Night Tennis

Next year marks the 50th anniversary of a major US Open innovation that hasn't just lasted the test of time, but has proven to be one of the most popular features of the tournament year after year.  While it's since been adopted by both the Australian Open and French Open (and Wimbledon to a lesser extent), it's still synonymous with the US Open.  Night tennis.

US Open night matches are the big draw where celebrities are seen and top players are on the court.  Any tennis fan has their favorite memories from a US Open night match, whether they were there in person or just watching on TV.  Whether it's the five-setter that lasts until the wee hours of the morning, the massive upset where the crowed willed the underdog to victory, the heroic performance by a champion or even a grand farewell, US Open night matches are the biggest stage for some of the biggest moments (and names) in the sport.

There was a stretch when the women's final was played in prime time.  Now both women's semifinals are.  So is one of the men's semifinals, which is the final night match of the tournament.  It's a big deal to play at night.  But it's also incredibly difficult.  And it's not something all players necessarily enjoy.

Don't get me wrong.  There are some players who absolutely loved the spotlight that came with playing US Open night matches!  Jimmy Connors and Andre Agassi always wanted to play at night.  For several years after Agassi retired and Andy Roddick was the top American, you knew that his first-round match would most likely be on Opening Night, usually with one of the Williams Sisters joining him.  Then, after we entered the Big Three Era, if you had a night session ticket during the first week, you were all but guaranteed to see either Roger, Rafa or Nole.

As I said, though, many players don't relish the idea of playing at night.  They see it as a necessary evil more than anything else.  And, since the night sessions are the most popular among the fans, they're a necessary evil that disproportionately affect the top players.  Playing night matches, especially long ones, can impact the rest of your tournament.  Which isn't a coincidence.  They throw your body completely out of whack and it takes a few days to recover.

That's been a regular topic of conversation on ESPN during the night matches.  Especially when they go later into the night.  James Blake, who played a few night matches in his day, has described what it's like for the players.  He's particularly cognizant of how late they end up getting to bed after a night match.  Because, don't forget, they still have to do a press conference, get whatever post-match treatment they may need, grab a bite to eat and go back to wherever they're staying before they can even think about going to bed...which probably isn't happening until at least two hours after the match ends at the earliest.

Then, they have to figure out a time the next day so they can prepare for their next match, which they can only hope will have a later start (although, not as late as their previous match).  If they're one of the top players, that probably means another night match.  If they're the lower-ranked player who pulls the upset, they're likely getting shipped right back to the outer courts, so who knows what time they're gonna end up playing?!

I also question the fairness of the same players getting night matches over and over.  That's especially true in Australia, where I don't even remember the last time Novak Djokovic played in the afternoon or morning (I guess when you're a 10-time champion, you have some clout).  The US Open has traditionally been better at spreading the night matches around, but Djokovic and Carlos Alcaraz both only played night matches in Arthur Ashe Stadium this year.  The other top men either played during the day or, if they did get a night match, it was in Louis Armstrong Stadium.

Was it fair to Djokovic and Alcaraz to make them have the late start/finish/bedtime multiple times throughout the tournament?  Or, looking at it the other way, is it fair to the other players who didn't get to be featured while Djokovic and Alcaraz had the spotlight every night?  (Don't get me wrong, they've both earned it.  That's not my point.)  And what about the fans?  There are obviously people who have no issue seeing the likes of Djokovic & Alcaraz repeatedly, but you've got to figure there are also those who wouldn't mind seeing somebody else, too.

The other obvious question about fairness has to do with the second match during the night sessions.  These are the matches that end up going well past midnight, and that's usually as a result of the length of the previous match (or matches, since sometimes a long day session pushes the start of the night session back).  They aren't just starting later, they don't know exactly when they're starting.  Especially if the men's match is first.  It could be a quick three-setter that's done in two hours or a four-and-a-half-hour five-setter where you need to start your warmup multiple times...only for the previous match to keep going!

On Friday night, Arnya Sabalenka played the second match on Ashe.  The Djokovic-Popyrin match that preceded hers lasted over three hours.  As a result, she didn't take the court until close to midnight.  When you're starting that late, there's no way to avoid finishing well after midnight.  So, the question really becomes if you should be starting matches that late at all.

You can look at it one of two ways.  Midnight-ish start times obviously aren't ideal, but the winner at least knows that they'll get a day off between rounds, whereas, if their match was postponed, they wouldn't.  It also gives the fans more bang for their buck since they paid for two matches.  If they don't want to stay for the second one because of how late it is, that's their choice.  The late finishes also keep the tournament on schedule, which helps the organizers since they don't have to move the next day's matches around.

However, there's also the school of thought that there should be a curfew.  It's not like Wimbledon's hard 11 PM curfew, but rather a cutoff time that matches can't start after.  Matches that are still going can be completed.  But, once that cutoff time hits, any matches that haven't begun get pushed to the next day.  That would, hopefully, get everyone home at a reasonable hour while also not making the player wait around for the previous match on their court to end so that theirs can start.  This has become a bit of a hot-button issue with the players, too, so I'm curious to see if anything will come of it.

One thing is for sure, though.  Night matches at the US Open aren't going anywhere.  Nobody wants them to.  They're as much a part of the event as New York, blue courts and the honey deuce.  But could we see some changes to how they're scheduled as we head into the 50th anniversary of night tennis in 2025?  I wouldn't be surprised.

UConn at the Center Again

We aren't even a month into the coast-to-coast Big Ten and ACC, yet that hasn't stopped the constant cycle that is college conference realignment from circling.  This time it's UConn and the Big 12.  These discussions have been labeled as "very" preliminary, and it seems like they were initiated by conference, perhaps just to gauge interest.  But now that the subject has been broached, don't expect it to be unbroached any time soon.

Not surprisingly, this is about football.  UConn has long been all about basketball, with their football team lagging far behind.  They've only been playing at the FBS level since 2002 and had a four-year stretch from 2007-10 where they made a bowl game each season, including a Fiesta Bowl appearance in 2010.  Other than that span, though, UConn football has been pretty much an afterthought.

When the Big East broke apart in 2013, UConn ended up in the American with the other football schools.  They rejoined the Big East for all other sports in 2019, and the UConn football team has been playing as an independent since then.  UConn football isn't exactly Notre Dame football, so the independent thing isn't really as beneficial for them as it is for the Irish.

It would obviously require a massive investment for UConn football to get up to CFP standard.  That investment isn't just financial.  They'd need time, too.  According to reports, even if UConn were to join the Big 12 in other sports sooner, their football team wouldn't until 2031.  But, does CFP standard mean competitive?  Or even good?  So, what exactly does UConn's football team bring to the Big 12?

The answer to the previous question is "nothing."  UConn football doesn't move the needle at all.  UConn basketball, on the other hand...that's a different story!  A conference with UConn, Kansas, Arizona, Houston and Baylor?  That would be a monster!  That might be what this is really all about.  The Big 12 has long been perhaps the best men's basketball conference, and Commissioner Brett Yormack thinks that with all the attention paid to football, basketball is severely undervalued.

So, it's easy to see what UConn brings from a basketball perspective.  In terms of football, though, I'm not sure even an improved UConn program does anything for the Big 12.  The conference just lost its two marquee football programs to the SEC, and UConn's not exactly Texas or Oklahoma.  Neither are Arizona, Arizona State or Colorado.  Or Utah, which is easily the best of the four.  The Big 12 champion is guaranteed a spot in the College Football Playoff, but they likely don't stand to get more than one or two of the seven at-large bids.  Adding UConn's football program won't do much, if anything, to change that.

Which begs the question: Why does the Big 12 want UConn then?  Well, I think there are probably a few reasons.  Whenever the next round of expansion happens (and you know it will), the Big 12 doesn't want to be left out.  And UConn will likely be one of the biggest fish out there.  You know they'll be attractive to the ACC when/if the Florida State lawsuit is settled and they leave for the SEC along with Clemson.  (Although, I'm not sure being in the Big 12 instead of the Big East would have any bearing on UConn joining the ACC should the opportunity present itself.)

Adding UConn makes sense from a geographic perspective, though.  Conferences are no longer regional.  Not when two of the four major conferences extend from coast to coast.  The Big 12 doesn't want to miss out on that, either.  Bringing in UConn would expand their footprint into the Northeast.  Although, it would also mean a massive amount of travel for some Big 12 members, which is probably why the idea has been met with some hesitancy.

There is plenty of resistance to the idea of UConn joining the conference from other Big 12 members.  If they were to have a vote on expansion today, there's no way they'd get anywhere near the 12 "yes" votes they'd need in order to extend an invitation.  Arizona State and BYU and Colorado probably aren't looking forward to the possibility of taking a trip to East Hartford, Connecticut in late November.  It's not exactly like any of these schools have a rivalry with UConn, either.  Sure, UConn-Kansas basketball twice a year sounds great.  UConn-Texas Tech football?  Who cares?!

Still, though, money talks.  And, even if it doesn't result in additional CFP bids, the addition of UConn would likely bring increased revenue to the Big 12's current members.  Just as Stanford and Cal did with the ACC and Oregon and Washington did with the Big Ten, UConn would probably have to take a reduced share of the media rights deal during its first few seasons in the Big 12.  That, coupled with a likely larger media rights contract (based almost entirely on adding UConn basketball), puts more money in the pockets of the 16 current Big 12 schools.

What's interesting is that there's resistance from within the conference.  That's why this is far from a done deal.  Although, like I said, don't be surprised if the discussions do pick up steam at some point.  It would be an obvious boon for the already incredibly strong Big 12 basketball.  The benefit in football isn't nearly as clear, though.  Which I think is one of the primary reasons for the resistance.

I also doubt UConn is overly eager to jump into something new.  Moving back to the Big East is how UConn became UCONN again.  They're one of the few schools that doesn't need the football revenue.  They're doing just fine without it.  In fact, UConn probably loses money on football!  Making the investment in football and potentially moving to the Big 12 would probably result in more revenue coming in?  But, would it be worth it?  Would it be enough to justify the cost of that investment, as well as losing they'd be giving up by leaving the Big East again?  Stuff that they realized how important it was to them and missed during the time they were gone.

UConn also understands that it's a business, though.  And they need to keep their eyes open.  If the landscape continues to change, there very well may be a benefit in it.  It's entirely possible that UConn could have its pick of suitors.  They'll be one of the most attractive potential additions the next time conference realignment comes around.  And, even though their football team isn't good, they still have one, which is a big selling point for the Big 12 and ACC.  So, maybe making that investment to improve in football could end up being worth it.

Is the idea of UConn in the Big 12 weird?  Yes.  But it's no weirder than Stanford in the ACC or UCLA in the Big Ten, which is the world we're currently living in.  If the Big 12 wants and seriously pursues UConn, they likely won't stop until the Huskies agree to join.  Whether it's a good idea for the school and/or the conference is an entirely different question.  Besides, who needs UConn-Georgetown basketball when you can have UConn-Iowa State football!?

From the Red Clay to the Blue Courts

I'm not sure how the US Open is going to top that Olympic tennis tournament.  We had Djokovic vs. Nadal in the second round, then Djokovic vs. Alcaraz in the final, less than a month after they met in the final at Wimbledon.  More importantly, we saw Novak Djokovic more emotional about an Olympic gold medal than he ever was after any of his 24 Grand Slam titles.  That was his main goal heading into the 2024 season.  Now that he's achieved it, it's time to go for Grand Slam No. 25.

Djokovic was one of many players who interrupted their hardcourt season to play the Olympics on clay.  Talk about completely different surfaces!  Although, they were thrown a bit of a bone by playing the tennis tournament in the first week of the Olympics, giving them a chance to immediately leave Paris and resume their US Open prep.  Which means everybody got to play in at least one hardcourt tune-up event.

Although, there were also a number of significant names who opted to skip the Olympics and focus on their US Open prep.  Each player who did that had their own reasons, and I'm not questioning anybody's decision either to play the Olympics or not.  They each have different priorities, so why begrudge them for making what they thought was the best decision for them?  I am curious, though, to see how those who skipped the Olympics perform at the US Open compared to those who played in Paris.

One of those players who missed the Olympics didn't intend to.  Men's world No. 1 Jannik Sinner was all set to play, but had to withdraw due to illness.  Now he heads to the US Open as one of the favorites, but also with a cloud hanging over him.  Sinner failed two drug tests, but wasn't suspended because the tribunal accepted his (extremely plausible) explanation that it was the result of the banned substance accidentally entering his system during a massage.  Needless to say, the decision to let him play hasn't necessarily been popular among his competitors.

Sinner was already going to be one of the favorites at the US Open.  He won the last hardcourt Major--the Australian Open, as well as the tune-up tournament in Cincinnati.  Now he'll have extra eyeballs on him and be subjected to increased scrutiny.  He'll either thrive in the situation or being the villain will get to him and he'll suffer an early upset.

Either way, it won't be easy for Sinner.  He's only ever been past the fourth round once (a quarterfinal appearance in 2022), and he could potentially have to go through the last three US Open champions--in order--if he wants to lift the trophy.  After 2021 champion (and 2023 finalist) Daniil Medvedev in the quarters, he'd have 2022 champion Alcaraz in the semis, then defending champion Djokovic in the final.  Brutal, to be sure.

Alcaraz's 2022 victory was his first Grand Slam title.  He's now won four, including both the French Open and Wimbledon this year.  Plus, the Olympic silver medal.  So, he definitely comes to New York as one of the favorites.  As he should.  (I still don't understand how Alcaraz is only ranked No. 3).  So does (and should) Medvedev.  He's got a win (that ended Djokovic's chances at the Grand Slam in 2021), two finals and a semi in his last five US Open appearances.

As for the Olympic gold medalist, his victory here last year was Grand Slam No. 24, tying the all-time record.  Djokovic is still looking for No. 25 after getting upset by Sinner in Australia, withdrawing from the French Open and losing the Wimbledon final to Alcaraz.  If he doesn't defend his title, not only will we have to wait until 2025 for him to have sole possession of first place on the all-time list, it'll be the first time since 2017 that he didn't win any Grand Slams.  And, let's not forget, he hasn't actually "lost" prior to the semifinals at the US Open since 2006 (in 2019, he retired during his fourth round match, and in 2020, he was defaulted in the fourth round after accidentally hitting a linesperson with a ball).

There is one person in addition to Sinner, Alcaraz and Medvedev who I think can beat Djokovic, though.  Alexander Zverev.  Zverev is still looking for that first Grand Slam title, but it feels like it's just a matter of time.  He has a big win over Djokovic already (in the 2021 Olympic semifinals), and I can easily see him getting another one.  In fact, I see Zverev winning the whole thing.

On the women's side, No. 1 Iga Swiatek made a very interesting revelation the other day.  She admitted that she felt the pressure last year, when she was defending both the title and the No. 1 ranking.  Swiatek ended up losing to her own personal foil, Jelena Ostapenko, in the fourth round and saw Aryna Sabalenka take over as No. 1.  This year, she comes in with a different motivation after shockingly settling for bronze at the Olympics.

For Coco Gauff, things have gone the other way.  She played the best tennis of her life en route to her first Grand Slam title at last year's US Open.  Gauff was riding high into the Olympics, where she was the U.S. flag bearer at the Opening Ceremony, but ended up losing in the third round.  Then, she suffered another early loss in her US Open tune-up event.  Suddenly, Gauff isn't looking like as much of a sure thing.

You know who probably can be considered a sure thing?  Aryna Sabalenka.  Sabalenka's made three straight US Open semifinal appearances, and she won the first set in the final against Gauff last year.  She's arguably the best women's hardcourt player in the world and was dominant at the US Open tune-up event in Cincinnati.  Sabalenka is a two-time Australian Open champion and would have to be considered the favorite.  And, should she win, she'd continue the trend of 10 different champions in 11 years since Serena won the last of three straight in 2014 (with Naomi Osaka in 2018 & 2020 the only two-time winner in that span).

While those three are the most likely contenders for the title, they certainly aren't the only players capable of winning the whole thing.  Jasmine Paolini made the final at both the French Open and Wimbledon, then won Olympic gold in doubles.  Speaking of Olympic gold, we could potentially see a rematch of that Olympic final between Zheng Qinwen and Donna Vekic in the fourth round.  I don't see either of them advancing beyond the quarterfinals, though, since their opponent in that round would be Sabalenka.

Let's not forget about the Americans, either.  It's not just Gauff.  Madison Keys also made the semifinals last year, and Jessica Pegula (who's somehow been ranked as high as No. 3 in the world despite never making a Grand Slam semifinal) won Toronto, then made the final in Cincinnati.  Will she finally get that Grand Slam breakthrough here?  Not if Danielle Collins has anything to say about it.  She and Pegula could meet in the fourth round, and the winner could definitely have a shot against Swiatek.

Then there are the veterans.  Caroline Wozniacki came out of retirement last year and made it to the fourth round, where she took a set off Gauff.  Victoria Azarenka, meanwhile, is back in the Top 20 after all these years.  While it would be a stretch to call either one a title contender, it isn't hard to picture them pulling an upset or making a deep run.

Ultimately, though, I'm sticking with the safe bet.  Not playing at the Olympics (her situation was completely different than most of those who didn't play in Paris) could actually have ended up being a good thing for Sabalenka.  Because she's had a tremendous hardcourt summer and didn't have that random week on clay.  She'll cap that amazing summer by winning her first US Open title.

FIG Created This Mess

One of the most memorable images of the Paris Games was that iconic picture of silver medalist Simone Biles and bronze medalist Jordan Chiles bowing down to gold medalist Rebeca Andrade on the medals stand after the women's floor exercise final.  The scene was surreal, and not just because of what that powerful photo represented.  It was also surreal because of how everything went down.  Chiles originally finished fifth, only to be upgraded to the bronze after having her score changed...while the Romanian who thought she had finished third was already celebrating with a flag.  As it turns out, that was just the start of the mess.

Chiles, who was the last gymnast to go, was given a score of 13.666.  However, her coaches thought that her difficulty score should've been higher and appealed.  Her coach, Cecile Landie even admitted that she didn't think it would be successful and that she only did it because they had nothing to lose.  To her surprise, the appeal was accepted and Chiles had .1 added to her difficulty score.  That brought her total score to 13.766, placing her third over Romanian Ana Barbosu, who scored 13.700.

It's crazy to think that had the FIG simply just declined the appeal (which they were well within their rights to do), none of what happened next would've gone down at all, let alone the way it did.  Chiles wouldn't have been upgraded to bronze, she wouldn't have stood on the medals stand, there wouldn't have been a Romanian appeal, and the FIG wouldn't be making itself look very bad.  But I can't feel to bad for them.  Because they brought this mess on themselves.

After Chiles' score was changed, the Romanians appealed that decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.  Which they were well within their rights to do.  I don't blame or begrudge the Romanians for this at all.  They were acting on behalf of their athlete.  Just like the American coaches were.  Had it been the other way around, American fans would want Chiles' coaches to do the exact same thing Barbosu's did.  Their appeal had nothing to with Jordan Chiles.  It had everything to do with Ana Barbosu. 

The Romanians, in fact, empathized with Jordan Chiles.  They didn't want her medal taken away.  They even proposed a solution where Chiles, Barbosu and Sabrina Maneca-Voinea (who finished with the same score as Barbosu, but ranked behind her on a tiebreaker) all receive bronze medals.

There's precedent for that in Olympic history.  In 2002, there was a massive scandal in the pairs figure skating competition.  The French judge admitted that she had been pressured to place the Russian pair first no matter what (allegedly as part of a reciprocal agreement where the Russian judge would vote for the French ice dancing team).  Ultimately, that's what she did, and her vote was the deciding one that gave the Russians the gold over the Canadians.  After all this was discovered, the IOC stepped in, threw out the French judge's scores, and upgraded the Canadians to the gold medal.  They even had a second medals ceremony a few days later, with the Russians and Canadians as co-gold medalists, no silver medal, and China bronze.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened here.  The CAS accepted Romania's appeal and ordered the original results restored.  The IOC and FIG had no choice but to follow suit.  The results were changed, Barbosu was upgraded to the bronze medal and Chiles was dropped to fifth in the official standings.  Citing new evidence, the U.S. sought to appeal the ruling, but it was declined since CAS regarded the matter closed and their decision final.  There is one legal option left, an appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, which oversees the CAS, which will almost certainly happen.

Taken in a bottle, the CAS decision makes sense and their explanation is reasonable.  There's a one-minute time limit to launch an appeal, and according to the evidence presented at the CAS hearing, the Americans' appeal came four seconds too late.  As such, it shouldn't have been granted.  OK, that's fair.  Except there are way too many inconsistencies that bring the decision into question and make the American counterappeal not just reasonable, but necessary.

Perhaps the biggest issue with the CAS hearing is that one of the judges on the panel has represented Romania in numerous legal cases.  While no one had an issue with him serving as head of the panel, that's because the U.S. wasn't aware of that obvious conflict of interest.  Whether the U.S. was aware of it or not, the CAS certainly was.  He never should've been on the panel to begin with.

Communication is also an issue here.  The notification about the hearing was sent to the wrong email.  As a result, the Americans only found out about it the day before it happened.  That's obviously not enough time to properly prepare their case, which leads me to my next point.

While the crux of the CAS decision is based on their finding that it took 64 seconds for the appeal to be filed on the floor, the U.S. has additional evidence that shows the appeal was actually first declared after only 49 seconds, well before the one-minute deadline.  Armed with this new evidence, the U.S. launched its counterappeal.  The CAS said that it couldn't revisit its decision, though, even if there was new evidence.

That's not the only communication problem, either.  The latest twist in this saga is the discovery that FIG can't even identify who accepted the inquiry regarding Chiles' score.  If they don't know who accepted the inquiry, how do they know it came too late?  Likewise, isn't it possible that the inquiry was accepted before the one-minute deadline, but just wasn't entered into the system until four seconds after?  FIG has also admitted that they didn't have a person on the floor keeping track of how long it took for appeals to come in.  (That's something I'm sure will change in LA.)  So, if FIG doesn't actually know how long the appeal took, how can CAS possibly say for certain it took 64 seconds?  Where'd they even come up with that number?

They even gave examples of other appeals at the Olympics were submitted after the one-minute deadline.  Andrade submitted one after 1:24, while it took 1:35 for an appeal on behalf of Maneca-Voinea to be submitted.  Both of those appeals were declined, while Chiles' was accepted.  And one of the reasons it was accepted was because the FIG thought it was submitted in time.  If it wasn't, that's on them, not Cecile Landi.

Jordan Chiles, who's (rightly) called this entire situation "unfair," still hasn't returned her medal and has no plans to. I don't blame her.  As long as the appeals process plays out, she has no reason to, especially since the end result could be her getting it back anyway.  If, after all of the appeals, the final decision is that the original results stand, then Chiles should return the medal.  Then and only then should she return it.

Despite Chiles still being in possession of her medal, Barbosu was awarded one during a special ceremony in Bucharest last week.  I have no problem with that, either.  Frankly, I'm just as upset for Barbosu, who has somehow become the villain here.  Beyond that, though, she had to suffer the embarrassment of celebrating with the Romanian flag, thinking she won bronze, only to find out she didn't, then was deprived of taking part in the medals ceremony on the actual Olympic podium.

Neither Jordan Chiles nor Ana Barbosu has done anything wrong here.  Nor have their coaches.  This is all on the FIG and the CAS.  They created this mess and have left these two athletes in the middle.  Two athletes who haven't done anything wrong and who both reasonably believe they're the rightful Olympic bronze medalist.

What If It Had Been the Pac-16?

This is the first season since the massive conference realignment that changed the landscape of college sports.  Instead of a Power 5, it's now a Power 4, with the Big Ten and ACC both extending coast-to-coast.  The Pac-12, of course, was the big casualty, as the conference saw its members leave one by one until just Oregon State and Washington State were left.

What happens with the Pac-2 moving forward is anyone's guess.  They have two years to figure it out, and have set up scheduling arrangements with the Mountain West for football and the West Coast Conference for everything else.  So, Oregon State and Washington State haven't been left out in the cold completely, even though they've definitely drawn the short straw.  They even negotiated a TV contract with The CW to air their football games.  In a few months, two schools by themselves were able to do something the commissioner couldn't do for the entire conference after more than a year?  Talk about terrible leadership!

We all know what led to the Pac-12's sad demise, which was entirely avoidable (or maybe not).  It's also crazy to think about how different things could've been.  Instead of being the conference that was absorbed by the others, it could've been the first of the superconferences, long before it was even a thought.  If they'd been able to make the move 15 years ago, we definitely wouldn't be talking about the Pac-12 in the past tense.
  
In 2010, the then-Pac-10 was exploring a major expansion that would've seen six teams--Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and TCU--join the league.  All but TCU were in the Big 12 at the time (and TCU would eventually join the Big 12 as Texas A&M's replacement when they left for the SEC).  Not only were they in the Big 12, they were the big fish of the Big 12.  It not only would've destroyed the Big 12, it almost certainly would've guaranteed the long-term viability of the Pac-16.

That didn't happen, of course.  Texas and Oklahoma decided to stay in the Big 12, which stayed mainly intact.  The Pac-10 made a more modest expansion of two schools, snagging one Big 12 member (Colorado), along with Utah.  That would be the Pac-12's alignment until this season, when 10 of the 12 schools left for other conferences (including four that went to the Big 12).  Would a Pac-16 have been similarly gutted, though?  Probably not.

Let's start by going back to 2010.  The Pac-10 is successful at adding those six Big 12 schools, leaving just Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri in the Big 12.  During that round of realignment, Nebraska ended up going to the Big Ten, so let's assume that still happens and they're at six.  They obviously need to expand.  West Virginia was the first new members to join the Big 12 along with TCU, so we'll give them the nod.  And Utah's not joining the Pac-12 now, so they join the Big 12 instead.  And, since the Big 12 only had 10 for a number of years, we're keeping it there and having BYU and Houston join the conference years earlier than they actually did.

Here's where it starts to get interesting, though.  Texas A&M has just made the move to a newly-expanded Pac-16.  Do they still go to the SEC?  Does the SEC even go from 12 to 14 at the time?  If the answer is "Yes," you've either got Texas A&M leaving the Pac-16 after just a year or the SEC grabs someone else along with Missouri.  This isn't even necessarily another Big 12 team since the remaining options, frankly, wouldn't be that attractive.  Maybe they grab Louisville, who's still in the Big East at the time?

Regardless of what's going on in the other conferences, let's bring this back to the Pac-16.  This is a league that consists of Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, UCLA, USC, Washington and Washington State.  That's a pretty strong conference!  The ACC and Big 12 would still hold their own in basketball, but in football (which, as we've all seen is the whole point for all of this), it's clear who the top three conferences would be.

More importantly, a Pac-16 that includes Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma is a far more attractive league from a media rights perspective.  Media rights is where the Pac-12 really dropped the ball and precipitated its demise, but you'd have to think the Pac-12 Network (which was really ahead of its time if you think about it) would've had a broader reach and wider availability.  And, as a result, even with the money being split 16 ways, it would've generated significantly more revenue for each school.  If they're getting more revenue, would there still have been that desire to leave?

Of course, the media rights landscape is much different now than it was in 2010.  The reason for all of this is because the schools that switched leagues thought it was better for them financially.  So, I'm not saying that the Pac-16 would've made it through the most recent round of realignment unscathed.  Rather, I'm suggesting that the conference would've been in a strong enough position to survive.  It would lose members, but not enough to be completely decimated.

For argument's sake, let's assume that the Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC thing still happens.  So does the UCLA and USC to the Big Ten thing.  (It was, of course, the Pac-12's terrible reaction to those departures that got the ball rolling on its demise.)  The rest of it all happened pretty quickly, though.  If the Pac-16 actually had competent leadership and a worthwhile media rights deal, those schools might not be so eager to get out.  Especially since, let's not forget, the Big 12 is the weaker conference in this scenario.

I'll even extend this hypothetical.  Oregon and Washington to the Big Ten still happens, as well.  And, for argument's sake, Texas A&M has already left the Pac-16 for the SEC and had been replaced by Colorado (which, obviously, was the only Big 12 team that actually went to the Pac-12 back in 2010).  That leaves us with Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, Colorado, Oklahoma State, Oregon State, Stanford, TCU, Texas Tech and Washington State in the Pac-#.  The Big 12's alignment, meanwhile, consists of just Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, as well as any new members that potentially joined in the interim.

It wouldn't be very hard for the Pac-# to scoop up the remnants of the Big 12, especially with powerhouse basketball programs in Kansas and Baylor.  It would also be very hard to pass up BYU, Utah and Houston.  Or, since I've got the Pac-# losing six, do you take just the four core Big 12 teams and the two schools in Utah, leaving Houston and West Virginia as the new Oregon State and Washington State?  (Which opens them up to take Cal & Stanford's spots in the ACC, putting West Virginia and Pitt in the same conference again.)  Let's not forget about San Diego State, either.  You know, the school the Pac-12 should've added immediately after UCLA and USC announced they were leaving.

All of this, obviously, plays with a lot of what-ifs.  Who knows what would've happened and how the conferences would've responded had any of these scenarios actually played out?  I feel pretty confident in saying the Pac-# would've survived this round of realignment, though.  It's crazy how something that didn't happen 15 years ago continues to have such an impact today!

The Six-Inning Starter

When MLB instituted new rules to speed up the game, no one knew what the reaction would be.  The pitch clock, especially, fundamentally changed the game.  For the most part, though, it's been well-received.  It's also accomplished one of its goals, as the average game is significantly quicker than just a few years ago.

Most people would agree that the pitch clock has turned out to be a positive thing, and I think it's safe to say it isn't going anywhere.  That doesn't mean things can't still be improved, though.  And pitching is one area where MLB definitely thinks improvement can be made.  Particularly how long starting pitchers are staying in the game and how many relievers end up getting used as a result.

Arm and shoulder injuries among pitchers have become more and more prevalent in recent years.  It's a concerning trend, obviously, and the reason why isn't really a secret.  It's the emphasis on velocity and strikeouts, wanting guys to throw as hard as they can in short spurts.  That trend has trickled down to the lower levels, too, which is the cause for not just the injuries, but for the shorter starts and abundance of relievers.

The days when starting pitchers finished what they started are long gone.  The complete game is such a lost art that you're only seeing two or three a year per team!  Unless he has a no-hitter going (and sometimes even then), the chances of seeing a starter pitch into the ninth are slim to none.  It's rare to even see a starter go beyond six innings.  In fact, the average start is just 5.25 innings this season.  In the Minors, it's less than five innings!  Meaning teams are averaging more outs per game from their bullpen than their starters!

Meanwhile, top-line starting pitchers are among the highest-paid players in baseball.  The five highest-paid players in baseball are Aaron Judge and four starting pitchers.  Those four starters (Shohei Ohtani, Max Scherzer, Justin Verlander, Jacob deGrom) have combined to make a grand total of 18 starts this season.  Ohtani and deGrom haven't pitched at all.  Stephen Strasburg is the 10th-highest paid player in the game in terms of annual value.  He just retired!

Major League Baseball is aware of this and not really a fan of it.  They know who the fans want to see on the mound.  It's not a parade of mediocre relievers.  It's the starters.  The guys making big bucks who are, theoretically at least, the best pitchers on the team.  People want to see them pitch deeper into games and more frequently.  So, MLB wants to do something about that.

Several different potential rule changes have been discussed that would "restore the prestige of the starting pitcher."  The most recent one to gain traction would go a long way towards doing exactly that.  It would also go a long way towards reducing those arm injuries that sideline way too many pitchers for extended periods of time.  A six-inning minimum for starters. 

Instituting a six-inning mandate would serve multiple purposes.  The first is obviously strategic.  A manager couldn't yank his starter at the first sign of trouble in the third inning, starting the parade of relievers that puts a strain on the bullpen that's felt for multiple days (and usually requires making a move to bring up another reliever from the Minors).  Nor could he take him out as soon as the leadoff hitter comes up for the third time simply because the analytics say he should. 

Perhaps most importantly, the pitchers would have to work on their full repertoire and figure out ways to work deeper into games.  They wouldn't be able to simply overpower hitters for as long as they can before the next guy who throws 100 comes in.  And, by using finesse instead of all maximum velocity all the time, that would be less of a strain on the arm and, thus, fewer arm injuries.  (It's not a coincidence that the soft-tossing Jamie Moyer was a Major League starter until he was almost 50 and was rarely injured.)

It would also do away with another one of the trends that emerged gradually before becoming more and more prominent.  No more openers, a reliever who "starts" the game and pitches to the first few hitters before either another reliever or the "bulk" guy (aka, the actual stater) comes in.  These openers rarely go more than an inning.  Thus, a six-inning minimum would eliminate the opener the same way the LOOGY (left-handed one-out guy) has been done away with as a result of the three-batter rule.

There would be exceptions to the six-inning rule.  An injury is obviously one.  A pitcher could also be taken out before six innings if he reaches 100 pitches, which has become the unofficial maximum threshold for starters.  Likewise, they won't be required to stay out there if they're getting absolutely shelled.  Four or more earned runs allowed has been thrown around as the number, but I'd also like to see a consideration for unearned runs (which sometimes extend innings even longer).  Maybe four earned runs or six total runs allowed?  Other than those three situations, though, your starter's got to go at least six.

While I love the idea behind this rule, I do think there are other scenarios where the shorter start should be allowed.  Sometimes, for whatever reason, you need to do the bullpen game.  Whether that's because you had a doubleheader or you need an emergency starter or another reason.  If you declare a bullpen game ahead of time (maybe by listing the probable starter as "TBA?"), there's still a minimum length the starter must go, but it's shorter than six.  Three innings perhaps?

Likewise, if a regular starter is returning from injury, it might be a little too much to ask for him to go six innings or throw 100 pitches his first time out.  So, maybe you lower the threshold to say 80 pitches in a starter's first game back from a stint on the injured list.  It would be the same thing the other way, too.  If they come out of a game early due to injury, a required IL stint would immediately follow.

A six-inning minimum for starters would trickle down to the bullpen, too.  The more outs you get from your starter, the fewer you need from your bullpen.  Too many teams rely too heavily on their bullpens, which leads to overuse and more injuries.  So, if starters go longer, you don't need to use your relievers as much or as often, which would keep them healthier, fresher and, theoretically, more effective.

This isn't the first time a rule change placing a greater emphasis on starting pitching has been considered.  The "double hook," a rule that ties your ability to use the DH to how long your starting pitcher stays in the game, had some support, but probably not enough to gain the necessary traction.  This one does, though.  And that's why I think there's a chance it may actually be implemented down the line.

We're several years away from this change coming to the Major Leagues, assuming it's even approved at all.  First, it would have to be implemented at the lower levels, which is obviously a good thing.  That way, younger pitchers will actually fully develop as pitchers rather than hard-throwing fireballers.  And maybe that would mean fewer young pitchers need to have multiple Tommy John surgeries as a result.  Sounds like a win, win to me.

LA's Schedule Shift

Over my last few posts, I've alluded to the 2028 Olympic schedule.  More specifically, how the necessary decision to flip swimming and track & field will have a ripple effect on so many other sports.  So, I'll wrap up my flurry of Olympic posts by talking about 2028 and some of the changes they'll have to make as a result of the swimming/track & field switch.

Normally, water polo moves to the pool used for swimming during the second week of the Games.  Moving to the larger pool allows them to have bigger crowds for the medal games, but it also frees up the water polo pool for artistic swimming, which doesn't typically start until after swimming ends and water polo moves.  In 2028, however, that won't be possible.  Water polo can't move once swimming's over, thus artistic swimming can't wait until water polo moves.

It also seems highly unlikely that they'll move artistic swimming to the first week and have it in SoFi Stadium before swimming.  The whole reason they changed the schedule is because they'll need a few days to turn the venue over after it hosts the Opening Ceremony.  The Opening Ceremony is on Friday night and swimming starts a week later.  That's not enough time.  So, artistic swimming will have to be scheduled around water polo.  It's doable, but they play six water polo games in a day during the men's tournament, so it's gonna be tight and make for some very busy days/early start times.  Fortunately, diving's at a separate facility, so they don't need to schedule around diving, too.

Open water swimming is also typically held during the second week after pool swimming is over.  That, too, will have to be changed.  There are swimmers who compete in both open water & pool events (although, I wonder how many if open water is first), so the only way to allow for that double is to move the open water events to the beginning of the Games.  My guess would be Monday & Tuesday.

Those first few days are typically when the triathlons take place.  However, since open water swimming and triathlon are usually held in the same venue (and will be again in Los Angeles), that means the triathlons will need to move later.  Does that push the individual men's and women's triathlons to the middle weekend?  Or does that put the triathlon mixed relay very late in the Games?

Don't think the track & field schedule change won't have a lasting impact, though.  The start/finish line for the marathons and race walks is the same, and is also the start/finish line for road cycling.  They've already said that, even with the majority of the track & field program taking place during the first week of the Olympics, the marathons will retain their traditional places on the final weekend.  My guess is they'll keep the same schedule as Paris, with one on Saturday and the other on Sunday.

As for the race walks, I wouldn't be surprised if they're held at the beginning with the rest of the track & field program.  You probably hold both the men's and women's 20K walks on the same day, probably the opening weekend, then the mixed marathon walk relay a few days later.  I don't see any other way to do it.  Because there are four road cycling events that need to be scheduled, too.

Since the final weekend is already taken by the marathons, and I've got the race walks taking place on the opening weekend, that leaves the middle weekend for road cycling.  The men's road race takes six hours, so there's nothing else taking place that day.  It would make sense to have it on the middle Saturday, followed by the women's road race on the middle Sunday.  In Paris, they gave them a full week between the time trials and the road races, but I don't see a way to do that here.  Instead, I'm having the road races on Thursday.

I've also long thought that the Olympic cycling schedule was backwards anyway.  Road cycling is first, with track cycling during the second week (the last track cycling finals are always on the final day).  I've always thought that was odd since the male road cyclists are always going directly from the Tour de France to the Olympics.  So, why not give them some extra time and have the track cycling events first, then the road cycling events at the end?

Some cyclists compete in different disciplines at the Olympics.  Kristen Faulker and Chloe Dygert both won medals in both road & track cycling in Paris (Faulker won gold in both).  So, road and track have to be separated.  Some also compete in mountain biking, as well, so mountain biking will need to be scheduled around the other two.  BMX is less of a concern since those athletes don't typically compete in the other disciplines, but you still want to work the schedule around the others and limit the overlap.

When BMX is scheduled matters because it's set to share a venue with skateboarding and archery.  The archery competition takes several days and is in a different portion of the shared facility, so that's not much of a concern.  BMX freestyle and park skateboarding literally use the same course, though.  Street has been the first skateboarding event at each of the two Olympics in which the sport has been included, but do you reverse that in LA if necessary so that the freestyle course is available for BMX?

Most of the other shared facilities should cause no issues.  Rowing and canoe sprint always share with rowing first, canoe sprint second.  There's no reason to think that will be any different.  Ditto with fencing and taekwondo and judo/wrestling.  Taekwondo and wrestling are at the end of the Olympics after those other two sports end.

They've updated the venue plan since LA was first awarded the Games seven years ago, and some venues are still TBA.  So, we'll find out if there are any other sports that need to schedule around each other.  They also haven't announced venues for lacrosse, flag football, cricket and squash, four of the sports being added by the organizing committee for the LA Games.  (They haven't officially announced the baseball venue, either, but, c'mon, it's obviously gonna be Dodger Stadium!)  Likewise, we don't know the venue for boxing, assuming it's included on the 2028 Olympic program.

One thing is for sure.  The LA28 Olympics will have a schedule that looks vastly different from the one we saw in Paris.  It's not just the track & field/swimming flip, either.  Several sports will be impacted.  And I'm very curious to see how they work in all the changes they'll need to make.

Best of Paris

OK, it's been a week.  Time for my overall Olympic review.  Aside from the two incredibly disappointing ceremonies, the Paris Games were simply spectacular.  Full of memorable moments, both good and bad.  But mostly good.  Which were the best though?  Well, that's a highly subjective question.  Here are 10 that I'll remember the most.  Well, I'll start with my three favorite non-American moments, then move on to my American Top 10.

Leon Marchand: During his speech at the Closing Ceremony, Tony Estanguet, the head of the organizing committee, said "We wanted to inspire.  We got Leon Marchand."  That says enough about the undisputed star of the Games.  Four gold medals, including two in one night, with the entire arena singing the French national anthem after each one.  And how much does Marchand get it?  In a postrace interview with NBC, he mentioned Michael Phelps and how he wished Phelps had been able to experience a home Olympics.  That's a man who knows the significance of what he did in Paris.

Novak Djokovic wins gold: Want to know how much Olympic gold meant to him?  The man who's won more Grand Slam titles than anyone else in history was literally weeping after he beat Carlos Alcaraz in the gold medal match.  Olympic gold was the only thing his resume was missing and he wanted it so much.  He withdrew from the French Open mid-tournament and had knee surgery just so he'd be ready for the Olympics.  I've never seen him more emotional after a match than he was after winning that gold medal.

Mijian Lopez makes history & goes out on top: Cuban wrestler Mijian Lopez is one of the greatest athletes you've probably never heard of.  With his gold medal in the Greco-Roman super heavyweight class, he became the first athlete ever to win the same individual event at five consecutive Olympics.  He then took his shoes off and left them on the mat, the symbol of retirement.

Could I make this entire post about international athletes?  I sure could.  But I won't.  Not when the U.S. won 126 medals, more than any other country in Paris and its most since the 1984 LA Games (a total that was greatly inflated because of the Soviet-led boycott).  Special shout out to the U.S. women, who accounted for more than half of those medals and would've finished third in the medal count all on their own.  With that in mind, I might as well start the countdown with the American women...

Simone is back: Michael Phelps returned for the Rio Olympics because he was disappointed with how his London Games went.  It was the same thing with Simone Biles here.  We all saw what happened in Tokyo.  What a difference three years makes!  Simone was her brilliant self once again, winning three gold medals and a silver.  And, more importantly, doing it with a smile on her face the entire time.

Super Syd: It was a tremendous Olympics for the entire U.S. track & field team.  Thirty-four medals, including 14 gold.  One performance stood out above the rest, though.  Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone defended her Olympic title in the 400 meter hurdles and once again lowered her own world record.  She then ran the second leg in the final of the 4x400 meter relay, and the race was already over when she passed the baton to Gabby Thomas.  Please set up the schedule so she can attempt the 400-400 hurdles double in LA!

Ledecky stands alone: Katie Ledecky did her thing again.  She won gold in the 800 freestyle for the fourth straight Olympics and her second straight gold in the 1500 freestyle, as well as silver in the 4x200 freestyle relay and bronze in the 400 freestyle.  Ledecky now has 14 career Olympic medals, more than any other American woman and more than anybody period except for some guy named Phelps.  She plans on sticking around at least until LA, too.

Kristen Faulkner: Kristen Faulkner wasn't even supposed to be in the Olympic road race.  She ended up becoming the first American to win gold in the event in 40 years!  The Alaska native who was a rower at Harvard and began cycling in Central Park then added another a week later on the track, helping the U.S. win the women's team pursuit for the first time ever.  Two different cycling disciplines, two gold medals.

Lee Kiefer: On Day 2 of the Games, there was an all-American final in women's foil fencing.  The gold went to defending champion Lee Kiefer.  She and silver medalist Lauren Scruggs then teamed up with Maia Weintraub and Jackie Dubrovich to win gold in the team event, making Kiefer the first American woman ever to earn two fencing gold medals at the same Olympics.

A thrilling finish: The U.S. made the rugby semifinals for the first time since the sport's reintroduction in Rio.  The women's team lost its semifinal to New Zealand, then played Australia for bronze.  In one of the most thrilling moments of the entire Olympic Games, Spiff Sedrick ran the length of the field on literally the final play of the game to tie the score, then the U.S. kicked the game-winning conversion for the bronze, its first Olympic rugby medal in a century.

Women's soccer's return to glory: A new coach and almost an entirely new team with little-to-no expectations after a disappointing round of 16 exit at the 2023 World Cup.  A team that hadn't won Olympic gold in 12 years.  Well, it turns out, this new version of the U.S. Women's National Team is young, exciting and fun to watch.  They played six games in France.  They won them all, including a 1-0 victory over Brazil for the gold medal that was watched by 9 million viewers on NBC.

Those basketball finals: They couldn't have asked for much more from either the men's or women's basketball gold medal game.  They were both USA vs. France.  And it was obvious who the home team was!  The Americans ended up winning both.  The women for the eighth consecutive time, the men for the fifth.  France made them work for it, though.  Two spectacular finishes to cap off the Olympic tournaments and, in the case of the women's game, to cap off the entire Olympics!

Redemption for Rai: There were several American men who came to Paris looking to make up for disappointment in Tokyo.  Noah Lyles got his gold (just not in his preferred event).  So did Grant Holloway.  And so did Rai Benjamin, whose silver medal in Tokyo was perhaps the most heartbreaking.  He ran the second-fastest 400-meter hurdles time ever...but Karsten Warholm set the world record.  This time, Benjamin's the one who ended up on the top of the podium.  His first global title was Olympic gold.  He then held off Botswana on the anchor leg to pick up a second gold medal in the 4x400 relay.

Pommel horse guy: I can only imagine what it must've been like for Stephen Nedoroscik.  He was on the Olympic team to do one thing.  The pommel horse.  Which happened to be the Americans' last rotation in the team final.  He literally sat around watching the entire competition before it was finally his turn to go, knowing that his performance could determine if the U.S. medaled or not.  Which it did.  And he delivered, making himself a cult hero in the process.  Nedoroscik's entire Olympics consisted of three pommel horse routines.  And he left Paris with two bronze medals.

That's just a snapshot of what happened during 16 truly exceptional days in Paris.  I could easily make a second list with another 10 memorable moments.  The Paris Olympics were unforgettable in so many ways.  These 13 highlights are just some of the reasons why.

The Olympic Medal Count

Tired of Olympic posts yet?  I'll be done with them soon.  Promise.  But not yet.  Because there's still plenty of things that happened in Paris to talk about. 

I haven't touched on the whole controversy surrounding Jordan Chiles and her bronze medal, which I think still has a few twists and turns left in it.  The only thing I'll say about that right now is how I don't like that the term "stripped" is being used.  That implies she did something wrong.  She didn't.  None of the athletes involved did.  (Frankly, neither did either team's coaches.)  I understand that it's being used for lack of a better term, but it still doesn't sit well with me.

Nor have I tackled the misleading reports that breaking was "dropped" from the Olympic program for 2028.  That's simply not true.  Breaking was never going to be included in the LA Games.  The 2028 Olympic sports were finalized last year, and breaking wasn't among them.  So, we weren't going to see it in LA regardless of how its debut in Paris went.  To imply it was "dropped" for LA because of how it was received in Paris is just incorrect.

Instead, I'm going to talk about the medal count.  More specifically how the daily medal count is tabulated and displayed.  This was a very big topic of conversation during the first week of the Games especially, when the U.S. swim team was busy collecting a whole lot of silver and bronze, but not that much gold.  As a result, NBC and other American media outlets had the U.S. near the top of the medal standings, while the rest of the world, which uses gold medals, had the U.S. much further down.

This is usually something that works itself out in the end.  The U.S. has won the most total medals at every Olympics since 1996 and has won the most golds at every Olympics in that same span except for 2008, when host China held a 48-36 edge (it was originally 51, but three Chinese weightlifters had their gold medals taken away for doping).  At the last two Olympics, though, it's gone right down to the wire.  In Tokyo, the U.S. won two golds on the final day to edge China 39-38, while thanks to the American victory in the women's basketball gold medal game, which was literally the last event of the Games, it was a 40-40 tie in Paris (the first time there's ever been a tie atop the final medal standings at the Olympics).

Early in the Olympics, when the U.S. was lagging behind in the gold-medal tally, is when it was really noticeable.  Which is what led to the questions about where the U.S. actually stood in the medal tally.  And the answer is both are correct.  The IOC is very clear that there's no "official" medal tally.  It's listed strictly for informational purposes, but there's no "right" way to display it. 

Most countries only care about gold medals, so that's the method they choose.  That's also how the IOC displays the medal tally.  The United States, meanwhile, prefers to use total medals, where the U.S. is likely to be at or near the top.  Frankly, nations are going to use whichever makes them look the best.  Which is something the IOC is totally fine with.  (In the event of a tie for gold medals, whoever has the most silver medals is used as the tiebreaker, then the most bronzes, so the U.S. officially finished at the top of both tables in Paris.)

There's also the point system, which isn't commonly used and is pretty much the same as the overall medal tally.  Using this method, you can either go 5 points for a gold, 3 for a silver and 1 for a bronze or 3-2-1.  With the point system, the U.S. would've easily won with 374 points compared to China's 278 (or 250-198 using 3-2-1 scoring).  This isn't as straightforward as using just the medals won, however, so I can see why it isn't the preferred method.

While the debate over which method of displaying the medal standings is "correct" is at least valid, I saw an article yesterday that made a simply absurd argument that neither should be used.  The author of this article seemed to think that team sports get the shaft in the medal count since team sport medals count the same as individual events in the tally.  So, instead of one total gold medal for the nation, he wants gold medals in team sports to count as one gold medal for each individual.  Basketball would count as 12 gold medals, track and swimming relays would count as four, etc.

Part of his argument is that only counting a team event as one medal doesn't account for all of the individuals who actually came home with medals.  There were 13 players on the Serbian men's water polo team.  All of them received medals.  Serbia's medal tally only counts it as one, though, since the Serbian team won the gold medal.

He used Kevin Durant as another example.  Durant just won his fourth Olympic gold medal.  He has four physical gold medals.  Not 1/3 of one medal.  All 12 members of the team receive a gold medal.  Not 1/12 of one.  So, his argument is basically based on the premise that the number of individual gold medals awarded to athletes from a given country should be what's counted, regardless of whether they're in an individual or team event.

That argument is flawed for several reasons, though.  First and foremost, it would also be an inaccurate measure because the number of athletes in team events varies.  Some team events include just two competitors.  Some involve three.  Even in relays, the number isn't always the same.  Nations can sub out athletes between the prelims and the final.  Some may use the same four in both rounds.  And, while this almost never happens, another could theoretically replace everybody and use eight different athletes (you still get a medal if you run in the prelims, but not the final).  So, even within the same event, the same number of medals aren't necessarily being awarded.

Meanwhile, team sports are exactly that.  Team sports.  LeBron James and Stephen Curry received the same gold medal as Jayson Tatum and Tyrese Haliburton, who barely played in Paris.  In 1980, Steve Janaszak didn't play a second in Lake Placid as Jim Craig's backup, but he still got a gold medal with the rest of the Miracle On Ice hockey team.  Those gold medals are equal regardless of how much playing time the player got or how big their contribution was.

Perhaps most importantly, and the best counterargument that can be made, is that the medal tally tracks each event.  The basketball tournaments might've taken two weeks, but they still only counted as two events--the men's tournament and the women's tournament.  The number of individuals who contributed to that gold medal doesn't change the fact that, officially, it's still just one event.

And, frankly, counting the individual number of gold medals awarded to each athlete in a team event would just be confusing!  There were 329 total events in Paris.  Thus, there were 329 gold medals.  Everyone understands that they weren't all individual events and more than 329 people actually received gold medals.  That doesn't diminish their contributions.  It simply acknowledges that they were part of gold medal-winning team.

Gold medals won as a part of a team are no less valuable than those won individually.  Just because an athlete wins a gold medal in a team event, that doesn't change the fact that they won it.  The medal count doesn't keep track of how many individual medals athletes received, though.  It tracks how many events a country won.  And team sport tournaments are just one event.  Thus, they only count as one medal for the country.  It's been that way for 128 years and it ain't changing anytime soon!

People DO Still Watch the Olympics

Well, would you look at that?  As it turns out, the reports that "no one watches or cares about the Olympics anymore" after the Tokyo Games were greatly exaggerated.  Because, as the Paris Games proved, that couldn't be further from the truth.  NBC has been bullish on its Paris ratings since the start of the Olympics, and the good news keeps coming.  Not only did people watch on traditional TV by the millions, they set records for Peacock, while completely changing the Olympic viewing model in the process.

First, let's talk about Tokyo.  A lot of factors contributed to NBC's lackluster ratings, which turned out to be more of a one-time blip than an indication of a future trend.  And those factors, more than anything else, contributed to those disappointing numbers.  Nobody was happy about it, and nobody pretended to be.  But I think the higher-ups at NBC also understood the reason.

The most significant issue with Tokyo was the most obvious one.  Japan is literally on the other side of the world.  They were able to convince the IOC to schedule swimming finals in the morning so that they'd be live in prime time here, but pretty much everything else was in the middle of the night!  So, unless you were staying up all night and watching on cable, chances are you didn't see much of the Tokyo Games live.  And people are less likely to tune in hours later when they already know the result (which is impossible to avoid these days).

Then there's the COVID factor.  I don't mean to keep harping on the same point, but COVID definitely had an impact on a number of fronts.  It led to empty venues, which sucked out all of the atmosphere and made the made-for-TV Olympics a far less enjoyable viewing experience.  Likewise, they weren't able to go out in the city, so coverage was limited to the events and that's it.  And people already knew what happened in those events.  

There were also the people who simply didn't think the Tokyo Olympics should've happened at all, so they were less enthused to watch them.  I don't want to say people were completely apathetic about the Tokyo Olympics, but there was more skepticism than enthusiasm.  And, with COVID still having a direct impact on so many lives, they could easily be forgiven for being too preoccupied with other things to watch the Tokyo Olympics.

Finally, there's Peacock.  NBC launched Peacock in July 2020, a week before the Tokyo Olympics were supposed to start.  Peacock showing every event live was supposed to be what made people sign up for the streaming service.  The one-year delay obviously impacted those plans, and when the Tokyo Games finally did start in July 2021, not as many people as they anticipated were compelled to sign up for Peacock (which had already been going for a year at this point) just to watch the Olympics on a streaming service that didn't really offer much else.

Fast forward three years, and Peacock is one of the industry leaders when it comes to streaming live sports.  Peacock's also a much better service than it was in 2021, and the concept of streaming every Olympic event live wasn't nearly as daunting a task.  And some of the Peacock-specific programming, particularly Gold Zone, drew high praise.  NBC finally perfected the formula, which made a big difference.

In the past, NBC would hold marquee events for the primetime broadcast and not make them available anywhere else until they aired on the broadcast network.  That, frankly, was one of the biggest causes of frustration with many viewers for multiple Olympics.  This year, they just said "screw it."  They not only showed everything live, they had as many as seven linear TV channels going simultaneously, as well.  And they repeatedly showed you what else was being broadcast throughout the day, basically saying, "If you don't want to watch this, that's fine.  You can watch these other things instead."

That's a vast difference from NBC's approach not even too long ago, when the NBC broadcast network was essentially your only option.  That's still the case in a number of other countries, by the way.  I have a friend who was in Croatia throughout the Olympics.  Croatian TV had the Olympics on the main network and a secondary channel, and that was it.  Your options were limited to what was being shown on those two channels.  You couldn't even stream something else.  It made him miss NBC's variety of offerings.

NBC's offerings this year included full, live coverage in the early morning hours of sports that would also be edited for broadcast on the main network later on.  Morning sessions of swimming, track & field and gymnastics were shown in full on either USA or E!, meaning fans of those sports wouldn't miss anything, while it also gave them more options for the main NBC telecast.  They even showed full coverage of finals (in a variety of sports) that would be broadcast later on NBC.  And full coverage of every Team USA game in team sports was available on cable.  The network's ability to only broadcast one thing at a time was no longer a limitation.

Now let's talk about Gold Zone, the highly popular feature that was a huge success and drew instant acclaim.  It was basically NFL Red Zone, but for the Olympics.  The show was on for 10 hours (7 AM-5 PM) every day, with a rotating stable of hosts taking turns.  It was fresh, it was new, and, most importantly, it gave people what they wanted in real time.  They showed every gold medal event as it was happening, jumping around between different sports and even featuring multiple events at the same time (think NFL Red Zone's quad box).  For casual fans who were just watching the Olympics because it was the Olympics, they could leave Gold Zone on all day and not miss a thing, while also being entertained at the same time.

And, while it's an obvious point, it's also important to note that Paris is in a much more convenient time zone.  A European Olympics is always more favorable for Americans because of the time difference.  Paris is only six hours ahead of the East Coast, so, even though the primetime coverage couldn't be live, they could go live all afternoon until then.  And that's exactly what NBC did.  The highest-rated daypart of their afternoon coverage was the 2-5 PM window (8-11 PM in Paris) when most of the finals in the marquee events took place.

One of the biggest questions heading into the Olympics was whether people who watched these events live in the afternoon would still watch in prime time.  As a result, the primetime show was packaged differently, focusing not just on more than just the event coverage, which viewers may or may not have seen already.  The answer to that question was a resounding "Yes."  And Primetime in Paris was a vastly different show than the live-event-focused daytime show.  Was it everyone's cup of tea?  Probably not.  But it struck enough of a balance to keep everyone happy (or, at least, happy enough).

It was something worth trying for a European Olympics, which is really the only time a Primetime in Paris-type show would work.  In LA, the primetime show will obviously revert back to a more traditional broadcast.  The 2028 Olympics as a whole will be a vastly different viewing experience since everything won't just be (for the most part) live, it'll be the first time in 12 years that it's all happening in this part of the world, where there won't be any early-morning or late-night events (although, waiting until 10 or 11 AM for the Olympic day to start will also be kind of weird).

Lastly, and I think most importantly, people were excited for the Olympics again.  NBC's coverage was, by and large, significantly better.  But even if it wasn't, ratings still would've been better because of the perfect storm.  An Olympics without COVID for the first time since 2018, an Olympics not in the same part of Asia for the first time since 2016, superstar athletes on Team USA, and, oh yeah, they were in freaking Paris!  There was genuine excitement for these Olympics.  It all adds up to must-see TV.

Will this positive trend continue heading into Milan-Cortina 2026 (the Winter Olympics are traditionally less-viewed anyway) and LA 2028 (when, you'd figure, people will watch because they'll be the first American Olympics in 32 years)?  Who knows!  But there are a lot of positives to take away from NBC's Olympic ratings rebound in Paris that will likely carry over into their future Olympic broadcasts.  They not only found a model that works in the age of streaming, they might've perfected it.  And the ratings showed that.

Exactly What We Needed

The IOC was badly in need of a palate cleanser.  After seeing more and more cities decide that they didn't want to host the Olympics in recent years, followed by back-to-back COVID games in Tokyo and Beijing, they needed a reset.  The Paris Games provided them with an opportunity for just that.  And (aside from two highly disappointing ceremonies), that's exactly what Paris delivered.  The 2024 Olympics weren't just a home run.  They may go down in history as the Games where the Olympics got their groove back.

While this isn't the IOC's or the Tokyo Games' fault because they couldn't control it, the Tokyo Games didn't feel like an Olympics.  The athletes themselves said over and over again in Paris that this Olympic experience was completely different than the one three years ago.  In Tokyo, they were competing in empty stadiums, were basically limited to the Village and their own sport's venue, had to wear masks everywhere, and had to leave as soon as their competition was over.  They weren't even allowed to explore the city!

In Paris, none of those restrictions existed.  It was the world's chance to get back together and celebrate for the first time in eight years.  And that's what these Olympics were more than anything else.  A celebration.  A celebration of sport, yes.  But more a celebration of being together.  It's something that we maybe didn't even know was needed until we got it and remembered what we were missing.

I think that's especially true for the athletes themselves.  Throughout the Olympics, you saw so many athletes attending other sports and simply being fans themselves.  That's something they didn't get to do in Tokyo, and it's a big part of the Olympic experience.  Being there for those moments.  The fact that they got to do it in Paris?  Even better.

Paris was the perfect backdrop.  No other city is Paris, and they took full advantage of that.  When people look back on these Olympics, the brilliant decision to make use of iconic Parisian landmarks as Olympic venues will undoubtedly be right at the top of the list of highlights.  And the fact that most of the venues were centrally located, including many in the heart of the city itself, only enhanced the experience.  These Games were as much a part of Paris as Paris was of them.  It was unescapable.

Another thing that was inescapable was the sight and sound of packed stadiums!  Venues were packed, and venues were loud.  The hometown support the French athletes enjoyed was incredible!  But it wasn't just them.  People literally came from all over the world for these Olympics (the fact that Paris is a very desirable city to visit and a very easy place to get to certainly helped).  I don't know the exact number, but I think they said there were over a million tickets sold, and if there were any events that weren't sellouts, they were few and far between.

It was enough to give you chills.  The crowd nearly lifted Leon Marchand out of the water during every race, and you could hear the entire place singing "La Marseillaise" as he received each of his gold medals.  The President of France was taking selfies with Jimmy Fallon!  And the atmosphere at both of those USA-France gold medal basketball games?  You definitely knew who the home team was!  It's an experience the American athletes will be lucky enough to be on the other side of in 2028.  

Prior to the Olympics, there were questions about how much enthusiasm there was for the Olympics among the people in Paris.  My sister was in Paris a few months ago (where she got me a hat with the Olympic mascot on it for my birthday) and I asked her that very question, and she said that if you didn't already know the Olympics were coming to Paris, you wouldn't by just going to the city.  There were even the stories of Parisians leaving the city to avoid being there during the Olympics.  A lot of those people ended up coming back for the second week of the Games because they wanted to be a part of it, after all.

Towards the end of every Olympics, the IOC President sits down for an interview with NBC.  In that interview, Mike Tirico asked Thomas Bach how much the Olympic movement needed Paris after the COVID Games of Tokyo.  He said that they needed both.  Tokyo because an entire generation would've missed out on their opportunity, Paris because it was the reset they needed.  The world came together and the Olympics created a community again.  And, more importantly, Paris showed that the IOC's new model for hosting the Games doesn't just work, it can be a rousing success.

As a part of their Agenda 2020 reforms designed to make the Olympics more cost-feasible, one of the IOC's biggest recommendations was using existing and temporary venues whenever possible, only building when necessary and with a clear vision for a post-Olympics use.  Which is exactly what Paris did.  The only new venue built specifically for the Olympics was the Aquatics Center across the street from the Stade de France, which will become community pools for public use.  That's it.  Everything else was either already there or will be taken down once the Paralympics are over.  And those venues were spectacular!

Another thing President Bach mentioned in his NBC interview was that these Games were authentically French and authentically Parisian.  So, LA shouldn't try to copy them.  The 2028 Games should be authentically Angelino, authentically Californian and authentically American.  Especially since some of the things that made the Paris Games so great can't be replicated.  (There's only one Eiffel Tower and only one Louvre.)

These Olympics were the culmination of a long journey.  Paris has been trying to get the Olympics for nearly 40 years!  In 1986, Paris was the runner-up to Barcelona for the 1992 Games.  In 2005, Paris entered the final round of voting as the favorite to land the 2012 Games, but ended up losing to London (which hosted a spectacular Olympics that year).  That persistence finally paid off in 2017, and it was well worth the wait.  Because the 2024 Games were tres magnifique.

Did Paris need to host the Olympics?  No.  It would've still been Paris without them.  Paris wanted the Olympics, though.  Which I think is actually one of the biggest reasons for their being such a success.  They finally got their opportunity.  The Olympics were finally back in Paris a century after the last time.  They wanted to show the world what they've been missing.  And boy did they!

But did the Olympics need Paris, though?  That's a much different question.  Because I think the answer to that one is a resounding "Yes!"  These just might be the Games where the Olympics got their groove back.  And all the credit for that goes to the city of Paris, the organizing committee and the French fans.  The Paris Games weren't just spectacular.  They were exactly what the Olympics needed.

Two and a Half Years Later

One day before the 16th anniversary of the Opening Ceremony of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the final gold medal of the 2022 Beijing Olympics was awarded at last.  The U.S. figure skating team, as well as silver-medalist Japan, was invited to Paris for the long-awaited medals ceremony.  Two and a half years after the event, they were finally presented their Olympic medals in front of the Eiffel Tower.  It was one of the coolest moments of the Paris Games...and it involved Winter Olympians who weren't even competing!

This saga dominated the first week of the 2022 Olympics, and it cast a huge shadow over those Games.  As a result of the controversy, the medals ceremony for the figure skating team event wasn't held.  The Americans and Japanese went home knowing they were Olympic medalists, but without those medals in their possession.  They didn't even know what color they were!  It was a truly unprecedented move.  

The IOC did promise, however, that the medals would be awarded "in an appropriate setting" once the case was fully adjudicated.  The legal process dragged on much longer than anyone expected, but it finally got settled, with Kamila Valiyeva's disqualification standing, the Russians being relegated from gold to bronze, the United States upgraded to gold and Japan moving up from bronze to silver.  And the timing actually worked out kind of perfectly.  Because it gave them the opportunity to finally present the medals in an absolutely perfect setting.

As a refresher, it was discovered two days after the team competition in Beijing concluded that Valiyeva, who skated both segments of the women's portion in the event, had failed a drug test at the Russian Championships and was provisionally suspended.  She was allowed to compete in the women's singles event pending the appeals, with the official results on hold until then.  After a lengthy appeals process, the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that she should've been suspended, backdated it to when she failed the test, and disqualified her from the Olympics.  At long last, Team USA had closure.  And gold medals.

It sounds weird to say it all worked out "perfectly," but in a way, it did.  COVID restrictions were still in place during the 2022 Olympics.  The only spectators allowed were people who live in China.  So, if the medals had been presented in Beijing, it would've been in front of a limited crowd that didn't include the skaters' families or friends.  In Paris, they didn't just have their families and friends there.  They had thousands of fans from around the world to join in the celebration.  It truly was an Olympic moment.  And did I mention it was in Paris?  In front of the Eiffel Tower?

Those COVID protocols applied to the athletes, too, so the entire U.S. team wouldn't have been able to celebrate together had the medals ceremony taken place in Beijing at the 2022 Olympics, either.  Vincent Zhou tested positive and was in quarantine.  He would've missed it.  That wasn't the case on Wednesday.  All nine Americans were on the stage together at the Trocadero, receiving their gold medals as a team.  (One of the Japanese skaters was missing, but, otherwise, their whole team was there, too.)

So, even though it was a long and winding road, and a wait that must've felt agonizing, there was a satisfying conclusion to this story.  The Olympic gold and silver medalists received their medals at last.  It must've been a bittersweet moment.  They had to wait so long, but they finally got their due.  And they got to do it in Paris, as a team, in front of their family and friends.

You'll notice I only mentioned the gold and silver medalists.  What about the bronze?  Well, that's still up in the air.  Even after removing Valiyeva's points, Russia still had enough to win the bronze by a point over Canada.  However, the Canadians argue that the women's portion of the event should've been rescored, moving everybody up a place, which would give them the two points they need to pass Russia.  It's a valid point.  So, the bronze is still unsettled.  Regardless, gold to the United States and silver to Japan won't change.

Even if everything with the bronze was settled, however, it's highly doubtful the Russians would've been invited to the ceremony.  They're persona non grata with the IOC at the moment.  They have been for several years.  The Russian Olympic Committee is currently suspended because of the invasion of Ukraine, and the handful of Russian athletes who were approved to compete in Paris have to do so as "Independent Neutral Athletes" without a flag or any sort of national imagery.  They weren't even allowed to participate in the Opening Ceremony.

Prior to its current suspension, of course, Russia was suspended by the IOC because of its doping non-compliance.  Since hosting the 2014 Sochi Games, the country has been called three different names at the Olympics.  They were "Russia" in 2016, "Olympic Athletes from Russia" in 2018, and "ROC" (Russian Olympic Committee) in both Tokyo and Beijing.  And, while the doping suspension is technically over, they aren't in Paris (although, if we want to count "Independent Neutral Athletes" as a fourth name for the Russian Olympians, we can) and likely won't be in Milan-Cortina, either.

While the figure skating saga in Beijing is the most recent example, Russia's shoddy doping history has resulted in far too many disqualifications and medal reallocations years after the fact.  Some of those situations will also be rectified in Paris. 

Lashinda Demus, who originally finished second in the women's 400 hurdles at the London Games, was retroactively awarded the gold after the Russian who finished in front of her was DQed.  She'll receive her gold medal in a ceremony of her own at the Trocadero.  So will Erik Kynard, who, likewise, saw his London silver in the men's high jump upgraded to a gold.  

Will it be as bittersweet for them as it was for the figure skaters?  I'm sure.  They've had to wait years for a moment that was stolen from them.  But, they are getting that moment.  And that's the important thing.  Even though it's years after the fact, their medals are coming home to their rightful place.  And good on the IOC to make the best of a bad situation by having these medal ceremonies at an Olympics, where the athletes can enjoy it with the world, just as they would have had it happened when it was supposed to.

That's why Wednesday's medal ceremony, which didn't even involve Summer Olympians, will go down as one of my favorite moments of the Paris Games.  The 2022 U.S. figure skating team finally got its moment.  Karen Chen, Nathan Chen, Vincent Zhou, Alexa Kneirim, Brandon Frazier, Madison Hubbell, Zach Donohue, Madison Chock and Evan Bates received their Olympic gold medals at long last.