A Whole New World

College sports were forever changed once NIL legislation was passed and went into effect, allowing athletes to cash in on their personal brand.  Now we're even seeing star high school athletes making millions in endorsements and other promotional opportunities before they even enroll in college.  Well, as it turns out, that was just the tip of the iceberg.

Almost as soon as this new era in college sports dawned, schools began creating NIL "collectives," which are basically a recruiting tool that ensures them a certain amount in NIL dollars will head their way if they choose that program...but only if they choose that program.  Recruiting turned into an arms race to see who can offer the best NIL deal, and it drove coaches like Nick Saban out of the game.  These collectives were established because boosters wanted to make sure the program doesn't lose out on top recruits, but NCAA rules prohibit student-athletes being directly compensated by their school.

Or, I should say, NCAA rules used to prohibit student-athletes from being paid directly.  Not anymore.  If the NIL opened the door a crack, it's suddenly been swung wide open.  Because last week, the NCAA reached a landmark $2.8 billion settlement that resolved three pending lawsuits and paved the way for schools to share revenue with student-athletes.  Once approved by the judge overseeing the case, schools will, for the first time, be able to directly pay their student-athletes.

Needless to say, this agreement completely changes college sports as we know them.  Athletic Departments will suddenly need to find room in their budgets to pay their student-athletes.  Division I schools will be allowed (but not required) to set aside up to $20 million of their sports revenue to share with the players.  It would be up to the schools how to divide it, but you'd have to figure it would disproportionately go to football and basketball players.  You'd also have to figure it would disproportionately go to Power 5 schools, furthering the financial gap between them and other Division I members.

The settlement also provides compensation for the nearly 25,000 former college athletes who were represented by the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit, which paved the way for what has been called a "new world."  The $2.8 billion settled that antitrust suit and will effectively give those athletes backpay for revenue they've already foregone.  While the distribution is one of the things that needs to be worked out over the next several months, the damages will be paid out to athletes in three different categories: Power 5 football & men's basketball, Power 5 women's basketball, everybody else).

Had the suit gone to trial, it's very possible the NCAA would've lost and had to pay out much more in compensation.  The NCAA hasn't been faring well in court over the past few years and, despite repeatedly asking for some sort of federal guidelines or standards, has gotten no help from Congress on the legislative front.  So, seeing the writing on the wall, they settled.

Naturally, not everybody is happy about the settlement.  Schools in the Power 4 conferences will figure it out.  The SEC and Big Ten are both starting their new TV contracts next season, which will bring them even more revenue, even after carving out a chunk to give to the student-athletes.  I'd imagine the other College Football Playoff conferences and leagues like the Big East will also have no issue coming up with the money while also having enough to keep their Athletic Departments afloat.  They don't really have a choice in the matter, and they've already managed to do it with the NIL collectives, so this really shouldn't be much different.

What about the schools that aren't in the Power 4 or have CFP football programs, though?  How will they keep up?  These are schools and conferences that are already operating on a fraction of the budget those larger schools have.  That's why they play guarantee games!  Just like there was no way around letting athletes benefit from the NIL, there's no way for them to avoid directly compensating players.  But will they be able to afford it?

You'd also have to figure there will be Title IX implications.  Schools are required to have proportional scholarship and participation opportunities for men and women, as well as equal funding.  Will the same rules apply when it comes to athlete compensation?  I doubt they'd be able to get away with paying just football and basketball players, but does that mean everyone who's on scholarship also receives a salary?  What about those who aren't on scholarship?  And what's the percentage?

While all of those questions still need to be answered, the conferences are taking a proactive approach on how to move forward.  The SEC and Big Ten have come together to form a joint advisory group to address the "significant challenges" facing college sports.  The group will have no administrative authority and will only serve as a consulting body, but the goal behind it is clear and important.  College sports are changing like never before and the schools/conferences want to make sure they have an active role in what happens.

There's been rampant speculation for a while that the Power 4 conferences will eventually split off into a separate division.  Even the NCAA President has suggested it's a possibility.  He was speaking about it more for football governance purposes, but, considering the recent developments, it seems more than ever like it would be a wise and prudent decision.  I can easily see Division I being separated into one group for the larger schools that can afford to pay their student-athletes and another for those who can't.

Make no mistake, this is nothing short than the professionalization of college athletics.  Some might argue that's a good thing.  But no one will dispute the fact that it'll forever change the model.  Especially now that the transfer rules are also being completely blown up.

That's the latest major change coming to college athletics.  A federal judge has ruled that the NCAA's transfer rules requiring an athlete to sit out for a season whenever they change schools constitute an "unfair restriction of trade."  As a result, student-athletes will be able to transfer schools whenever they want without penalty.  In effect, they're allowed to essentially become free agents every year.  If you thought the transfer portal was out of control before, just imagine what'll happen now!

We already knew that we'd see a massive shift next season with the Power 5 becoming the Power 4.  As it turns out, the supersized conferences will just be the start.  College sports are changing like never before.  The 2024-25 season will be the start of a new era.  In more ways than one.

Negro Leagues A Part of History

Despite being 93 years old and not having played in a Major League game since 1973, Willie Mays got 10 hits on Tuesday.  How, you ask?  Because Mays got 10 hits for the Birmingham Black Barons in 1948, and those have been added to his career total, giving him 3,293.  

Those 10 extra hits are the result of MLB's 2020 decision that the Negro Leagues would be recognized as "Major" Leagues and those stats would be added to the Major League record books.  In total, seven different leagues that played between 1920-48 were given that distinction.  Now, after nearly four years of research, those Negro League statistics have been incorporated and the Major League record books look a whole lot different.

Perhaps the most significant change is at the top of the all-time batting average list.  Ty Cobb's legendary .367 career average has been the standard for a century.  It no longer is.  Josh Gibson's .372 mark is now the record (and likely will remain so).  The Top 10 now includes five Negro Leaguers, in fact, as Hall of Famers Oscar Charleston (3rd), Jud Wilson (5th), Turkey Stearns (6th) and Buck Leonard (8th) have also been added.  (Shoeless Joe Jackson's name it notably absent despite his .356 career average, which would place him fifth on the updated list.  Not sure if it's because of his lifetime ban or not because Pete Rose is still listed.)

Gibson has actually jumped to the top of the all-time list in several different categories.  His .718 slugging percentage and 1.177 OPS are also the new career standards.  Gibson's .459 on base percentage, meanwhile, is now the third-best all-time.  Known as the "Black Babe Ruth," Gibson is estimated to have hit 800 home runs.  However, not all of those were in official games that can be verified, so his career total (which is subject to change) is officially 174.

That's actually why it took so long (nearly four years) for the Negro League stats to be added in.  They very meticulously went through box scores, tracked down incomplete information, double-checked repeat names and nicknames, and so much more in order to get as accurate a picture as possible of the Negro Leagues from 1920-48.  It's estimated that what they have is about 75 percent complete, so it's possible, if not likely, that there will be further adjustments as more box scores are found, verified and added to the totals.

Incomplete information was the biggest challenge that came with such a massive undertaking.  Another is the inconsistency in the length of Negro League seasons.  There wasn't a standard like the 162-game (or, in those days 154-game) MLB schedule.  Teams played seasons of varying lengths, and many paid their bills by playing barnstorming exhibition games (which don't count for their career totals).  In general, Negro League seasons seemed to average around 60 games, though, so that's the standard they went with in calculating single-season qualifiers.  And, MLB played a 60-game schedule in 2020 because of COVID, so there's already a precedent for using that number.

They also wisely applied the same minimums to Negro League seasons as they do in the Majors.  Players must have 3.1 plate appearances or one inning pitched per team game in order to qualify.  In MLB, those are "hard" standards of 502 plate appearances and 162 innings.  For the Negro Leagues, that's a minimum of 186 plate appearances and 60 innings, but those aren't "hard" numbers since they depend on the number of official games a team played, which were different from team to team and even from season to season.

However, as a result of playing so many fewer games, the Negro League players are nowhere near the top in any of the all-time counting totals.  Also because of the shorter seasons, the benchmarks for career totals had to be adjusted.  For MLB players, it's 5,000 at-bats and 1,620 innings, which is roughly 10 years of meeting the 162-game minimums.  For Negro League players, they based it on 10 years of a 60-game schedule--1,800 at-bats and 600 innings.

For the same reason, Negro League players aren't near the top on the single-season list in stats like home runs, RBIs and hits.  Much like the career batting average list, though, the single-season batting average list has dramatically changed.  The new Major League record is Gibson's absurd .466 in 1943.  Rogers Hornsby's equally ridiculous .424 average in 1924, which was the highest in the 20th Century until Tuesday, is now 10th!

On the pitching side, Satchel Paige is the most famous name to have played in the Negro Leagues.  He had a 1.01 ERA for the Kansas City Monarchs in 1944.  That now qualifies as the third-best for a single season in history.  Paige's career totals, meanwhile, no longer include just his time with the Indians and Browns.  His career record is now 125-82, and his career ERA of 2.74 is among the Top 50 all-time.

When MLB announced that the Negro Leagues would be recognized as "Major" leagues and those totals would be integrated into the record books, the decision was met with universal acclaim.  It was both a long time coming and long overdue.  It's an acknowledgement that the baseball played in the Negro Leagues was on par, if not better than, the baseball played in the American and National Leagues at that time.  Now that the record books have been combined into one, we have further proof of that.

It also righted a historical wrong.  That's probably the biggest reason why this initiative was so important.  It's not the Negro Leagues players' fault that they weren't allowed to play in the American or National League.  They certainly had the talent for it, as the newly-updated Major League record book indicates.

Whether it was intentional or not, it's fitting that the first wave of this project was completed only a few weeks before the Cardinals face the Giants in MLB's tribute to the Negro Leagues.  The game will be played on June 20 (one day after Juneteenth) at Rickwood Field, which opened in 1910 and is the oldest professional ballpark.  More significantly, it was the home of the Birmingham Black Barons, where a teenage Willie Mays began his professional career and got those first 10 hits.

Of the more than 2,300 Negro League players who've been added to MLB's database, Mays is one of just three who's still alive (along with Bill Greason and Ron Teasley).  The game at Rickwood Field won't just celebrate the living legend, though.  It will celebrate all of those 2,300 Negro League players.  Scratch that.  All of those 2,300 Major League players.

Indy's Big Weekend

The focus of the sports world always turns to Indianapolis on Memorial Day Weekend.  This year, Memorial Day Weekend is even bigger than usual.  The Pacers are in the Eastern Conference Finals, and their home games are Saturday and Monday.  Sunday was wisely kept open.  Because everyone's attention, as it has nearly every year since 1911, will be on the Brickyard on Sunday.

Well, the Brickyard, then Charlotte for NASCAR's Coca-Cola 600.  It's been a decade since Kyle Busch was the last driver to attempt "Double Duty," racing all 1,100 miles at both races in the same day.  Jimmie Johnson has raced both since then, but he didn't enter the Indy 500 until after his NASCAR career was over.  This year, though, Kyle Larson will make the attempt.  He even skipped part of the NASCAR All*Star Race last weekend so that he could complete the Indy qualifiers.  Which turned out to be a smart move.  Because he qualified fifth.

Larson is one of six rookies in the field, but the only one who'll be in the front of the field.  The others are in Rows 6, 8 & 9.  So, while it might be a stretch to say Larson is a contender for the milk (he wouldn't have time to do the celebration and still get to Charlotte in time anyway), it does seem realistic that he can carry on the trend of NASCAR drivers winning Indy 500 Rookie of the Year honors.  And, really, finishing is the primary goal.  He can't complete all 1,100 miles if he doesn't finish all 200 laps at Indy.

Should he pull off the win, though, Larson would become the first rookie to kiss the yard of bricks since Alexander Rossi in 2016.  Rossi, coincidentally, will be starting alongside Larson in Row 2.  There are also a pair of former Indy 500 champions in the front row--2018 winner Will Power and defending champion Josef Newgarden.  The pole sitter, meanwhile, is Scott McLaughlin, who'll be driving that historic No. 3 Chevrolet, looking to give team owner Roger Penske (who owns the track, as well) another Indianapolis 500 victory.

Helio Castroneves used to drive the No. 3, winning three of his four Indy 500s in the car.  Castroneves has also finished second three times and has 16 career Top 10 finishes.  Simply put, he's one of the greatest drivers in the history of the Indianapolis 500.  He can really solidify that status by becoming the first five-time winner.  However, Helio is no longer a full-time IndyCar driver.  The Indy 500 is the only race on his 2024 schedule, in fact.  But still, the guy is magic at the Brickyard, so can you ever really count him out?

Starting next to Castroneves is another former champion--Scott Dixon.  Dixon's been having a great season.  He already has a win and is currently third in the driver standings.  He's never started this far back in the Indy 500 field, though.  Will he be able to get past all that traffic in front of him?  He usually starts near the front, so we've never seen him have to try.

This season's points leader is Alex Palou, who I think is somebody we should very much be on the lookout for.  He finished second (barely) in 2021, then started on the pole before placing fourth last year.  Despite the fact that he'll be starting in the middle of the field (14th), I really think this might be Palou's year.  I won't go so far as to pick him as the winner.  I do expect him to lead a few laps and be in the mix at the end, though.  And I do think he will eventually win an Indy 500.

So, if not Palou, who do I think can win his first Indy 500 this year?  Well, McLaughlin is starting on the pole, so he can't be discounted.  I also have a feeling about Felix Rosenqvist.  Outside of a fourth-place showing in 2022, he hasn't found much success at the Brickyard on race day.  Some of that has just been bad luck, though.  He's qualified in the "Fast 12" three years in a row, so you know his car is fast leading up to the race.  If everything goes his way, why not Rosenqvist?

Like Rosenqvist, Rinus VeeKay has been great in qualifying throughout his Indy 500 career, but it's never translated to the race itself.  This is the first time he's starting outside the first two rows (on the inside of Row 3), but only twice placed in the Top 10.  For Pato O'Ward, it's been the opposite.  He finished sixth, fourth and second in his first three races before falling to 24th last year.  If he keeps up that trajectory, it sure seems like that win is inevitable.

Then there's Santino Ferrucci.  He's raced at Indy five times.  He's finished in the Top 10 every time.  Last year, he started fourth and finished third.  This year, he's starting sixth.  Expect him to run in front all afternoon and be in the mix at the end.  I'm actually tempted to take Ferrucci for the win.

All of those drivers I just mentioned are in their 20s.  There's definitely been a youth movement in IndyCar, with this new generation rising to the top while champions from not too long ago are either retired (Tony Kanaan, Dario Franchitti) or running part-time schedules (Castroneves, Takuma Sato).

That new generation also includes the offspring of Indy 500 champions.  Graham Rahal and Marco Andretti are Indy 500 veterans by this point, although neither has been able to follow in his father's footsteps by kissing the yard of bricks.  I doubt that changes this year.  Emerson Fittipaldi's grandson, Pietro, meanwhile, returns to Indy for the first time since 2021.  He, too, seems unlikely to pull off the victory.

So, now that I've gone through pretty much everybody I think won't win, who do I think will?  I'm actually tempted to say it'll be somebody new like Palou, but I think he's starting too far back.  Instead, I think a former champion will win the race for a second time.  Newgarden has a good chance to become the first back-to-back winner in more than 20 years.  Instead, I'm going with the former winner who'll be starting right next to Newgarden in the middle of Row 1.  Will Power has had a string of bad luck at Indy since winning in 2018, but when he starts in the front, he usually runs well.  And that's why I'm giving him the nod to capture his second Indy 500 title.

Or will someone else make history?  One of the things that people say about Indy is the track decides who wins.  It's hyperbole, obviously, but there's also been enough crazy stuff to happen late in races to understand why people believe it.  The track has let Will Power win before.  The track will let him win again.

Rafa Says Au Revoir to Roland Garros

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody that I'm a Roger guy.  Always have been, always will be.  And because I'm a Roger guy, I was never a Rafa guy.  Yes, I know they're friends in real life and members of a mutual admiration society, but it took me a long time to come around on Nadal.  Even though I eventually stopped calling him "Clay Boy," I never really did.  I was a Rafa guy.  I couldn't like Rafa.

With the benefit of age, however, I grew to respect Nadal more.  Every great champion needs a rival, and the Big Three Era of Roger, Rafa and Novak is something that has never been seen before and will likely never be seen again.  The reason they're 1, 2 & 3 in all-time Grand Slam wins is because they kept pushing each other.  They each had to keep improving to stay ahead of the other two.

Age and injuries eventually caught up to Federer, and now they've done the same to Nadal.  He had previously announced that he's likely going to retire after this season, so, barring a surprise selection to the Spanish Olympic team, this year's French Open will be his final appearance on the red clay of Roland Garros--a place where he's won an incredible 14 times!  So, in many ways, this year's French Open will be all about Rafael Nadal's farewell, much like the 2022 US Open was all about Serena Williams' farewell.  As it should be!

Unfortunately, it looks like Rafa may be saying "au revoir" fairly soon.  His first-round match is against Alexander Zverev, which is actually apropos.  Because Zverev and Nadal were engaged in a battle in the 2022 semifinals when Zverev suffered a gruesome ankle injury that knocked him out for the rest of the year.  Zverev easily could've won that match.  Instead Nadal cruised to his 14th French Open title, which was his then-record 22nd Grand Slam trophy.  He hasn't won one since and, if not for Zverev's injury, might not have won that one, either.

Even if he does beat Zverev (who's been to the semifinals here three years in a row), it seems highly unlikely Nadal's body will allow him to win seven matches on clay in a two-week span.  Especially since he and Zverev aren't the only heavyweights on that side of the draw.  It also features defending champion Novak Djokovic, back-to-back finalist Casper Ruud, Holger Rune and Daniil Medvedev.

On the bottom half of the draw, there's another blast from the past matchup between the only other men to win multiple Slams during the Big Three Era.  This might also be the final French Open for Andy Murray and/or Stan Wawrinka.  One will end the other's tournament.  The other may very well have to deal with Australian Open champion Jannik Sinner, whose run in Melbourne was extremely impressive!

Sinner's just one of a number of contenders on the men's side.  In fact, this is the first time in recent memory where we go into the French Open without a clear men's favorite.  And they all have a legitimate reason to think so, as each of the European clay-court tune-up tournaments has had a different winner--none of whom are named Djokovic (who hasn't even made a final this year) or Nadal.

There is one name who stands above the rest, though.  Carlos Alcaraz.  When he burst onto the scene in 2021, it was pretty clear Alcaraz was the next big thing in men's tennis.  He's already won a US Open and a Wimbledon.  He's already been No. 1 in the world.  Clay is his best surface.  I can think of no other way for Nadal to go out than for the French Open men's champion torch to be passed to the Spanish star of the next generation.  Alcaraz wins the first of what should be many Coupes des Mousquetaires. 

While there's no clear favorite among the men, there very much is among the women.  Iga Swiatek has won three of the last four French Opens.  She's 28-2 career at Roland Garros, including a 25-1 record since 2020.  Her only loss in that span came to Maria Sakkari in the 2021 quarterfinals.  It would be a shock if Swiatek doesn't make it three straight and four in five years.

Of course, Swiatek isn't the only player in the women's field.  She isn't even the only former French Open champion on the top half of the draw.  After Swiatek lost in the quarters, Barbora Krejcikova won that 2021 title.  They could end up meeting each other in the round of 16 this year.  Jelena Ostapenko, meanwhile, was the French Open champion in 2017.  She hasn't made it to the second week here since, but is a top 10 player who's actually playing some of the best tennis of her career.

Coco Gauff made the final here two years ago and got her butt kicked by Swiatek.  Now she's ranked third in the world and a Grand Slam champion, having won the 2023 US Open.  Could a deep run be in the cards for her?  Or how about Ons Jabeur, a three-time Grand Slam finalist who made the quarters at Roland Garros for the first time in 2023?  And Marketa Vondrousova is a former French Open finalist who's seeded fifth.  She could be Swiatek's biggest challenge.

The French Open often produces a random women's finalist (or two random finalists).  I can absolutely see that happening again.  Because, behind Swiatek, this field is wide open.  That's especially true when I look at the bottom half of the draw, where I see multiple potential finalists, but I also see those same women potentially getting bitten by the upset bug early in the tournament.

People seem to forget how wildly consistent Aryna Sabalenka is.  She's made it to at least the semifinals of all six Grand Slam tournaments she's played since she was prohibited from entering Wimbledon in 2022 due to the ban on Belarusian players.  Elena Rybakina, who had to withdraw before her third round match last year, has won three titles in 2024, including a clay court warm-up tournament in Stuttgart.  And don't count out Maria Sakkari.  Or Sorana Cirstea.  Or Madison Keys.

Still, though, it all comes down to Swiatek.  If she's on her game, she'll be tough, if not impossible, to beat.  She's No. 1 in the world and the favorite for a reason.  Which isn't to say I don't think somebody like a Sabalenka or a Rybakina or a Gauff can beat her, because they absolutely can.  I just think they need a lot to go right and/or have something go majorly wrong for Swiatek.

There's also an intriguing side competition at this year's French Open worth keeping an eye on.  This is the final tournament in the Olympic qualifying period.  The rankings following the French Open will be used to determine the Olympic field.  Countries can only enter a maximum of four singles players, though.  And there are some tight races for the fourth spot from some nations.  So, if players want to return to Roland Garros two months from now for the Olympic tournament, they know that a run at the French Open is the best way to solidify their chance.

Even with all of this other stuff going on, this French Open is about one thing and one thing only.  If this is, indeed, "au revoir" to Roland Garros for Rafael Nadal, what a legacy he's left!  For the first time in forever, Nadal isn't the favorite.  It's doubtful he'll go far.  So, let's just enjoy this final ride, then, after he's eliminated, focus on the rest of the 2024 tournament.  It's taken me long enough to say it, but Rafa deserves every bit of the adulation he'll receive at Roland Garros as he says farewell.

Football Down Under

This season, the NFL will play its first-ever game in Brazil.  Next season, there will be a game in Madrid.  The next stop to be added to the slate of international games?  Looks like it might be Australia.  And it could be as soon as 2025.

Don't forget, in 2025, the number of international games goes from four to eight.  The Jaguars will continue to have their annual game in London (which doesn't even count as one of the four), and the other two games in London likely aren't going anywhere, either.  Then, even after you throw in Germany and Spain, that's still three more.  Mexico City will be back in the rotation soon enough, but probably not until 2026 since Estadio Azteca is still undergoing renovations for the World Cup.  So, it makes sense that Australia is the next market the NFL will want to tap into.

Melbourne appears to be the frontrunner to land the game, and discussions have already taken place between the NFL and the Melbourne Cricket Ground.  All of that seems to indicate Melbourne is all but a done deal.  All that's left is to dot the I's and cross the T's.  As well as, of course, deciding on the teams.  The Eagles and Rams both have international rights in Australia, so they'd seem to make the most sense.  But, with the Eagles already playing in Brazil this season, do you have the Rams go to Australia?

Two other key details that would need to be figured out involve when the game would be played!  Both the date and the time.  The AFL Grand Final, the championship game of the Australian Football League is at the end of September, so you'd figure it would have to be after that.  Which likely means October or even early November, which is the Aussie Spring.

Figuring out the date is actually the easy part.  Figuring out the time is a totally different challenge.  Melbourne is 14 hours ahead of the East Coast of the United States...17 hours ahead of the West Coast.  It's not as easy as scheduling the games in Europe, which is only five hours ahead and gave the NFL a totally new broadcast window at 9:30 on Sunday mornings!  That wouldn't work in Australia, where 9 AM is midnight.

The way I see it, there's only one real viable option that makes sense for both the Australian and U.S. time zones.  You play on Monday afternoon/Sunday night as that week's Sunday Night Football game.  Or, it could be on Tuesday afternoon/Monday night.  Friday afternoon/Thursday night isn't really a viable possibility since that would require traveling to Australia on a short week...unless both teams were coming off their bye.

That's another factor that needs to be considered.  Teams returning from Europe don't necessarily have their bye the following week anymore.  And the Packers-Eagles game in Brazil is in Week 1, so they obviously won't get a bye after it.  With Australia, though, they'd have to.  It's simply too great a distance and too much of a time difference to expect them to play again the next week.  So, they'd either have to get their bye before playing a Friday afternoon/Thursday night game, which would give them the long week to recover before playing again on Sunday, or have their bye immediately after playing in Australia.

Personally, I think the second option would be better.  The NFL can easily pick two teams that would be an attractive Sunday Night Football matchup, guarantee it won't be flexed out (obviously), then take the whole operation Down Under that week.  It would be a marquee game played in the middle of the season at a unique location.  Just imagine how much NBC and the NFL would play that up!  Seems like the best possible scenario.

Since the Rams already have territorial rights in Australia and it's "only" 8,000 miles from Los Angeles to Melbourne, they'd seem to be the logical choice as the home team.  The Rams are certainly an attractive enough team in their own right to warrant a Sunday night selection, and their 2025 schedule has a few matchups that would definitely work.  It seems unlikely they'd play a Rams-49ers game overseas, but they also host the Texans, Bucs and an NFC North opponent.  If that's either the Packers or Lions, that could be your choice right there.

Australia isn't the only place being considered as a site for a future NFL international game.  Dublin hosted Notre Dame-Navy last season and is on the NFL's shortlist.  That one seems like a no-brainer.  Whether it's for 2025 or later on, Dublin will almost certainly be added to the NFL's list eventually.  Especially since Dublin was the only other location specifically mentioned as having already been visited by the NFL.

Where are some of the other places the NFL might consider?  Well, you'd have to figure they'll look to further increase their presence in Europe.  Rome and Milan seem like possibilities in Italy, and the idea of a game at the Stade de France seems like too much to resist!  Likewise, once upon a time, the Barcelona Dragons and Amsterdam Admirals were two of the more successful teams in NFL Europe.  So, it's not hard to imagine playing a regular season NFL game in either of those two cities (although, Barcelona would have to wait until the renovations at Camp Nou are complete).

And, while the NFL doesn't seem too focused on Asia right now, you've gotta figure that'll change eventually.  They look all set to go to Australia, which has very similar logistical issues as Asia.  So, if the Australia game goes well, Asia would seem to be not too far around the corner.  Tokyo's got a shiny, quasi-brand new Olympic Stadium.  China's got a billion people.  And there are a lot of American servicemen in Korea, which could make Seoul a very attractive option.

Regardless of where they go, the NFL will undoubtedly add new cities and countries to its slate of international games.  That was the entire point of doubling it from four to eight games a season and requiring every team to "host" one at least once every four seasons.  So, the NFL international games aren't going away (as if anyone thought they would).  We're getting more, as the NFL continues to expand its reach into new overseas markets.

Brazil this year, Spain next year, Australia after that.  Where else in the future?  Who knows?!  The possibilities really are endless.

Two Signature Shows Signing Off

All TV shows come to an end.  There are exceptions, of course.  The news, for example, will never not be on, and, I'm not entirely sure how, but it sure seems like Grey's Anatomy, NCIS and Law & Order will be on until the end of time.  But, for the most part, all TV shows come to an end.  That includes signature sports shows (except for maybe SportsCenter, which has been on every night in ESPN's 40-plus year existence).  Even good signature shows.

Another show that's been on the air since Day 1 at its network is NFL Total Access.  The first episode of NFL Total Access aired the day NFL Network launched in 2003.  The final episode aired on Friday, leaving Good Morning Football as NFL Network's new signature program.

This development most likely came about because the NFL is actively trying to sell a majority stake in NFL Network, so they're trying to cut costs.  That's already reflected in NFL Network's program schedule, which is now mainly just game replays and the NFL Films library.  Original programming isn't disappearing completely.  They're moving production to Los Angeles and will still have on-air personalities.  Just not as many.

As a result of the cost-cutting measures, NFL Total Access met the ax.  Whether it will be revived in the future is up in the air, and it wouldn't surprise me if some sort of replacement program that's shocking similar just with a different name ends up on NFL Network once the move to LA is complete.  But for now, NFL Total Access is no more.

Other shows are cancelled simply because the network that they air on lost the rights to that particular sport.  That's what happened with the original NFL Primetime, which aired on ESPN before the Sunday night game before NBC got the rights to Sunday Night Football.  NFL Primetime was revived as a streaming show on ESPN+ a few years ago, but will never come close to the original.

Speaking of Chris Berman-hosted programs, ESPN also used to have a nightly version of Baseball Tonight.  The screaming cartoon baseball before the clips of the day's home runs at the end of the show was the best!  Baseball Tonight is still technically on the air...as the Sunday Night Baseball pregame show.  That's it.  Once a week for an hour.  Fortunately, you can still get your nightly highlights fix from MLB Network's MLB Tonight and Quick Pitch.

Likewise, as great as the NHL On NBC's studio show was, it was pretty obvious it wouldn't continue once NBC's hockey contract went to ESPN and TNT instead.  Then NBCSN was shuttered entirely and all of their hockey talent moved on to the new rightsholders.  Although, TNT's NHL studio show, which is essentially the NHL On NBC's replacement, is amazing!

TNT's other signature program, Inside the NBA, has long been the gold standard among studio shows.  Inside the NBA has been a staple of TNT's coverage ever since the network started covering the NBA in 1989-90 and has won an incredible 18 Sports Emmys.  It's the perfect blend of highlights, analysis and the ridiculousness that is Shaquille O'Neal, Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith.

Unfortunately, it looks like the final game of this season's Western Conference Finals will also mark the end of Inside the NBA.  While not official, it looks like it's a done deal that Turner will be losing its NBA rights to NBC next season.  All three analysts have opt-outs in their contracts, so it appears likely Chuck, Shaq and Kenny will either head to NBC and join their NBA studio show or go to ESPN and become another panelist on the Stephen A. Smith Show.  Sorry, I mean NBA Countdown.  Or maybe one of them moves to Amazon, which will also evidently become an NBA rights holder next season.

What's a bummer about that, aside from the sheer quality of Inside the NBA, is it would also likely mean we no longer get Charles Barkley & Kenny Smith in the studio during the NCAA Tournament.  Seriously, the highlight of March Madness every year is watching Chuck act like he's been watching both of the 16-seeds playing each other in the First Four all season when, in reality, he's most likely never heard of either school before!  Then, as the tournament progresses, how he becomes the biggest fan of the 13-seed that made the Sweet 16.

I'm sure that NBC will have its own NBA pre/postgame show, which will effectively be the Inside the NBA replacement.  Whether it's anywhere near as good as TNT's NHL studio show, it'll clearly be no Inside the NBA.  I can say with some confidence that it'll be better than ESPN's NBA Countdown (aka. The Stephen A. Smith Show), though.  And the loss of Inside the NBA will create a definite void.

When/if TNT regains NBA rights once the upcoming NBC/ESPN/Amazon deal ends, I'm sure one of their first orders of business will be the revive Inside the NBA.  Will it be the same, though?  We've seen that with every iteration of The NFL Today, none of which has ever come anywhere close to the magic of the original!  (They won't be making any documentaries about the Phil Simms/Boomer Esiason version.)

Or maybe TNT won't ever get NBA rights back and Inside the NBA will be relegated to sports TV history alongside other great programs like This Week In Baseball.  That's a fate Inside the NFL has so far been able to escape, although the quality of that show has gone down with each successive network.  It was excellent and groundbreaking on HBO, still decent on Showtime, then moved to streaming on Paramount+.  Now it's on The CW and terrible.  A shell of its former self.

So, maybe the end of Inside the NBA will be for the best, then.  Because its success is something that can never be replicated (even if the show is one day revived).  And, since that's the case, we should just celebrate Inside the NBA's place in history.  As one of the best sports studio shows ever.

More On the NFL Schedule

Yesterday, I took a look at the NFL schedule as a whole and made some general observations.  Some good, some bad, some just random, but mostly focused on individual teams.  Today, I'm gonna look at it week-by-week, all the way from Week 1 and its plethora of national games up to the all-division Week 18 to start 2025.

Week 1: Playoff rematches all around.  The AFC Championship Game rematch in the Thursday night season-opener, with Lions-Rams on Sunday night.  And we already knew about the Friday night Packers-Eagles game in Brazil.  The Sunday afternoon slate is pretty weak.  Jacksonville-Miami is probably the best game in the 1:00 window, while Cowboys-Browns isn't a great national game, but it's the national game nonetheless.

Week 2: Thursday Night Football officially kicks off with Bills-Dolphins in Miami.  Last season, it was the final game of the season with the division at stake, so I'm surprised they put it this early.  Cincinnati-Kansas City is also incredibly early.  That's the national doubleheader game on CBS.  And the Lions just seem to be repeating their playoff schedule since they host the Bucs a week after hosting the Rams.  Chicago-Houston is the Sunday night game for some reason.

Week 3: They stay in the AFC East on Thursday night, as the Patriots visit the Jets.  This is also the first week with two separate Monday night games.  Jaguars-Bills is on ESPN, Commanders-Bengals is on ABC.  Personally, I think it should be the other way around.  Baltimore-Dallas is a pretty good national game in the late window.

Week 4: In Week 4, we've got another Monday night split.  Tennessee-Miami is on ESPN, Seattle-Detroit on ABC.  That's three home games, two of them nationally televised, for the Lions.  They were last season's darlings, and all of this early exposure indicates the NFL is high on their chances to do it again.  The previous team that America adopted, the Bills, will also get the spotlight on Sunday night in Baltimore.  I'm also very intrigued by that Chiefs-Chargers game, as the Super Bowl and College Football Playoff-winning coaches square off for the first time in Jim Harbaugh's return to the NFL.

Week 5: Jets-Vikings gets the London slate started on the first of those four-game Sundays.  The Giants are a late game on the same network as the national game, which means I've got them against the Seahawks instead of Packers-Rams.  Ravens-Bengals will probably be the most widely-distributed early game, while Cowboys-Steelers wraps it up on Sunday night.  If you still need more after that, Saints-Chiefs is the Monday night game.

Week 6: Last season, Detroit-Dallas had that controversial finish in the Week 17 "Monday" night game (that was played on a Saturday because of the Sugar Bowl).  This season, they meet early, which was a bit of a surprise to me.  I would've figured they make it the Thursday night game the week after Thanksgiving.  Both New York teams are playing home primetime games, the Giants on Sunday, the Jets on Monday.

Week 7: Our Super Bowl rematch is nationally exclusive.  As it should be!  Frankly, I'm shocked they gave it to FOX instead of putting it in primetime.  This is also a double-Monday night week with a twist.  Instead of getting one of the London games like last year, the ESPN+ exclusive is a second Monday night game this season.  Baltimore-Tampa Bay on regular ESPN, with Chargers-Cardinals only available via streaming.

Week 8: As I noted yesterday, Jerry Jones evidently campaigned for the Cowboys' game in San Francisco to be Week 1 Sunday night.  Instead, they held it for midseason.  Still on Sunday night, though.  There's also a matchup between the top two picks in the Draft when Chicago visits Washington.  And Baltimore visits Cleveland, which I bring up only because of how good the AFC North was last year and figures to be again.  Which makes all of those division games incredibly important.

Week 9: There is one good thing about an 18-week season.  Week 9 is the official midpoint not some random game midway through Week 8.  Anyway, the best Week 9 offering this season is Lions at Packers.  Last season, Green Bay's playoff run pretty much started with a win in Detroit on Thanksgiving.  The Lions should be the NFC North favorites again, but the Packers could definitely challenge them, especially if they get the head-to-head win.  It's also round 2 of Dolphins-Bills, so the AFC East could be essentially decided very early.

Week 10: Giants-Panthers in Munich concludes the international slate.  Cincinnati-Baltimore gets the week started on Thursday night.  The NFL clearly took Al Michaels' frustration about how bad the Amazon games were in that first season to heart.  Because this year's Thursday night schedule has some good ones, like that one.  Eagles-Cowboys is the national doubleheader game, but on CBS, not FOX.

Week 11: Philadelphia then immediately turns around and plays four days later in Washington.  There's also a Battle of Texas to conclude the week.  The best game, though, is the national late game on CBS.  Chiefs-Bills.  It's developed into a full-fledged rivalry, even though it's been incredibly one-sided.  Last year, the Bills won the regular season game, only for Kansas City to win in Buffalo in the Divisional Playoffs.

Week 12: It's usually a pretty good slate the weekend before Thanksgiving, and this season is no exception.  It starts with the Steelers-Browns rivalry and ends with the first Harbowl in 12 years.  The Bengals have their bye, so, unfortunately, not the entire AFC North will be featured nationally.  There's also a yummy playoff rematch between the 49ers and Packers in Green Bay, while the Eagles visit the Rams on Sunday night.  So, like MetLife, SoFi will also have a back-to-back Sunday night-Monday night this season.

Week 13: Thanksgiving weekend, which means six games in national windows.  Of the 10 that are not, a few are particularly enticing.  Eagles-Ravens gets the full national treatment at 4:30, while Texans-Jaguars and Steelers-Bengals are both early games.  That Rams-Saints game in New Orleans could have some potential, too.  The NFC South appears to be wide open, and I can definitely see the Saints being the team in that division that makes a run.

Week 14: Six teams have a bye in Week 14.  I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous!  All byes should be done by Thanksgiving.  Teams shouldn't have to wait until December to get theirs.  Anyway, I get my Chargers-Chiefs primetime game, while Round 2 of Packers-Lions gets it underway.  The Jets will also make a rare Sunday afternoon appearance when they visit Miami.

Week 15: With the Lions playing the Bills at home and having the CBS Thanksgiving game this year, I was certain that would be the matchup.  But they gave Detroit a division game on Thanksgiving instead and have Buffalo wrapping up a three-game homestand.  The Lions' schedule is very interesting.  They play three of their first four at home, then have a three-game homestand starting on Thanksgiving.  That's six of their nine home games in a seven-week period, with a lot of road games during the eight weeks in between.

Week 16: In order to play on Christmas, a Wednesday, they had to schedule two games on Saturday, much to the chagrin of those who'll want to watch the College Football Playoff first-round games that day.  Frankly, there was no way to avoid it this year.  What they do moving forward will be interesting, however.  The entire AFC North plays each other on either Thursday (Browns-Bengals) or Saturday (Steelers-Ravens), while the Lions visit the Bears.  Something that was noted on one of the NFL blogs is that both Detroit and Pittsburgh play all six of their division games from Week 11 onwards.  What's even crazier is that it wasn't deliberate!

Week 17: Because they had to predetermine the Week 16 Saturday games, NFL Network's Saturday tripleheader gets pushed back a week.  My (extremely) early guess is that Denver-Cincinnati will get the primetime spot, Falcons-Commanders starts the day (because no one will care), and Cardinals-Rams in the middle.  Of the already-scheduled games, we've got Cowboys at Eagles, Lions at 49ers and Jets at Bills.  Should be some good late-season matchups.

Week 18: And, of course, we wrap it up with all divisional matchups on the first weekend of the New Year.  My spidey sense is telling me that the AFC North won't be settled yet, so I'm tabbing Browns-Ravens and Bengals-Steelers as the ESPN Saturday doubleheader.  As for Game 272 on Sunday Night Football, let's go with Saints-Bucs, with Dolphins-Jets as the dark horse candidate.

Making the NFL schedule is a difficult process that requires many drafts, many reviews and input from way too many interested parties.  It goes without saying that with so many hands in the cookie jar, somebody's bound to be unhappy.  Which plenty of teams are.  Others, meanwhile, love it.  I fall squarely in the middle.  I realize it's not easy, but I'm often left confused by the final product.  This is definitely one of those years where I'm confused.  Way too many questionable primetime choices and way too many weeks with not enough marquee games.  It's not like I could do better, though, even if I tried.

17 Games, 10 Networks

In news that surprised absolutely no one, Netflix has secured the rights to the NFL's Christmas games for the next three seasons (I thought it was already part of the TV contract that FOX had Christmas rights, but apparently not anymore).  With Netflix added to the fold, there are now 10 different NFL rightsholders--6 TV networks (CBS, FOX, NBC, ESPN, ABC, NFL Network) and 4 streamers (Amazon Prime, Peacock, ESPN+, Netflix).  And that doesn't even count NFL Sunday Ticket or NFL Red Zone.  It's a good thing that they're required to make games available on over-the-air TV in local markets.  Because it's becoming harder and harder to find all of a team's games!

It'll really be hard for fans of the Kansas City Chiefs to keep track.  The Chiefs won't just play on six different networks, they'll have a game on every day of the week except for Tuesday!  In addition to the traditional Super Bowl champion Thursday night opener (and another Thursday night game), they've got two Monday night games, they're playing on Black Friday against the Raiders, and they have a Saturday game against the Texans before they face the Steelers on Christmas (a Wednesday).  (They will also actually play on Sunday 10 times.)

The NFL is also doubling down on the Jets primetime games even after what happened last year.  They'll try the "Aaron Rodgers opens the season on Monday night" thing again in San Francisco.  And somebody's got a really sick sense of humor because their home game against the Bills is also a Monday night game again.  They've also got two Thursday nights, two Sunday nights and a London game against the Vikings...all before their Week 12 bye.

Dallas usually gets the back-to-back Thursdays with the Thursday night game the week after Thanksgiving, but this year it's the Lions who will.  Detroit will host the Bears and Packers in those two games.  They also get the Sunday night opener in a playoff rematch against their old quarterback Matthew Stafford and the Rams.  The last Monday night game of the season, meanwhile, is an NFC Championship Game rematch in San Francisco on Dec. 30.

Jerry Jones reportedly asked the NFL to make the Cowboys-49ers game the Week 1 Sunday night game.  Well, it's not.  It's a Sunday night game, but it's in Week 8.  Instead, Dallas will begin the season in Cleveland in what will be Tom Brady's first game as FOX's lead analyst.  An interesting choice to say the least.  Speaking of interesting choices, they gave them the Giants on Thanksgiving.  The Bears are the Lions' opponent, so they obviously don't particularly care that both the Giants and Bears sucked last season.

Chicago has, in my opinion, way too many primetime games for a team that wasn't very good last year and probably won't be again.  I'd have to imagine that one of the reasons why is because of quarterback Caleb Williams, who they took No. 1 overall in the Draft.  The Commanders and Patriots also took QB's with the No. 2 and 3 picks, and the Bears play both Washington and New England in a three-week span.

What I find odd is that the Packers, a team that's always a huge national draw, have all of their primetime games backloaded.  After they open the season against the Eagles in Brazil on a Friday night, they have 10 consecutive Sunday afternoon kickoffs.  Then, starting on Thanksgiving, they have four straight national games--back-to-back Thursday nights, a Sunday night in Seattle, a Monday night at home against New Orleans.  Which means if the Packers aren't very good and end up getting flexed out of those games, we won't see them in primetime much at all.

Jacksonville's back-to-back London games seem to be a regular thing now.  They're the visiting team against the Bears (another national game for Chicago) before "hosting" New England a week later.  I must say, if Jaguars want to keep doing that, it makes sense.  Let them stay out there for two weeks, and one of the London road teams is already locked in.  The Germany game, meanwhile, is Giants-Panthers.

When they announced the Wednesday Christmas games, that meant those teams would have to play on Saturday.  It's the same four teams, just with the matchups flipped.  It's Texans-Chiefs and Steelers-Ravens, then Texans-Ravens and Steelers-Chiefs.  What's funny about that is how Houston didn't have a game that wasn't a Sunday at 1:00 kickoff until Week 18 last season, and now they're getting guaranteed back-to-back late season national games (one on a holiday).  This in addition to a Week 2 Sunday night game (why is Bears-Texans the Week 2 Sunday night game, BTW?).

That Saturday date was interesting for two reasons.  The first is because Week 16 is typically when the NFL does that NFL Network tripleheader.  The second is because the expanded College Football Playoff will be playing its first-round games that day.  Well, they're going head-to-head with the CFP, but giving them the Saturday night window.  The NFL Network Saturday tripleheader, meanwhile, got pushed back a week to Week 17.

Speaking of college football, Jim Harbaugh left Michigan after leading the Wolverines to the national title for a return to the NFL ranks with the Chargers.  I thought they might make them the Chiefs' opponent on opening night, but they went with Baltimore, which is coached by Jim's brother, John.  They haven't faced off since Super Bowl XLVII 12 years ago, when John's Ravens beat Jim's 49ers.  Well, guess who they've got the Chargers playing on a Monday night three days before Thanksgiving.

Another rematch worth circling on the calendar is the Super Bowl LVIII rematch between the Chiefs and 49ers in San Francisco.  Surprisingly, it's not in primetime.  They gave it to FOX as "America's Game of the Week" in the late window on Oct. 20.  The 49ers' home games against Dallas, Detroit, the Rams and the Jets are all in primetime, as well as games in Buffalo and Seattle.  Two of those are Thursday night games, too, making San Francisco one of the few teams with multiple short weeks.

One of the articles I saw after the schedule was officially released made a good point about the good teams.  Because the NFL understandably wants to showcase them, they end up with more games in national windows than other teams.  However, because there are becoming more and more national windows, the good teams end up playing crazy schedules with multiple short weeks and multiple primetime appearances.  It's not even remotely consistent.  They aren't complaining about it because there isn't really much they can do, but it can definitely create a competitive disadvantage, especially when there's long travel involved (or if you're playing a team coming off a bye week multiple times).

Those are just some of my initial thoughts about the 2024 NFL schedule, with more to come in my next post after I get a chance to look at it more closely.  I will say, though, the NFL Schedule Release show is getting dumber and dumber.  The NFL itself announces a bunch of games ahead of time, then the individual schedules inevitably trickle out one by one before the show even airs.  Then the show is just three hours of talking.  They don't even actually unveil the schedule!  I know the NFL loves to eventize everything and it's an event.  But the show itself is a colossal waste of time!

Players Fighting Back

Domestic league seasons in European soccer end within the next few weeks, followed by the Champions League Final (Borussia Dortmund vs. Real Madrid) the first weekend in June, followed by the simultaneous Euro and Copa America, which will run until mid-July.  Then the preseason international tours start, leading into the start of next season at the end of August (with an Olympic soccer tournament mixed in).  If that sounds like a lot of soccer, it is.  So much soccer, in fact, that the players are finally taking a stand.

Next year, FIFA is launching the expanded Club World Cup, which will now be held every four years in the summer before the World Cup.  The 32-team event will be hosted by the World Cup host and used as a test event.  A 32-team tournament takes a month to complete, though, so it'll be just as long as the major international tournaments between national teams already on the schedule every other year.  So, players on top club teams (who, let's face it, are some of the best players in the world), could end up having a summer-long tournament in addition to their full league season (and Champions League) three years in a row if their team qualifies for the Club World Cup!

In order to make room for the expanded Club World Cup, the existing Club World Cup has been renamed the Intercontinental Cup.  That tournament between the champions of the six continental federations will continue to be held in December (during the winter break for the European leagues).  Since it's only six teams and single-elimination, with a ladder system where the UEFA Champions League winner gets a bye into the final, no one has a problem with the Intercontinental Cup (which is also seen as a bit of a reward since only continental champions are invited).  The expanded Club World Cup, however, that's a different story.

At issue for the players--and rightfully so--is the increased number of matches they're required to play in these new, bigger events.  It takes a toll on their bodies and they don't have the proper amount of time to recover.  Yet FIFA doesn't care.  As long as the money's there (and we all know it is), they'll keep adding tournaments (and adding matches), resulting in the players' schedules becoming even more overloaded in the future.  (UEFA is also increasing the number of guaranteed matches, and adding a block of matchdays, in the Champions League and Europa League next season.)

Meanwhile, the players' injury concerns are legitimate.  There was a report that came out last year in which 43 percent of players at the 2022 World Cup who were surveyed said that they experienced "extreme or increased mental fatigue."  It's not just mentally, either.  In the same survey, 53 percent of players said they either became injured or were more likely to be injured due to the schedule overload.

That, naturally, has spilled over into their club seasons.  Last season, there were nearly 700 injuries in the English Premier League.  A majority of those were classified as "soft tissue injuries" (sprains, strains, muscle tears, etc.).  And I'm sure there were probably a number of injuries that weren't reported, as well.  And trying to play through an injury, of course, means diminished performance and the risk of making it worse.

FIFPRO, the global players' union for soccer, produced an extensive report detailing its concerns with FIFA's ever-expanding calendar, citing things like the injury risks.  Their biggest issue is how they feel FIFA unilaterally makes these decisions and how it's "inherently abusive" to keep adding matches to the schedule, leaving the players with little choice but to comply.  They even threatened possible legal action if FIFA continues to ignore them.

What the players seem to want isn't even necessarily a reduction in the number of games and tournaments.  They simply want to be involved in the conversation.  That's really the issue at hand, and it's one they were hoping would be addressed at this week's FIFA Congress in Bangkok, where representatives of all 211 national federations will be in attendance.

They're also unhappy about the timing of the expanded Club World Cup, which is scheduled to begin just six months after the Intercontinental Cup concludes.  That means six teams will have two global club tournaments in addition to their league season, domestic championship and continental competition all running simultaneously.  And that's just the club teams!  It doesn't even include National team commitments for friendlies and World Cup qualifying!  

It's not like any of these top players can sit out any of these competitions, either, so some of them could end up playing upwards of 70 games for club and country over the course of a season.  In that same report, FIFPRO compared the number of minutes played by today's players with those for a past from the same nation at the same age.  The results were shocking!  Kylian Mbappe has played 48 percent more minutes than Thierry Henry at the same age, and that's just one example!  And you'd have to figure that it won't just result in burnout, it'll lead to retirement at a younger age because of the toll so much high-level soccer takes.

On Friday, one day after FIFPRO sent its letter, FIFA issued its response.  They vehemently denied "imposing" the 2025 Club World Cup match schedule on players and rejected the suggestion that there was no consultation with FIFPRO before the decision to expand the tournament was made.  (Although, let's be honest, what else were they gonna say?)  FIFA even took it a step further and said that it was "like any other competition organizer" with regards to setting up and running an event, seemingly a shot at the domestic leagues that arrange their own summer tournaments.  (It basically asked why those tournaments are OK and the Club World Cup isn't.)

While it may seem like the expanded Club World Cup is the players' problem, it's not.  It was just the tip of the iceberg.  The last straw that made the players snap and finally speak out against it.  Because they're the ones who have to play in the games and tournaments that FIFA keeps adding to the international soccer calendar.  And, while "oversaturation" isn't the right word because there's definitely an appetite for these events, it'll reach the point soon if it hasn't already where they're asking too much of the players.

So, what's the answer?  That's what the players would like to sit down with FIFA and figure out.  FIFA's argument is a valid one.  The more tournaments, the more revenue, which is then distributed to grow the game.  But the players have a point, too.  They need time off just to get a mental and physical break, but the offseason gets shorter and shorter with every new event.

With the expanded Club World Cup (which, let's face it, isn't going anywhere), top players will be asked to play a major summer tournament three years in a row (Euro/Copa America, Club World Cup, World Cup), in addition to all of their other club responsibilities.  It's too much.  The players know it, and now they've made sure to let FIFA know it, too.

The New Normal

There's no denying that college sports have been forever changed because of the NIL laws and the transfer portal.  That's especially true for coaches, who not only need to completely change the way they recruit, but they also need to build an entirely new team every year.  While he didn't say it directly, it's why Nick Saban retired.  And he's not the only coach who isn't feeling this new era.

This isn't the first time college football and basketball coaches have had to adjust the way they go about recruiting.  In 2006, the NBA declared high schoolers ineligible for the Draft, leading to the one-and-done era.  During the one-and-done era, NBA prospects signed with colleges knowing they'd only stay for a year, so coaches would try to maximize that year before doing it all again the next season.

John Calipari was the master of the one-and-done at Kentucky.  He brought in multiple five-star recruits every year and it somehow worked!  Kentucky went to the Elite Eight or further seven times in 10 years, including four Final Fours in five years, one National Championship Game loss and the 2012 National title with Anthony Davis and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist.  Calipari had at least one first-round pick every year he was at Kentucky, and most of them are one-and-dones who've turned into NBA stars.

Calipari didn't have the same level of success in his final few seasons at Kentucky, which coincided with the start of the transfer portal era and how coaches began using that as their method for building their teams.  Suddenly, the blue-chip freshmen weren't the recipe for instant success.  Instead, it became guys who played a year or two at another program, but were looking for a change (for whatever reason).  And the advantage of using the transfer portal, of course, is that you'd be getting experienced veterans instead of freshmen.

Probably the biggest coaching change of this offseason was Calipari's decision to leave Kentucky after 15 years for Arkansas.  And, with this new era of the transfer portal and NIL in mind, he's thinking of changing his recruiting style completely with the Razorbacks.  He won't stack his rosters with blue-chip recruits (who'll probably be much harder to lure to Fayetteville, Arkansas to begin with).  In fact, Calipari may not be stacking his rosters with many players at all.

On the most recent edition of his "Ways to Win" podcast with former Oregon State Head Coach Craig Robinson, Calipari mentioned what his new approach might be.  "You may think I'm crazy," he said, "but I told my staff I only want to have eight or nine guys.  They're leaving anyway, and why would I develop a kid for someone else?  Why would I do that?"

With his first roster at Arkansas, that's exactly what Calipari will be doing.  He's already added seven players, one of whom is Boogie Fland, who had previously committed to play for Calipari at Kentucky.  That's no different than what other coaches who've changed jobs have done (Rick Pitino, for example, took about four guys with him from Iona to St. John's).  So, basically, he's just taking advantage of the system that exists now.

I applaud him for saying the quiet part out loud.  It was totally different when it was freshmen he knew were going to the NBA after one season.  He knew the deal.  He'd spend a year developing them for the professional game while also using them to help his team win.  But Calipari's got a point about the transfer portal.  Why spend all that time and effort recruiting and developing a player, only for him to transfer to another program and become your competition?

That doesn't mean I don't think the idea is crazy, though.  Only having eight or nine players, no matter how good they are, doesn't seem like a recipe for success.  Especially if an injury or two comes into play.  We saw that this season with the TCU women, who had to forfeit two games, then hold open tryouts just to add some bodies because they were down to six healthy scholarship players, which isn't enough according to Big 12 rules.  Whether the SEC has the same rules or not, I don't know, but it's still the risk you run with a small roster.

For his part, Calipari doesn't seem too concerned about that.  He even brought up the fact that he once used a rotation of six at UMass.  And Geno Auriemma has traditionally used a short rotation with the UConn women's program.  So, it definitely can be done.  No one's saying it can't be.  But is it smart?  That's an entirely different question.

Men's basketball teams are allowed to carry a maximum of 13 scholarship players, although many teams don't use their full allotment.  They'll also have a walk-on or two to round out the roster.  That appears to be Calipari's plan.  He'll have his eight- or nine-man rotation while relying on non-scholarship players and graduate assistants as essentially a scout team in practice.  This isn't an entirely new idea.  It's something women's teams have done for quite a while.  (It's worth noting here that these "managers" or "practice players" for women's programs are often men.)

While women's teams using male practice players is an accepted practice, the idea of using graduate assistants seems far more questionable.  I'm not talking about graduate transfers who are members of the team using up their remaining college eligibility.  GA's would be members of the basketball staff, and there are NCAA rules regarding how many staff members are allowed to actively coach.  Playing is not coaching, but it's still a staff member participating in practice, which would likely be frowned upon, if not entirely against the rules.

During the conversation, Calipari said that he's talked to other coaches about it, and some of them have mentioned similar strategies.  Will it be as extreme as deliberately not using 4-5 scholarships per season and limiting yourself to a smaller roster (or, at least, a smaller rotation)?  I'd imagine probably not.  But I can definitely see teams trying to find a way to make the transfer portal era work for them the way Calipari did with the one-and-done era.

Coaches can't develop programs anymore.  Not in this new age of college basketball.  So, why not try something new and see if it works?  I think Calipari's idea is nuts, but if anyone's likely to try it, he is.  And if Arkansas does adopt this model and becomes a consistent winner using it, you can bet other programs will follow suit.

Cities and Their Colors

During the Utah Coyotes' (that's what I'm calling them until they have a name) welcome event at the Delta Center, owner Ryan Smith confirmed that the team will be called "Utah" and cobranded with the Jazz in some way, but won't share the Jazz's colors.  He said that he doesn't want to be "like Pittsburgh" where all the teams share the same colors.  I can see where he wants the hockey team to have its own identity, but I also like Pittsburgh's approach where all three teams are black & gold.  Pittsburgh is the most notable example, but it's far from the only city whose teams match.

Pittsburgh (Black & Gold): It wasn't always the case in Pittsburgh, either.  When the Penguins first started, they wore powder blue and royal blue.  They didn't change to black & gold until January 1980 so that they could match the Steelers and Pirates, who were both the reigning World Champions at the time, as well as the city flag.  Black & gold aren't just the colors of Pittsburgh's teams.  They're the colors of the city.

New York (Blue & Orange): Much like Pittsburgh's city flag is black & gold, New York's city flag is blue & orange.  The Knicks, Islanders and Mets all share the color scheme.  The Mets wear blue & orange simply because they combined the colors of the Dodgers (blue) & Giants (orange), but it certainly worked out.  And, no, the Islanders don't play in the city, but they have "New York" in their name, so they still count.  New York also has the three rhyming teams (Mets, Jets, Nets).

Toronto (Blue): This is probably the most famous example after Pittsburgh of a city's teams sharing colors.  The University of Toronto is the Varsity Blues, which is why the Argonauts and Maple Leafs adopted the color.  Then the Blue Jays came to town and made it three blue teams.  The Raptors and Toronto FC are the only outliers.  In Toronto FC's case, it was deliberate.  They intentionally chose red as their primary color because all of the other Toronto teams are blue.

Washington (Red, White & Blue): With Washington, it certainly makes sense to have most of their teams match the U.S. flag.  The Redskins/Commanders have, of course, been doing their burgundy & gold thing as long as they've been a franchise.  What's funny about the other teams, though, is that the Capitals and Bullets/Wizards both started with red, white & blue, then introduced new colors and a new logo, only to go back to red, white & blue.  The Mystics are also red, white & blue, while the Nationals obviously are, as well.  DC United is the only outlier with its red & black.

Los Angeles (Black & Silver): When the LA Kings were founded, they wore purple & gold to match the Lakers.  Then they switched to their now-familiar black & silver when they traded for Wayne Gretzky.  That's while the Raiders were still playing in LA, so they ended up matching them instead.  Of course, that's no longer the case, and all of LA's teams have their own unique color schemes (the Angels, in fact, wear red because the Dodgers wear blue).

Seattle (Navy): Both the Seahawks & Mariners have had different color schemes throughout their history, but they've both settled on a look that's primarily navy with a shade of green as an accent color.  Then the Kraken showed up and gave Seattle a third team whose primary color is navy.  Seattle has almost two completely different distinct looks, since the Storm and Sounders both wear green, and when/if the Sonics are revived, so will their green & gold color scheme.

Las Vegas (Black): Las Vegas has been a professional sports town for less than 10 years, but all three of its Major League teams have something in common.  They all wear black.  For the Golden Knights, it's black & gold.  For the Raiders, it's black & silver.  For the Aces, it's black & red.  Will the A's follow suit or stick with the green & gold that has become their familiar look?

Even if they don't share colors, cities show the connection between their teams in other ways.  The New York Football Giants were named after the New York Baseball Giants.  The Chicago Bears were named after the Chicago Cubs.  St. Louis had the baseball & football Cardinals for a while.  When the WNBA started, Sacramento already had the Kings, so the WNBA team was the Monarchs (and used the monarch butterfly as the basis for their logo).  Houston kept the space thing going with the Rockets, Astros and Comets.  Here are some others not involving defunct WNBA teams:

Dallas (Stars): Texas is the Lone Star State, so this one makes sense.  The Cowboys' star logo is one of the most iconic in sports, and with the Stars, it's obviously their name!  The Rangers used to prominently feature a star as part of their logo, but they've since been relegated to either side of "Texas."  The Mavericks and FC Dallas have both incorporated a star, as well.  Only the Wings haven't.

Buffalo (Buffaloes): There are only two Major League professional teams in Buffalo.  And both the Bills & Sabres have incorporated a buffalo into their logo from the start.  The Bills' logo is just a buffalo.  Even the Triple-A baseball team is the Bisons.

Baltimore (Birds): Much like Buffalo, Baltimore only has two Major League pro teams.  They're both named after birds.  Both make sense.  The oriole is Maryland's state bird, and the Ravens are named after the Edgar Allan Poe poem.  So, it's probably more coincidence than anything deliberate, but it's still a theme.

Atlanta (Birds): Baltimore isn't the city that's got a thing for birds.  At one point, three of Atlanta's four Major League teams were named after different types of birds (Falcons, Hawks, Thrashers).  Now it's down to just the Falcons and Hawks, plus the non-bird Braves and Dream, as well as one of the 85 soccer teams called "United."  Some are suggesting the NHL could go back to Atlanta with an expansion team, though, so maybe we'll get another bird if that happens.

In the grand scheme of things, that's not a lot of teams from the city that share the same theme (whether it be similar names or an identical color scheme).  But it's enough of a sample size to say that it's common enough.  So, if Smith wanted to use the Jazz's colors for the Coyotes, too, it wouldn't be the first time.  He doesn't want to be "like Pittsburgh," but Pittsburgh has that coherent brand tying its three teams together.  So, it certainly wouldn't be a bad idea if he did.

Flying High

Women's basketball has never been hotter.  Thanks to Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese, the NCAA Tournament has drawn record ratings in the last two years.  Now that they're in the WNBA, they're bringing their popularity with them, and the league is set for increased exposure.  And the WNBA seems ready for it!

Last year was the first time in WNBA history that teams were allowed to fly charter.  It was only for the second game of back-to-backs and during the playoffs, but it was still a major step after the league required its teams to fly commercial previously.  With flying commercial came all the pitfalls regular people endure while traveling.  It's certainly not the way professional athletes should be traveling.  And the WNBA players sure made their displeasure about it known.

Well, waiting in long security lines and spending hours at the airport during flight delays are a thing of the past.  The WNBA announced that starting this season, teams will be chartering to every road game (obviously going from New York to Connecticut or vice versa will be an exception).  It's a $50 million commitment over the next two seasons, an investment that's welcome and long overdue.

This is a huge step for the WNBA.  While Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese don't deserve all the credit, their presence in the league certainly doesn't hurt.  This was something a long time coming, though, and it seems likely it would've happened anyway.  It's something the WNBPA had been pushing for, and they're finally getting treated the way they should.  As professional athletes.

The players' concerns about flying commercial were legitimate, too.  It wasn't just having to go through the security lines and enduring the long travel days that come with flight delays.  It was the security concerns that come with traveling through the airport (Brittney Griner was repeatedly harassed last year), having to uncomfortably cram into regular airplane seats and having to get their own luggage and bring it to the bus themselves.  Certainly not ideal travel conditions, yet they were expected to perform at their best in a basketball game afterwards.

When the WNBA first started, flying commercial made sense and was practical.  It's expensive to charter a plane, and the fledgling league wasn't in a strong enough position financially to make that sort of investment.  As the WNBA grew, however, having the teams fly commercial made less and less sense.  In fact, it became more practical to charter.  And chartering is about to make the players' lives a lot easier.

Now they'll enjoy the same perks as NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB players.  They don't have to get to the airport hours early just to go through security anymore.  Instead, the bus will pull directly onto the tarmac and they'll walk right on the plane, then, once they land, it's right to the bus (or to their cars).  The time saved alone will be a massive improvement.  Not to mention the comfort that comes with flying on a charter plane.

You'd have to think having all of the teams charter will work wonders for the WNBA schedule, too.  They no longer need to schedule teams' road trips around flight availability.  More importantly, they won't need to deal with missed connections and/or long layovers.  A trip to play the Sun won't involve driving to Logan or JFK just to get a direct flight.  Now, they can fly from wherever directly into a regional airport near Hartford.

Details still have to be worked out.  All WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert said was that they would launch the charter program "as soon as we can get the planes in place."  What that means is unclear, but I'd imagine that, at the start, there won't necessarily be a dedicated plane for each team.  Rather, I'm expecting a fleet of 6-8 planes that all of the teams share, at least at first.  Could that lead to individual team planes eventually?  I think that's a worthwhile goal.

Regardless of how it works this season, it's a huge step for the WNBA.  And one that's incredibly welcomed by the players.  Nneka Ogwumike, the President of the WNBPA, called it "transformational" and credited the league for working with the players to get it done.  She released a lengthy statement praising the move that concludes with: "It's a great day for our league as a whole that we are able to get here and we're going to continue to grow and continue to build and continue to push for even better."

Other players acknowledged how much it'll improve recovery, but stressed safety as the most important reason why charter flights aren't just preferred, but necessary.  The WNBA's popularity was growing before Clark and Reese joined the league.  Players like Griner and Breanna Stewart draw crowds as they walk through airports, which was a security concern for everyone.  Not just the WNBA players, but the other travelers, too.  Then you throw in Clark, who was mobbed at the airport last week when the Fever traveled to Dallas for a preseason game.

Not coincidentally, the WNBA's increased popularity because of Clark has already resulted in several Fever road games being moved to bigger venues due to such high demand for tickets.  Is this momentum fleeting?  It certainly could be.  But it seems more likely that it isn't.  The WNBA is growing and continuing to push boundaries.  Charter flights are just a part of that.

After this season, the WNBA's CBA is up for renewal.  The charter flights were a huge issue that the players fought for...and won!  Now they can move on to other things that are important to them moving forward.  They don't want it just for themselves, either.  They want to make the WNBA better for the next generation of players and make it so that they can take for granted the things that are being fought for now.  Things like charter travel.

Securing a commitment from the WNBA to provide full-time charter flight service is a huge win.  Both for the players and the league.  The league wouldn't be investing $50 million just because it's the right thing to do.  They're also doing it because it's worthwhile.  It shows confidence that this increase in popularity has lasting power.  And they want the players to reap the benefits.

Keep World Relays As a Qualifier

Ten years ago, World Athletics introduced a new addition to the international track & field calendar--the World Relays.  The first few editions included distance events, as well as the traditional 4x100 and 4x400 meter relays.  They've continually tinkered with the events, adding some and dropping others, with varying degrees of success.  It was at the 2017 World Relays, for example, where the mixed 4x400 made its debut, and that event hasn't just been a regular feature of all international track & field meets, it's become one of the most popular.  The distance races, meanwhile, were eventually dropped entirely, with the mixed shuttle hurdles and the mixed 2x2x400 (it's as confusing as it sounds) joining the program instead. 

At this year's edition of the World Relays, which just concluded in the Bahamas, they finally found the right format.  They made the World Relays an Olympic qualifier and only contested the five Olympic events.  It wasn't just a great idea, it's what they should do moving forward.  Have the World Relays three times every Olympic cycle and use it as the qualifying event for both the Olympics and World Championships, while not holding the meet in the off year.

Only 16 teams qualify for the Olympic and World Championship relays.  In the past, those 16 qualifiers would be the 16 nations that had the 16 fastest times in the world (or were the 16 highest-ranked in the world rankings).  Which makes sense since it really is one of the fairest ways to do it.  Except it put certain countries that contest relays more regularly at a significant advantage and pretty much guaranteed that it would always be the same usual suspects in all five relays.

While it's obviously a good thing to see teams like the United States and Jamaica and Great Britain going against each other at the Olympics and World Championships, there's no denying that they also have more opportunities to post fast times at the various college meets held weekly all over the U.S. throughout the season.  Other nations, while they may have the advantage of being able to use the same four runners all the time, may not be able to get that foursome together more than a handful of times, assuming they're able to enter a meet that has a relay for the national team to race in.  That's one of the reasons why the World Relays are so great.

The World Relays doesn't just give those nations a chance to race together, it gives them a chance to do so in a competitive international setting.  It shouldn't come as a surprise, then, that a lot of season best and national record times have been set at the World Relays.  However, the degree to which other (larger) countries cared about the World Relays has certainly varied.  The United States didn't even send a team to the 2021 edition!  That's another reason why making it a qualifying event was such a smart idea.

Even if countries didn't send their full "A" national teams that'll be on the track in Paris, there were still plenty of stars in the Bahamas...because nations wanted to make sure they qualified!  It also meant that there would be full participation (or close enough to it).  With 14 of the 16 Olympic spots being awarded directly at the World Relays, they couldn't just sit there relying on the fast time they put up early in the qualifying period being good enough to guarantee them an Olympic place.  If they want to run the Olympic relay, they need to go to World Relays and earn their spot.  Which resulted in some great competition in the Bahamas.

There were four heats in every event in the first round.  The top two made the final and also punched their ticket to Paris.  Everybody else got a second chance in the second Olympic Qualifying Round, where the top two in each of the three heats also earned an Olympic spot.  That only leaves two places remaining, which will go to the highest teams in the world rankings at the end of June.  So, there's a bit of a failsafe there for teams that didn't get the job done in the Bahamas...but not something they can rely on.

They did put in one caveat regarding Olympic qualification, though.  You must run your first-round race in order to run in the second Olympic Qualifying Round.  It's fine if you don't finish or get disqualified (which the U.S. men's 4x400 was sure happy about), but if you withdraw prior to the first round, you have no shot at going to the Olympics.  Which guaranteed full fields and some really competitive racing in the first round, which wasn't always something we've seen at the World Relays in the past.

It also led to some interesting strategic decisions.  Because the mixed 4x400 and the men's/women's 4x400s were only about 90 minutes apart, very few athletes ran in both.  So, countries had to decide which event to race their top athletes in.  The Netherlands, for example, thought its women's 4x400 was strong enough without its top two runners, Femke Bol and Lieke Klaver, so they had them race in the mixed 4x400 instead.  The strategy worked.  The Dutch qualified in both events.  Poland also prioritized the mixed 4x400, entering its top two women in the first round of that event, then, after they qualified withdrew from the final and had them run in the women's 4x400 final.

In Paris, that obviously won't be a problem.  The mixed 4x400 final is one of the first on the Olympic track & field schedule, while the men's & women's 4x400s traditionally close out the in-stadium program.  But they wouldn't be able to run both at the Olympics if they didn't qualify first.  Only nine nations made both the women's and mixed 4x400, while only six countries will be in both the men's and mixed 4x400.

What we saw in the Bahamas as a result of this new qualifying format was incredible.  Nations were celebrating finishing second in a consolation heat.  Why?  Because it meant they're going to the Olympics.  We also saw some unexpected failures (Jamaica in the men's 4x400, Germany in the women's 4x400) and some pleasant surprises that will guarantee some new blood in Paris (Liberia in the men's 4x100, Norway in the women's 4x400).  You can't argue that any of those teams don't belong, either.  Because they all earned their spot directly through head-to-head competition.

For those nations that made the final, meanwhile, there was still plenty of incentive even though their Olympic berth was already secured.  There was prize money at stake for the medalists, as well as Olympic seeding and lane priority.  Whether they actually cared about Olympic seeding and lane selection is questionable, but they certainly cared about the prize money.

Making the World Relays a qualifying event brought new life into the competition.  More importantly, it resulted in both more countries coming and more of them taking the meet seriously.  It gave them a reason to want to be at the World Relays, which hadn't really been the case previously.  And that's why they should stick with the format moving forward.

Countries obviously attended the 2024 World Relays because there was Olympic qualification at stake.  While that won't necessarily be the case in World Championship years, you're still more likely to get more nations there if qualifying is attached (as opposed to just times).  Plus, you'll have the potential for those surprises and smaller nations will get a chance to earn their spot directly without having to worry about times.  More importantly, it would keep the World Relays relevant and make them an important fixture on the annual world track & field calendar.  After a great two days in the Bahamas, that's not just a worthwhile goal, it's an achievable one.

The Utah Fill-In-The-Blanks

Now that the Arizona Coyotes have officially moved to Salt Lake City, the next step will be to find out what their new name is.  All we know is that the team will be branded "Utah" and that the plan is to have a nickname in place by the start of the 2024-25 season.  This won't be a "Washington Football Team" situation.  Owners Ryan and Ashley Smith want the team to have an identity and the players to be able to say they don't just play for "Utah."

Ryan Smith has some ideas for how he wants the team to look.  He also owns the Jazz and wants to connect the hockey team with them in some way.  But he also doesn't want to be "like Pittsburgh," where they share the same colors.  It seems more likely that the colors and possibly the logo will be similar, which will create a great opportunity for co-branding the teams that'll share the Delta Center.

Ultimately, though, it'll be up to the fans.  The Smiths are planning on having a "Name the Team" contest for the social media age by creating a bracket where fans will be able to vote online for their preferred name.  They registered nine different trademarks, which lends further credence to the idea of an eight-team bracket.  One of the names they trademarked was "Utah Hockey Club" (and "Utah HC"), but I think that was more to prevent somebody else from snapping it up than because it's a serious option.

Even if the Smiths hadn't already publicly committed to an actual nickname, this isn't MLS, where every team has some form of "FC" or "United" as part of their name.  "Utah Hockey Club," if it's ever used would be just as a placeholder name simply because it's so generic.  Don't forget, the ex-Coyotes don't just need a name.  They need a logo and uniforms, too.  These things take time to design, so, even though the Smiths have said they'll have a name in time for next season, I can see "Utah Hockey Club" being used next season if there's any sort of delay.

"Utah Grizzlies" is not among the options, which may have been a surprise to some.  There are likely two reasons for that.  The first is the most obvious one.  The minor league team known as the Utah Grizzlies still exists, so they own that trademark.  Even if they didn't, though, it probably would've been an issue to obtain a trademark to the "Grizzlies" name since there likely would've been an objection by the Memphis Grizzlies.  So, it makes sense that they'd want to avoid both of those potential problems and give the former Coyotes a completely unique identity.

Of the seven available choices (again, I'm not counting "Utah HC" and "Utah Hockey Club" as realistic options), some are better than others.  While none of them are great, there are a few that are definitely less bad.  And there are a couple that would give the Smiths their desired co-branding options with the Jazz.  If these are the eight, here's how I'd rank them heading into that fan vote:

7. Ice: Hockey's played on ice.  Everybody knows this.  You don't need to reinforce it by giving your team a name that sounds like the cheap local beer that people only buy because they're curious how it tastes.  Come to think of it, "Utah Ice" doesn't even sound like a good beer (it was almost certainly be non-alcoholic, too).

6. Fury: Sounds like the name of either a minor league team or one that plays a sport like arena football, soccer or rugby.  An NHL team, though?  Absolutely not!

5. Venom: We're starting to get better, but this one still seems a little amateurish.  It also sounds like the name of one of the gladiators on American Gladiators.  Although, if "Venom" were chosen, they could probably come up with a pretty cool logo with a snake sticking its tongue out wrapped around a hockey stick (or a U or V).

4. Yetis: Without a doubt, "Yetis" would have the coolest mascot!  The Avalanche already have a bigfoot logo as one of their secondary marks, though, so what would be the point of calling your team the "Yetis" if you couldn't use such obvious imagery?  It's also way too close to "Utah Utes," which is obviously already a well-established brand.

3. Outlaws: I wouldn't be opposed to the name "Utah Outlaws."  It doesn't seem to make too much sense for Utah, but, then again, "Jazz" doesn't either, so that's clearly not a big issue.  It's also unique, which is a big plus.  The only team I can ever recall being called the "Outlaws" was the Las Vegas entry in the original XFL.

2. Blizzard: This one would work well on several levels.  The Jazz's old logo featured the snow-capped Wasatch Mountains, and they could easily be incorporated into a logo for the "Blizzard."  It also has the same double Z as Jazz, so that would help with the co-branding.  However, it's close enough to Avalanche that I can see Colorado objecting.

1. Mammoth: In my opinion, this is the best of the seven.  There's a lacrosse team named the Colorado Mammoth, but I don't think there's much chance of people confusing the two (much like when the Golden Knights ran into the trademark issue because of that parachute troop).  And, aside from that, it's the most unique choice.  "Utah Mammoth" just sounds cool, and there are some great logo and mascot possibilities incorporating a woolly mammoth.  If I end up participating in this contest, "Mammoth" will be my choice.

Regardless of which name ends up being chosen, connecting Utah's new NHL team to the Jazz is a smart move.  I don't think doing the "Pittsburgh thing" is such a terrible idea, but it would also be tough to just automatically use the Jazz's colors before picking the franchise's new name.  The Jazz and the ex-Coyotes will be partners, and the Jazz are the recognizable brand that's been in Salt Lake City for 45 years.  Hopefully the Utah Whatevers of the NHL will become just as recognizable.