  Unless they want to keep all three in finalist purgatory.  Or put them all in together.  Because Larry Fitzgerald's coming down the pipeline in two years, and he was better than all of them!

Making things harder is the fact that 10 of the 15 finalists have made it this far at least twice.  At least half of them are guaranteed to wait at least another year.  Seven have been finalists three or more years in a row.  At least two of them will wait another year.  I've long thought that the Hall of Fame classes should be more than five, but that's a conversation for a different day.  As it is, here are the five Modern Era candidates who'd get my vote...

Antonio Gates, Tight End (2003-18 Chargers): Most people know the story by now.  After playing basketball in college and going undrafted, Gates went on to become one of the best tight ends in NFL history.  An eight-time Pro Bowler and six-time All-Pro, he's the all-time leader among tight ends with 116 career TD catches.  He's also the Chargers' all-time leader in receptions (955) and receiving yards (11,841).  Gates was named to the NFL All-Decade Team for the 2000s and helped usher in the generation of pass-catching tight ends that followed.

Devin Hester, Kick Returner/Wide Receiver (2006-13 Bears, 2014-15 Falcons, 2016 Ravens, 2016 Seahawks): For years, I campaigned for Ray Guy using the same argument.  "Punter is a position!"  Well, so is kick returner (as much as the NFL is trying to eliminate it).  And Devin Hester was the best ever to do it.  He returned the opening kickoff of Super Bowl XLI for a touchdown, the only time in history that has occurred.  Hester's 20 career return touchdowns (including 14 on punt returns) are an NFL record.  He was named to the All-Decade Team for both the 2000s and 2010s, and was chosen as one of two return men on the NFL 100 All-Time Team.  Kick returner is a position.  Devin Hester belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Julius Peppers, Defensive End (2002-09 Panthers, 2010-13 Bears, 2014-16 Packers, 2017-18 Panthers): Just like Gates, Peppers played basketball in college.  He actually played in a Final Four with North Carolina.  Unlike Gates, Peppers also played football in college, and he was the No. 2 pick in the 2002 Draft.  He was named Defensive Rookie of the Year that season, and Peppers would go on to be selected to both the 2000s and 2010s All-Decade Teams.  He's fourth all-time in sacks (159.5) and second in forced fumbles (52).  Beyond that, Peppers is the only player in NFL history with 100 sacks and 10 interceptions.

Reggie Wayne, Wide Receiver (2001-14 Colts): We're on Year 5 of Reggie Wayne being a Hall of Fame finalist.  Again, I think the issue is the voters can't separate the three of them, but he deserves to get the call before Torry Holt and Andre Johnson.  His partner-in-crime, Marvin Harrison is already a Hall of Famer.  So is his quarterback, Peyton Manning.  While Harrison got most of the attention, Wayne was just as good.  He recorded 1,000 receiving yards eight different times, including 1,510 in 2007.  Wayne is second to Harrison on the Colts' all-time list in most receiving categories, and he's one of just 14 players in NFL history with 1,000 career catches.

Patrick Willis, Linebacker (2007-14 49ers): Maybe it's because he only played eight years, but it seems like Patrick Willis is underappreciated for how good his career actually was.  Because he was GREAT during those eight seasons!  Willis started all 112 games of his career, was the Defensive Rookie of the Year in 2007 and was a First Team All-Pro five times (and Second Team All-Pro once).  He played in seven straight Pro Bowls, was on the NFL All-Decade Team for the 2010s, and helped the 49ers reach Super Bowl XLVII in 2012.

As for the remaining finalists, there are three Seniors and one Coach/Contributor who'll also be considered.  Once they reach this point, it's highly unlikely they don't get in, so let's just assume they're all a "Yes."  Which means joining those five in the Pro Football Hall of Fame Class of 2024 will be...

Randy Gradishar, Linebacker (1974-83 Broncos): In 1977, led by their "Orange Crush" defense, the Broncos made it all the way to Super Bowl XII.  Gradishar, the best player on that defense, was then named Defensive Player of the Year in 1978.  He never missed a game, playing in 151 over his 11-year career.  He also had 20 interceptions.  When he retired, Gradishar's 2,049 career tackles were the NFL record.  A Modern Era finalist multiple times, he's long overdue to finally get the call.

Steve McMichael, Defensive Tackle (1980 Patriots, 1981-93 Bears, 1994 Packers): Slowly but surely, more and more members of that dominant 1985 Bears defense are making their way to Canton.  McMichael will be the fourth, joining Mike Singletary and fellow defensive linemen Dan Hampton and Richard Dent.  He was a force, too, being named All-Pro four consecutive times from 1985-88 and recording 95 career sacks in 227 games over 15 seasons.

Art Powell, Wide Receiver (1959 Eagles, 1960-62 NY Titans, 1963-66 Raiders, 1967 Bills, 1968 Vikings): Much like Ken Riley last year, I'm not that familiar with Art Powell.  He spent most of his career in the AFL, playing seven of his nine career seasons with the New York Titans, Raiders and Bills.  He was All-AFL in six of those seasons.  After two years in Canada, Powell played for the Eagles in 1959 before joining the Titans in the AFL's inaugural season, when he ended up leading the league with 14 touchdowns.  He finished with 81 career touchdowns and was named to the AFL All-Time Team.

Buddy Parker, Coach (1949 Cardinals, 1951-56 Lions, 1957-64 Steelers): It's ironic that in a season when the Lions came as close to the Super Bowl as they ever have in franchise history, the coach of their 1950s dynasty is a finalist for the Hall of Fame.  Just thinking of the Lions as a "dynasty" is kinda crazy.  But under Buddy Parker, they were.  He was Detroit's head coach for six seasons, won two NFL titles and lost a third Championship Game.  He also laid the groundwork for their most recent championship team in 1957 before abruptly resigning before the season started to take the Steelers job.  Parker would go on to coach in Pittsburgh for nearly a decade.

My (World) Cup Runneth Over

When the North American bid for the 2026 World Cup was presented to FIFA, the proposed venue for the final was MetLife Stadium.  Then, everyone became convinced the final would be held anywhere else.  The most popular rumor was that it was headed to Dallas.  Well, as it turns out, that's all they were.  Rumors.  Because the World Cup Final is being held in the exact stadium that was proposed six years ago.

Obviously, I'm biased towards New York, but the fact that Dallas was even being seriously considered for the final was just nonsensical to me.  Sure, it had its advantages.  Jerry's World can fit 110,000 people and has a roof, which would've been incredibly valuable for a mid-afternoon kickoff in Texas in July.  But it wouldn't have been the sexiest choice.  And it's not New York, which is a point I kept coming back to.

No offense to Dallas, but when people think of cities in the United States, only two come to mind.  And Dallas ain't one of 'em!  The only logical places that would make sense to international visitors were New York and Los Angeles.  The 1994 World Cup Final was at the Rose Bowl, but kickoff was at noon local time, which obviously is not ideal.  Which leaves New York, where a 3 p.m. Eastern kickoff is 8:00 in Western Europe.  (Yes, it'll be hot in an open-air stadium on a Sunday afternoon in mid-July.  I understand that.)

The other big advantage that New York had over Dallas is obvious.  That's where all the international flights land!  New York, obviously, isn't the only destination for trans-Atlantic flights, but it's certainly a more convenient option than Dallas would've been.  And you can bet there were plenty of UEFA higher-ups who were sure to let FIFA know their preference!

Dallas was, however, given the most games.  There will be nine games played at Jerry's World, including a semifinal on July 14.  The other semi is in Atlanta, a city that absolutely deserves it with how they've embraced their MLS team.  (Atlanta will also host the opening game of Copa America this summer.)  It's one of eight games in Atlanta.  Miami, meanwhile, got the bronze-medal contest as one of its seven games.

As for LA, they've had a very interesting journey when it comes to the 2026 World Cup.  There was a point when LA was going to be pulled as a venue because the field at SoFi Stadium isn't wide enough and Rams owner Stan Kroenke didn't want to widen it to meet FIFA's specifications, with Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas mentioned as the possible replacement.  All that eventually got resolved, though, and LA didn't just remain a host...it got two Team USA games, including the first game played in the U.S.

That, to me, is appropriate.  As I mentioned, the first two cities that come to mind when you think of the United States are New York and Los Angeles.  So, if the final's in New York, it makes sense that the opening game's in LA.  You've also gotta love the symmetry of LA hosting the final in 1994, then the first USA game in 2026.  It's not the opening game of the entire tournament, though.  That's at Azteca.

With Mexico and Canada also co-hosting, it was widely expected that Azteca would get to host the opener.  Which was absolutely the right call!  The home of Mexican soccer is one of only two stadiums in the world (along with Maracana in Rio de Janeiro) to have hosted two World Cup Finals.  Now it will be the first to host three World Cup openers.  (And, the best part is, the U.S. won't have to play there!)

Canada's first game is in Toronto before they head west to Vancouver.  That'll be the only time teams have to cross regions during the early stages of the tournament.  Canada enjoys a huge home field advantage at BMO Field, which, ironically, didn't host any games during the 2015 Women's World Cup since the city was hosting the Pan Am Games.  That final was held in Vancouver instead, so it's only fitting that both Canadian venues get to see the home team.

Mexico and Canada will both play all three of their group games at home.  Assuming they advance, their round of 32 games will presumably be at home, as well.  There are also round of 16 games in Mexico City and Vancouver, so they could theoretically each play five home games before having to cross the border.  In total, Mexico and Canada will host 13 games each.  They were originally each supposed to get 10, but that number was obviously gonna increase when FIFA added 40 more games to the schedule!

They also took a page out of Qatar's book and won't assign games to individual stadiums until after the draw is made.  All we know right now is the days when each stadium will have a game.  They also very smartly organized the games by region, which will make travel much easier for the teams and their fans.  Teams will either play all their games out West, in the Central Region, or in the East (they originally had Atlanta in the Central for some reason, then realized it made more sense for Atlanta to be with Miami in the East).  The only exception is Canada and their first opponent traveling from Toronto to Vancouver after the first game.

Teams that finish first or second in their group won't have to do much traveling in the knockout stage, either.  That's one of the reasons why it took so long to finalize and announce the schedule, but it makes sense that they took their time and considered all of these factors.  At the 1994 World Cup, teams were zigzagging across the U.S. throughout the entire tournament, and it took its toll.  This time, the teams that play in that L.A. quarterfinal will play their first six games on the West Coast, and some teams in the East Region may not have to change time zones at all!

In fact, taking a closer look, I noticed that the 16 cities are grouped into eight sets of partners towards the end of the group phase.  That'll cut down on travel even more.  Those simultaneous final group games that FIFA loves (and were the reason for the format change from 16 groups of 3 to 12 groups of 4) will be in LA/San Francisco, Seattle/Vancouver, Mexico City/Monterrey, Guadalajara/Houston, Dallas/Kansas City, New York/Philadelphia and Toronto/Boston.

Once they get to the knockout phase, there's one thing that I was really hoping they'd do, and I'm so glad they did it!  There's a game in Philadelphia on the Fourth of July!  With July falling on a Saturday in 2026, you knew there would be at least one knockout game played that day.  And, really, if you're playing a World Cup game in the U.S. on the country's 250th birthday, where else could it be?  (Citizens Bank Park has also never hosted the MLB All*Star Game.  They've been waiting until 2026 for the same reason.)

This will be the biggest World Cup in history.  The first with 48 teams.  The first with a round of 32.  And, the 104 games are more than twice as many as when the United States hosted in 1994 (the last 24-team tournament).  It will also be the longest, at five and a half weeks.  The opening game at Azteca is on June 11, while the final at MetLife (sorry, New York New Jersey) Stadium is on July 17.  (If MLB is smart, they'll wait until July 19 for the 2026 All*Star Game so it's not on the same night as a World Cup semifinal.)

It'll obviously be a while until we know the other 45 teams that'll be playing in the 2026 World Cup.  Qualifying only just started and the final qualifying tournament isn't until November 2025.  But we at least now when where and when the games are.  So, now the excitement can really begin!

4 Nations Face-Off

During his All*Star Game press conference, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman officially announced something that's been in the works for several weeks is indeed happening.  And it's welcome news that hockey fans everywhere have been waiting for.  The NHL will be returning to the Olympics!  The league has reached an agreement with the NHLPA, IOC and IIHF for NHL players to participate in the 2026 and 2030 Games (and probably 2034, as well, since those Winter Olympics will likely be in Salt Lake City).

The Milan Cortina Games will mark the first time in 12 years that the NHL will be taking an Olympic break.  After playing in five straight Olympics from 1998-2014, the NHL sat out the PyeongChang Games in 2018.  They were originally planning on going to Beijing in 2022, but ended up having to pull out because so many games were postponed because of COVID and they needed the Olympic break to make them up.  As a result, there's a whole generation of NHL stars who've never represented their country in a best-on-best international competition.

It really didn't sit well when the league opted against going in 2018.  Especially since it was clear that everybody except for the owners wanted to see the NHL players in the Olympics.  The players wanted it.  The fans wanted it.  The IOC and IIHF wanted it.  Unfortunately, the owners were the only ones who had decision-making power.  It was such an important issue to the players, however, that they included it in the most recent CBA.  When they didn't go in 2022, people understood.  But it only made the desire to finally see it again that much greater.

Everyone wants to see Connor McDavid and Cale Makar playing for Team Canada against Auston Matthews and Jack Hughes on Team USA, but it hasn't happened yet.  In 2026, it finally will.  Actually, scratch that.  It'll happen for the first time next year.  Because Bettman also announced the 4 Nations Face-Off between the United States, Canada, Sweden and Finland that will replace the All*Star Game next year.

Ultimately, the NHL would like to go have an international tournament every two years, with the World Cup of Hockey between Olympics.  However, they don't want to have another World Cup without Russia, which is currently suspended by the IIHF.  So, don't expect the next World Cup of Hockey until Russia's suspension is lifted.

Instead, we'll get a four-team event involving only NHL players from four top hockey-playing nations.  It'll be held in mid-February (the same timeframe as the 2026 Olympics) and replace the All*Star Game next season.  They'll play a round-robin tournament in two NHL cities (I've heard Montreal and Boston), with the top two teams meeting each other again for the championship. 

If we can't have a full international tournament (and the reason why is understandable), this is the next-best thing.  And I think Sweden and Finland were the right choices as the other two participating teams.  Along with Russia, they're the European countries that are most represented in the NHL, Finland is the defending Olympic gold medalist, and Sweden is traditionally strong at both the World Championships and Olympics.  Not to mention the Swedish talent in the NHL!

There are obviously plenty of great NHL players who aren't American, Canadian, Swedish or Finnish (or Russian).  And it'll be a bummer not to see guys like Leon Draisaitl (Germany) or David Pastrnak (Czech Republic/Czechia), but just think about how great that'll make the Olympic tournament in 2026!  Especially if the Russians are allowed to play (seriously, how would anyone score against Russia when they'll have their choice of Andrei Vasilevskiy, Igor Shesterkin and Sergey Bobrovsky in goal!?).

Although, just taking a look at the player pool for the four nations that will be participating, you can tell just how stacked these rosters will be!  There will be some legit NHL all-stars who don't make the team! For all four countries!  And, with the amount of talent that'll be on display, it's seriously impossible to pick a favorite!

Only players under contract and on an NHL roster as of Dec. 2, 2024 will be eligible for this tournament, and you know that making the team will be one of the primary goals for a lot of players entering next season.  Each country will name a six-player preliminary roster over the summer, and there are others who you can confidently say will be there unless an injury prevents it.  But, with the number of quality options available to all four countries, who ultimately ends up on the 23-player squads will be a subject for debate from now until the actual rosters are announced.

That also makes it very hard to make a mock roster, since there are only a handful of obvious guys and some players who'd be on the team today might not ultimately make it.  But, I'm giving it a shot based on the current NHL rosters anyway.  Here's who I'd select for each of the four teams (I did choose a few players who are currently injured, assuming they'd be good to go a year from now)...

UNITED STATES
Goalies: Thatcher Demko, Connor Hellebuyck, Jake Oettinger
Defensemen: John Carlson, Justin Faulk, Adam Fox, Quinn Hughes, Seth Jones, Charlie McAvoy, Zach Werenski
Forwards: Matty Beniers, Brock Boeser, Kyle Connor, Alex DeBrincat, Jack Eichel, Johnny Gaudreau, Jack Hughes, Clayton Keller, Chris Kreider, Dylan Larkin, Auston Matthews, J.T. Miller, Matthew Tkachuk

CANADA
Goalies: Martin Jones, Darcy Kuemper, Stuart Skinner
Defensemen: Calvin de Haan, Drew Doughty, Aaron Ekblad, Cale Makar, Alex Pietrangelo, Morgan Rielly, Shea Theodore
Forwards: Mathew Barzal, Connor Bedard, Jamie Benn, Sidney Crosby, Bo Horvat, Jordan Kyrou, Nathan MacKinnon, Mitch Marner, Connor McDavid, Brayden Point, Jason Robertson, Nick Suzuki, John Tavares

FINLAND
Goalies: Joonas Korpisalo, Antti Raanta, Juuse Saros
Defensemen: Jani Hakanpaa, Miro Heiskanen, Esa Lindell, Olli Maatta, Rasmus Ristolainen, Urho Vaakanainen, Juuso Valimaki
Forwards: Sebastian Aho (CAR), Aleksander Barkov, Mikael Granlund, Roope Hintz, Kaapo Kakko, Kasperi Kapanen, Jesperi Kotkaniemi, Patrik Laine, Artturi Lehkonen, Anton Lundell, Mikko Rantanen, Teuvo Teravainen, Eeli Tolvanen

SWEDEN
Goalies: Anton Forsberg, Jacob Markstrom, Linus Ullmark
Defensemen: Rasmus Dahlin, Mattias Ekholm, Oliver Ekman-Larsson, Victor Hedman, Erik Karlsson, Nils Lundkvist, Rasmus Sandin
Forwards: Viktor Arvidsson, Nicklas Backstrom, Joel Eriksson Ek, Filip Forsberg, Mattias Janmark, William Karlsson, Gabriel Landeskog, Elias Lindholm, William Nylander, Fredrik Olofsson, Gustav Nyquist, Elias Pettersson, Mika Zibanejad

Seriously, look at those potential teams!  While Hellebuyck is your clear starter, I'd take any of the three American goalies.  Canada's full of goal scorers, and Sweden's defense is ridiculous!  Would you really want to count out that Finnish team, though?  Like I said, there's no possible way to choose a favorite.  Which is one of the things that'll make this 4 Nations Face-Off so much fun!  And that'll just be the warmup for the NHL's Olympic return in 2026.