Next Retired Numbers (Hockey, Part II)

OK, here we go with Round II of the hockey retired numbers.  I have to admit, three teams made this one kinda tricky.  Well, not so much the Golden Knights, but definitely the Kraken and Mammoth.  Utah is technically an expansion team, so no Jets or Coyotes.  So, it looks like we're using an active Mammoth player!

It's not exactly like the rest of the Western Conference teams had an easy obvious candidate, either.  But, they've at least got enough history or an active player who's done enough to warrant it.  Besides, the whole purpose of this exercise was to do one from every team regardless of how likely it is, which is exactly what I'm gonna do.

Ducks: 10 Corey Perry-He's made his way around the NHL since leaving Anaheim and is on a crazy Pat Maroon-esque streak of five times playing in the Stanley Cup Final in the last six years, but let's not forget how good Corey Perry was with the Ducks (who are still the only team he's actually lifted the Cup with).  Perry spent his first 14 seasons in Anaheim and was one of the best players in the NHL during his prime.  Longtime teammate Ryan Getzlaf also deserves to be in the running, but Corey Perry gets the nod.  No matter how many teams he ends up playing for, the first one that comes to mind will be the Ducks.

Flames: 13 Johnny Gaudreau-Much like with Columbus, I'm surprised the Flames didn't retire Gaudreau's number at the beginning of the season.  Johnny Hockey spent the majority of his career in Calgary, won the Calder and the Lady Byng, and became one of the best players in the NHL.  In Calgary, it would be far more than a gesture honoring a fallen hero.  It would be recognizing his role as one of the franchise's all-time greatest players.

Blackhawks: 88 Patrick Kane-Kane was the Blackhawks' best player on their three Stanley Cup teams and was named one of the 100 Greatest NHL Players during the league's centennial celebration.  He's also arguably the greatest American player in NHL history.  Kane is still going strong as a Red Wing, but he'll always be a Blackhawk.  And once he hangs it up for good, his No. 88 will take its rightful place in the United Center rafters.

Avalanche: 29 Nathan MacKinnon-Pick an Avalanche player.  Landeskog.  MacKinnon.  Makar.  Rantanen is probably out because he's now in Dallas, but the other three are all in the running.  Barring anything unforeseen, MacKinnon and Makar figure to both be Avalanche for a while, so they'll likely both end up having their numbers retired.  MacKinnon's only 29 and has already been there a decade!  How crazy is that?!

Stars: 14 Jamie Benn-There are several options for the Stars, who have a surprisingly small amount of retired numbers for how successful the franchise has been.  Which leads me to believe they're just selective about who they choose to honor.  No matter how selective their process is, Jamie Benn makes the cut.  He's been a Star since 2009-10 and should get his 1,000th point in a Dallas uniform next season.

Oilers: 97 Connor McDavid-Everybody significant from their dynasty teams has had has number retired for years.  Which means the next Oilers retired numbers will likely come from their current run of success.  While neither McDavid nor Draisaitl figures to retire anytime soon, both of their numbers will be retired as soon as they do.  I just arbitrarily picked McDavid, but if Draisaitl retires first, then 29 will go to the rafters before 97.

Kings: 32 Jonathan Quick-This one really comes down to a race between Quick, Drew Doughty and Anze Kopitar.  They were all integral to the Kings winning two Stanley Cups a decade ago, and Doughty and Kopitar is still going strong.  Quick is much closer to the end of his career, so it stands to reason that he'll retire first.  As such, his number will be retired first.

Wild: 97 Kirill Kaprizov-Believe it or not, the Wild DO have a retired number: Mikko Koivu's No. 9.  There are some candidates on the current roster for who might be the second.  Matt Boldy is just getting started, but could end up holding all of their franchise records by the time he's done.  Kirill Kaprizov has a bit of a head start, so his numbers are better right now.  As such, he gets the nod.

Predators: 59 Roman Josi-Pekka Rinne is the only player in Predators history to have his number retired.  And rightfully so!  He's, without question, the most significant player in franchise history.  Josi isn't too far behind, though.  He's been in Nashville since 2011-12 and won a Norris Trophy.  So far.  After all, Josi is still only 34.

Sharks: 88 Brent Burns-Brent Burns deserves to be honored just for his beard alone!  He's obviously in Carolina now, but let's not forget how great he was in San Jose!  I don't see him hanging it up anytime soon, but when he does, I can see Burns signing a one-day contract with San Jose just so he can retire a Shark.  When/if that happens, expect to see him become the third Shark to have his number retired.

Kraken: 10 Matty Beniers-Seattle's only been around four years and hasn't found the same expansion magic that Vegas did.  The Kraken have only made the playoffs once in franchise history.  They do have a franchise player, though.  Beniers was their first-ever draft pick, played 10 games in that inaugural season, and has been their guy ever since.

Blues: 7 Keith Tkachuk-Matthew and Brady's dad spent the better part of his last nine NHL seasons in St. Louis and was recently inducted into the Blues Hall of Fame.  He's become a sort of cult hero for Blues fans, too.  And, because he racked up so many penalty minutes, I think his offense is a bit underrated.  While acknowledge this is probably unlikely, there's no doubt his jersey retirement ceremony would be fun!

Mammoth: 9 Clayton Keller-As I mentioned above, the Mammoth are technically a one-year-old franchise.  So, we're basically limited to their current roster.  Clayton Keller is their captain and just won gold with Team USA at the World Championships, so let's go with him.

Canucks: 1 Roberto Luongo-Frankly, I'm surprised the Canucks haven't retired Luongo's number yet.  It's no coincidence that Vancouver was one of the best teams in the NHL while Luongo was their goalie.  He's the franchise's all-time leader in every goaltending category and even served as team captain (even though goalies aren't allowed to wear the "C").  Luongo also won Olympic gold for Canada on home ice (which was doubly true for him) in 2010.

Golden Knights: 29 Marc-Andre Fleury-Vegas is the poster child for an expansion success story.  The Knights have been around for eight seasons, made the playoffs in seven of them, been to two Finals and won a Cup.  They were given instant credibility by taking a future Hall of Fame goalie with the top pick in their expansion draft.  Fleury won a Vezina in Vegas, too.  They've done a lot of things right since coming into the NHL.  Things like immediately having a franchise goalie.

Jets: 37 Connor Hellebuyck-We're just gonna pretend the Atlanta Thrashers never existed so, sorry Ilya Kovalchuk.  You didn't play in Winnipeg, you don't get your number retired!  Especially when the Jets are far more successful than the Thrashers ever were.  Mark Scheifele and Josh Morrissey are also in the running for this honor, but Hellebuyck's the franchise goalie.

Next Retired Numbers (Hockey, Part I)

After doing baseball and football, I took a little break from the retired number series.  I always intended to go back to it.  After all, I still have two of the four major leagues left.  And, with both of those leagues set to start their respective Finals next week, I figured now is as good a time as any to jump back in.

We'll start with hockey, more specifically, the Eastern Conference.  And, just to go over the rules, players can still be active, as long as they've already done enough to warrant it.  If a team already has the number retirement planned, then I move on to the next player in line.  Also, it's only one player per team.  Pittsburgh, for example, will almost certainly retire both Crosby's 87 and Malkin's 71 (and probably Letang's 58, too), so it's which of those should be retired first.  With that, here we go...

Bruins: 33 Zdeno Chara-Don't be surprised if the Bruins end up retiring a bunch of numbers from their recent Cup teams.  Pastrnak, Bergeron and Marchand seem like virtual certainties, and I wouldn't be surprised if 2 U, 2 K, Tuukka has his number retired, as well.  But, Rask is the only one of those four who's retired.  So is Zdeno Chara, who also seems like he'd be a lock.  The future Hall of Famer gets the nod.

Sabres: 25 Dave Andreychuk-It's been a while since the Sabres were good (more than a while, in fact), so there definitely isn't anybody recent who you'd consider.  Why not go all the way back to a Hall of Famer who spent the first 11 seasons of his career in Buffalo, then?  Andreychuk's already a member of the Sabres Hall of Fame, but he deserves more than that.  His number 25 should also hang from the rafters.

Hurricanes: 20 Sebastian Aho-Carolina's best player for a while now, he's already made his way up several of the franchise's all-time lists.  And he's signed thru 2031-32, so you've gotta think he'll move past franchise icon Eric Staal and sit behind only the legendary Ron Francis before all is said and done.  If they ever actually win multiple Eastern Conference Final games while Aho's still around, that will cement his place in Hurricanes history even more.

Blue Jackets: 13 Johnny Gaudreau-Gaudreau is most remembered for his time with the Flames, and his Blue Jackets career was tragically cut short.  But he definitely left an impact in Columbus (and with USA Hockey), which was felt all season.  It would be more of a touching gesture than anything else, but it's a gesture I don't think many people would have a problem with.

Red Wings: 24 Chris Chelios-Chelios had his number retired in Chicago last season, but you could make an argument that it should be retired in Detroit, as well.  He played 11 years with the Red Wings and won two Stanley Cups with them.  And he's in the Hall of Fame, which seems to be a requirement for the franchise.  All of the players who've had their number retired by the Red Wings are in the Hall of Fame (although, Detroit also has several unofficial "honored" numbers, and not all of those players are in the Hall of Fame).

Panthers: 16 Aleksander Barkov-There are plenty of options from this current dynasty team the Panthers have going.  Their captain, Sasha Barkov, isn't just the leader of that team, he's been there the longest.  He'll be the first non-goalie ever to have his number retired by the Panthers.

Canadiens: 11 Saku Koivu-Montreal has 18 retired numbers.  All 18 of those players are in the Hockey Hall of Fame.  But, the Canadiens haven't won the Cup in more than 30 years, so I had to go with a non-Hall of Famer (even though that might be disqualifying).  Saku Koivu was their first European captain and is their longest-tenured captain.  He's also a cancer survivor and was forced to miss most of the 2001-02 season after being diagnosed before playing every game in 2002-03.

Devils: 22 Claude Lemieux-Every Devil who's had his number retired played during the same era--when they were really good and won three Stanley Cups from 1995-2003.  There's one guy from that group who's missing, though.  Claude Lemieux.  The argument against is that he wasn't a Devil long enough.  I'm not arguing that he should be mentioned in the same breath as Martin Brodeur and Scott Stevens or even Ken Daneyko and Patrick Elias.  He was pretty great during his five seasons with the team, though, and won the Conn Smythe in 1995.

Islanders: 16 Pat LaFontaine-Much like the Devils, every number the Islanders have retired is from their dynasty teams.  Unlike the Devils, the Islanders don't have any deserving players from that era left who haven't already had their number retired.  So, instead, I'm going with Pat LaFontaine, who joined the Islanders after playing for the United States at the 1984 Olympics and became a fan favorite while playing the first eight years of his Hall of Fame career with them.

Rangers: 5 Bill Cook-While I recognize this is completely unlikely, I've long been an advocate of Bill Cook having his number retired by the Rangers.  All of the great players from the 60s & 70s have had their numbers retired.  So have the four key guys from the 1994 team and Henrik Lundqvist.  This season is the Rangers' centennial, and I think it would be great if they honored their first star and first captain by raising his number to the Garden rafters, as well.

Senators: 19 Jason Spezza-Franchise icon Daniel Alfredsson is the Senators' all-time leader in everything.  In most of those categories, Jason Spezza is second.  He spent the majority of his 19-year career in Ottawa, served as their captain, and led them to the only Stanley Cup Final appearance in franchise history.  Brady Tkachuk could certainly make a case eventually, but right now, Spezza is most deserving of having the Senators' next retired number.

Flyers: 31 Pelle Lindbergh-I'm cheating a little bit here.  I admit it.  Lindberg's number has been held out of circulation since his 1985 death, but was never officially retired.  Why not?  Let's make it official.

Penguins: 87 Sidney Crosby-If you had to decide between the three (Crosby, Malkin, Letang), Crosby would have to be the choice.  He's the guy they drafted No. 1 overall to resurrect the franchise, and all he's done is lead them to multiple Stanley Cups as the team captain.  Crosby's just as good now as he was 20 years ago, and probably the second-most important player in Penguins history behind only Mario Lemieux.

Lightning: 91 Steven Stamkos-Currently, Tampa Bay only has two retired numbers: Martin St. Louis and Vincent Lecavalier, the two key players on their 2004 Stanley Cup team.  They'll soon have company.  From multiple players who've played for the Lightning over the last decade, when they've consistently been one of the best teams in the NHL.  Victor Hedman, Andrei Vasilevskiy and Nikita Kucherov all seem like locks.  But they'll all still be playing after Steven Stamkos retires, so Stamkos gets the nod as to who'll have his number retired first.

Maple Leafs: 34 Auston Matthews-As part of their centennial celebration in 2016, the Maple Leafs retired a whole bunch of numbers.  So, anybody in Leafs history you'd think deserves to have his number retired probably already has.  Which leaves us with the current roster.  Matthews is already one of the best players in franchise history.  If he can finally lead Toronto to its first Cup since 1967, he'll become a franchise icon.

Capitals: 8 Alex Ovechkin-This is the most obvious selection of all.  The second Ovechkin announces his retirement, the Capitals will pick the day for his number retirement.  He isn't just the NHL's all-time leading goal scorer, he's the best and most significant player in franchise history.  Alex Ovechkin is that important to the Washington Capitals.

Farewell Mr. Jim

When I was in college, my aunt started seeing a retired sportswriter who was also one of the official scorers for the Orioles.  My mom was so excited to tell me and was like, "You have to meet Jim!"  So, we found a weekend in August when the Yankees were playing in Baltimore and I went down there for the series and stayed with them.  Jim arranged for me to get a credential and sit in the press box.

On Friday night, while we were having dinner in the media room before the game, he introduced me to John Sterling.  That led to an invite to sit in the Yankees radio booth.  Roger Clemens started and Aaron Boone hit the go-ahead three-run homer in the top of the ninth, the first of his two signature moments as a Yankees player (still waiting for that signature moment as Yankees manager).

After the Boone home run, the producer (who I'd been sitting next to for the entire game) looked at my credential, then got upset.  Thinking I'd worn out my welcome, I took that as my cue to leave.  A couple minutes later, he came back in the booth and I learned what he was upset about.  It was because they needed somebody to go down with a microphone for a postgame interview and I didn't have field access!  So, he found a Yankees staffer, who escorted me down to the field so I could give Boone the mic!

Here I was, this 21-year-old college kid, sitting in a Major League broadcast booth, then walking through the Yankees clubhouse (I can still remember Don Zimmer walking right past me) on my way down to the field.  It wouldn't have been possible without Jim (aka, Mr. Jim), who was a legend in his own right.  (That was also the weekend I discovered crab meat, thanks to that day's fresh catch from the Inner Harbor.)

A few years later, the entire city of Baltimore went to Cooperstown for Cal Ripken, Jr.'s Hall of Fame induction.  My parents and I went, as well.  The day after the induction ceremony, they had a special invite-only Q&A event with the two inductees--Ripken and Tony Gwynn.  As a Hall of Fame voter (and active media member), Jim was invited.  Guess who he asked if he would be interested in going with him!  Another unforgettable moment in my life that wouldn't have been possible without Jim.

The first time Jim went to the Hall of Fame induction was in 1966.  That year's class: Ted Williams & Casey Stengel.  He eventually became a longtime voter, and every year I'd ask him about his votes (he was a consistent "No" on Bonds & Clemens).  Beyond that, he was a baseball historian and was regularly asked to be on the screening committee that determined the Eras Committee ballots.  He also voted on numerous Eras Committees, in addition to his annual BBWAA vote.  In more years than not, Jim would vote for one of the American League awards, too, as one of the Baltimore representatives.

By his own account, nobody had attended more Baltimore Orioles games than him, and the team didn't disagree.  He covered the Orioles for years in the Baltimore Sun, then became one of the team's official scorers (he was the official scorer for the game when Ripken's streak ended).  It wasn't just years of home and road games.  There were also annual trips to Sarasota for Spring Training.  So, when it came time for the Orioles' 60th anniversary, there was only one person who could write the commemorative book.  (If you're interested, here's my review.)

In my copy (which he, of course, signed), Jim told me that he hoped I enjoyed reading it as much as he enjoyed writing it.  I finished it in one night!  He also wanted to make sure I knew he was not responsible for the typo on page 211 (there's an exploded quote on that page that mentions Carl Ripken, Jr...the very Carl Ripken, Jr. whose Hall of Fame induction I had attended a few years earlier).

While the last time I saw Jim was several years ago, we'd still text back and forth every once in a while.  Whenever a comment was actually left on one of these blog posts, either here or on Facebook, it usually came from Jim.  He even reached out to me in October because he was working on a story about World Series ticket prices, so he wanted to know how I got mine (through the team or through the secondary market) and how much I paid.

He was also my go-to person when I had scoring questions.  I consider myself a pretty good official scorer, and I've kept score for hundreds of games at this point, but there are still those quirky plays that you've never seen before and aren't sure about.  So, being able to ask a veteran MLB official scorer was always a nice backup to have.  Whether it was just confirming that what I thought was correct or telling me how the play should've been scored, he always got back to me right away and it was never a problem that I asked.

Jim spent 23 years as one of the Orioles' official scorers before retiring in 2019.  Five years later, the press box at Camden Yards was renamed the "Jim Henneman Press Box" in his honor.  So, the man who's seen more Orioles home games than anyone will never miss another.  Which is only appropriate.  The dedication also included another honor that day--throwing out the first pitch.

And, even though he was a "retired" sportswriter, that was never actually true.  I was on his email list, so I knew every time he had a new article in Press Box, the publication he began writing for in 2006.  The sheer variety of his articles were such a treasure trove, too!  My favorites were the anecdotes from his 50-plus years of covering the Orioles and Major League Baseball in general.

One of my favorite stories doesn't even involve the Orioles, but it does involve a Hall of Famer!  Jim was a Baltimore native.  So was Hall of Famer Al Kaline.  They faced each other in a high school game one time, and he struck Kaline out.  The first of many great baseball stories in a career full of them.

That's what I'll miss the most about Jim Henneman.  I'll forever be grateful to have known him.  I'm even more grateful to have had the chance to call him a friend and a mentor.  I'm far from the only one.  All the tributes that have come pouring in since his death are proof of that.  And everyone has their own stories similar to mine about the impact that "Henny" had on their life and/or career (or, in many cases, both).

The Penske 500

Why doesn't anybody find it weird that Roger Penske owns the IndyCar Series, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, the Indianapolis 500 AND a three-car team?  At the very least, that's a massive conflict of interest.  What makes it even worse is how Penske's team has been caught violating the rules during Indy 500 qualifying two years in a row!  As a result, two of the Penske cars--Will Power and two-time defending champion Josef Newgarden will start from the rear of the field for the Greatest Spectacle In Racing.

It all started last Sunday in Fast Six qualifying.  Power and Newgarden's cars both failed pre-qualifying technical inspection and weren't allowed to make qualifying attempts.  They were initially placed 11th & 12th in the starting grid, but that was later adjusted to 32nd & 33rd.  The violation wasn't serious enough for Power and Newgarden to be removed from the field, so it was deemed that the appropriate penalty would be to have them start from the final two starting positions.  Which could end up playing a major role in the race since no one has ever won from the back row.

Anyway, the cause of the issue is that they were found to have made adjustments to the rear attenuator, which can theoretically give them an aerodynamic advantage.  IndyCar suspended both teams' race strategists and fined both, and Penkse responded in kind by firing the individuals involved.  But still, it's not a good look.  Especially since they found that Newgarden's winning car from last year had the same modification.

Helio Castroneves, who used to drive for Penske, jumped to his defense and explained that Penske is very meticulous about how he wants the cars to look.  So, it could've been simply for aesthetic purposes.  Others have suggested that even if it does give them an aerodynamic advantage, it's so slight that it's not enough to make a difference.  It certainly won't give you 3-4 mph.  But still, it's a violation of IndyCar rules...coming from the team of the guy who owns the entire series!

So, needless to say, it's already been an eventful Indy 500.  And this all happened before race day.  Although, it also gave FOX plenty of storylines leading into its maiden voyage covering the race.  FOX takes over from NBC, but won't be doing the 1,100-mile doubleheader since the Coca-Cola 600 is moving to Amazon this year as a part of NASCAR's new contract.  I was wondering how they'd cover both (especially if it rained at Indy), but, as it turns out, they're not, so that's not a concern.

And, fortunately, the situation with Power and Newgarden didn't overshadow those who were able to make their Fast Six qualifying runs.  Robert Shwartzman had the fastest car and will be the first rookie to start on the pole since 1983.  What makes that even more incredible is the fact that his team had no experience racing on an oval track prior to this!

Of course, running on an empty track and running in a full, 33-car field are completely different things.  We know Shwartzman's car is fast.  But how does it run in traffic and dirty air?  If the car handles as well during the race as it did in qualifying, Shwartzman could become the first rookie winner since Alexander Rossi in 2016.

Meanwhile, Newgarden turned in the fastest laps during the final practice session.  Which makes his failed inspection even more frustrating since the car is clearly fast even without the modification.  He'll need a lot of things to go right if he wants to pass essentially the entire field and make his way to the front, but if anyone can do it, Newgarden can.  And, if he does, he'll make Indy 500 history as the first driver to win three years in a row.

Also looking to make history is Castroneves, who'll be racing in his 25th consecutive Indy 500. He's one of four drivers all-time with four Indy 500 victories.  Nobody has won five.  Wouldn't that be some way to celebrate his anniversary at the Brickyard?  While I wouldn't consider him one of the favorites, nobody knows the track better than a guy who's finished either first or second seven times in his remarkable Indy career.

Castroneves also raced at the Daytona 500 for the first time this year.  So did Kyle Larson, who's attempting "Double Duty" for the second straight time.  Last year, he finished 18th and was named Indy 500 Rookie of the Year, but the race was delayed several hours by rain and he never made it to Charlotte.  The weather should be clear in both Indianapolis and Charlotte, so this year he should get that opportunity to actually make a go at running all 1,100 miles in both races.  (Although, I'm a bit torn since Tony Kanaan is scheduled to be Larson's replacement driver, if needed.)

Let's get back to the real race contenders, though.  Of which there are many.  Two-time champion Takuma Sato starts in the middle of Row 1 and was the only other driver to get over 374 mph in "Fast Six" qualifying.  He's only started in the front two rows twice before...in 2017 & 2020, the two years he won!

Pato O'Ward rounds out the front row.  He's finished second twice, including last year.  So, he's definitely a contender.  So is Alex Palou, who'll be starting right behind O'Ward on the outside of Row 2.  Palou is riding a streak of four straight top-nine finishes, highlighted by second place in 2021.  If he's there at the end, he's got a real shot at winning.

I'm also curious to see how Scott McLaughlin does.  He drives Penske's third car, but won't have to start in the back like his teammates.  However, that's because McLaughlin crashed in practice and didn't even get the chance to make a "Fast Six" qualifying attempt.  For a little bit, Row 4 was set to be all three Penske cars.  Now McLaughlin is there alone.  How much of an impact will that have?  And how good is the backup car that he'll be racing in?

Ultimately, it may not matter.  Because I think it'll be tough for anybody to crack those top six from qualifying.  They all just looked that much better than everybody else.  It obviously takes more than just being the best to kiss the bricks and drink the milk.  There's definitely some luck involved, too.  Alex Palou has the skill, has the speed and will get the luck.  He's my pick to win the 109th running of the Indianapolis 500.

A New-Look Roland Garros

This year's French Open will be different.  Rafael Nadal is retired.  That alone is big news.  There's actually some suspense about who'll win the men's title.  We don't have to just assume he'll steamroll everybody once again.  Although, that "King of Clay" title may have simply been passed on to defending champion Carlos Alcaraz, who figures to have a few more Coupes de Mousquetaires in his future.  It's not a guarantee, though.  That's the point here.

American fans will also watch the French Open somewhere new for the first time in forever.  NBC and Tennis Channel are out.  TNT is in.  Turner signed a 10-year deal with Roland Garros to be the exclusive partner, and their coverage will be similar to what ESPN does at the other three Grand Slams.  It's a big commitment, but I'm excited for it.  They've already announced several innovations they plan to use on the broadcasts that the French Tennis Federation has signed off on, so they won't be your typical tennis broadcasts.

TNT is also branding its broadcasts "Roland Garros," not "French Open," which really confused Charles Barkley!  I wonder if someone ever explained to Chuck that "Roland Garros" is actually the official name of the tournament.  He'd better get used to it, too.  Because it sure seems like TNT will continue to use the "Roland Garros" branding through the duration of the contract.  The French Open also stands to become one of their premier sports properties (along with March Madness and the NHL) once the Knicks-Pacers series ends and they no longer have the NBA.

Anyway, what will we see at Roland Garros on TNT?  It's actually fun to see a men's draw that's wide open after so many years of Nadal dominance.  Alcaraz is the defending champ, but he lost the Olympic gold medal match to Djokovic.  Iga Swiatek also won the French Open before losing a few weeks later at the Olympics last year.  She ended up taking bronze at the Paris Games, with Zheng Qinwen winning gold.  So, that's four champions at Roland Garros in 2024.

Alcaraz has to be considered the favorite on the men's side.  Not only is he the defending champion, he's the best clay-court player, and he won the two big warmup tournaments (Monte Carlo & Rome).  Plus, the three other big contenders for the title--Jannik Sinner, Alexander Zverev & Novak Djokovic--are all on the top half of the draw.  That's not to say Alcaraz will have an easy path to the final.  He'll still have to potentially deal with Casper Ruud and either Lorenzo Musetti or Holger Rune.  He just won't have to deal with any of the other three until the final.

Each of the last five Grand Slam tournaments has been won by either Alcaraz or Sinner (the new Federer & Nadal?).  Sinner's won the three hardcourt Slams, while Alcaraz took the two in Europe.  Sinner hasn't been without controversy, though.  He won the Australian Open, then sat out a three-month doping suspension.  He's only played one tournament since the suspension ended, making the final at the Italian Open, where he lost to Alcaraz.  Is that enough?  (He was obviously practicing during his suspension, but that's not the same as playing live matches.)

Then there's Alexander Zverev.  This guy has to win a Slam eventually, right?  He had a 2-1 lead in the final here last year, only to see Alcaraz come back to win in five.  Then he got rolled by Sinner in the Australian Open final.  He's got it in him, and this may be his best shot.  But can he beat Djokovic, Sinner and Alcaraz in a row?

Don't worry.  I didn't forget about Djokovic.  His Olympic gold medal is his only tour-level title since the start of 2024, and his 2025 hasn't been great.  At the Australian Open, he only made it through one set of his semifinal against Zverev before retiring.  He's still Novak Djokovic, so he's obviously still plenty capable.  I'm not sure he should be considered a "favorite" to the same degree as Alcaraz, Sinner and Zverev, though.

The same thing could be said about Iga Swiatek's 2025 season.  She hasn't won a title, got smacked by Coco Gauff in the Madrid final, and has dropped to No. 5 in the rankings.  Still, she's the three-time defending champion and has lost a grand total of one match here in the last five years.  So, Swiatek always has to be considered a threat to win.  Although, she'll have to get by her Achilles heel--Jelena Ostapenko to make it four straight.

Both Olympic finalists are also in the top half of the women's draw.  Part of what made Zheng's gold medal so interesting is that she's never been past the fourth round at the French Open, and that was in her 2022 debut.  Can she carry that Olympic success into a strong French Open performance?  Olympic silver medalist Donna Vekic, meanwhile, has also only made the fourth round once in her French Open--in 2019.  Her game suits clay courts, though, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Vekic make a run.

Aryna Sabalenka has established herself as the firm No. 1 player in the world mainly due to her prowess on hardcourts.  Sabalenka doesn't have that same comfort on clay, but she was a semifinalist here in 2023 and made the quarters last year.  I think it's a stretch to see her winning seven matches on clay.  If the draw works in her favor, though, I wouldn't be shocked to see her at least getting back to the quarters.

We've also got to talk about the American women.  There are three Americans in the Top 10, and they're all on the bottom half of the draw.  We've even got a great potential quarterfinal matchup between Australian Open champion Madison Keys and World No. 2 Coco Gauff, who many consider either the favorite or the second choice behind Swiatek.  Gauff has been to at least the quarters in each of the last four years, including a trip to the final in 2022.  And she won the doubles title here last year.

Rounding out the American trio is No. 3 seed Jessica Pegula.  Historically, the French Open has been her worst Slam--only one trip to the quarterfinals in five previous appearances.  So, out of the three, she's the one I'd consider a longshot.  Especially since Pegula could end up facing Paula Badosa in the quarterfinals, and Badosa is my sleeper pick.  She was a semifinalist in Australia and clay is her favorite surface.  I expect Badosa to go deep in the tournament.  Does that mean I think she'll win?  She certainly could!

In fact, I actually think Badosa will make it to the final.  She'll beat Keys, who knocks off Gauff in an outstanding quarterfinal.  On the top half of the draw, it really all depends on if Swiatek can finally beat Ostapenko for the first time in her career.  If she can, I have her not only getting to the final, but winning it for the fourth straight year.  If not, that opens up the entire top half for a Zheng, Sabalenka, Vekic or Jasmine Paolini to sneak in.

As for the men, the top half will be quite a battle between Sinner, Zverev and Djokovic.  Even though he's No. 1, Sinner feels like he has something to prove.  So does Zverev.  He wants to drop that "best player to never win a Slam" tag very badly.  I think he's got a chance to do it here.  Meanwhile, with Alcaraz's draw, I'll be shocked if he isn't in the final.

I said at the top that I think this year's tournament will be wide open.  On both the men's and women's side.  I still feel that way.  Although, wide open tournament or not, the favorites are still the favorites, and they're the favorites for a reason.  Carlos Alcaraz and Iga Swiatek are the defending champions.  It's their title until somebody takes it from them.  I'm not sure anybody will.

Please Don't Do It

Divisions haven't mattered in the NBA for quite a while.  They still nominally exist, but I'm not really sure why.  Maybe for scheduling purposes?  Because the NBA divisions are essentially irrelevant.  Winning your division doesn't even guarantee you a playoff spot.  They just seed it 1-10 in the conference, regardless of division.  The Magic won the Southeast Division this season, yet still had to play in the Play-In Tournament.

At least the NBA keeps it divided by conferences.  The WNBA might as well be European soccer with a single, league-wide table.  For the last several years, the WNBA Playoffs have disregarded the conferences entirely and simply seeded the teams by their overall record.  I don't even think the WNBA considers the conferences when making the schedule.  The Commissioner's Cup is the only place where they come into play.

Why am I bringing this up?  Because the NFL owners are set to vote on a proposal that would drastically change the playoff structure.  The proposal, which was brought forward by the Lions, wouldn't guarantee the four division winners the top four seeds in each conference.  Instead, the playoffs would be seeded based on record.

I have no idea if this proposal has enough support to pass, but I sure hope it doesn't!  Because it's a terrible idea!  Passing it would essentially be telling teams the same thing that the NBA tells its teams.  Winning the division doesn't matter.  Except in football, it does.

In the NBA and WNBA, teams play relatively balanced schedules.  The number of games they play against certain opponents may vary, but they play everyone else in the league at least twice every season.  So, there are enough common-ish games to justify it.  In the NFL, that's not the case.  You only play 14 of the other 31 teams.  The only teams that are guaranteed to have a comparable schedule to yours are the other three in your division (who you'll play twice each).  As a result, that's the only apples-to-apples comparison you can make.

Yes, there's always going to be a "bad" division.  That's the case every year.  And we've even seen some teams that are below .500 host playoff games as division champions.  But is that their fault?  Why should they be penalized for playing in a bad division?  They were still the best team in their division.

Also, be careful with what you wish for.  Because things in the NFL are always cyclical.  The NFC South and AFC South might be the weaker divisions right now, but it wasn't too long ago when Washington won the NFC East at 7-9.  Likewise, the AFC West and NFC North are extremely strong right now, but there's no guarantee that will continue.  And, you can bet that when things do cycle around, they'll want that division champion home game regardless of what their record is.

This isn't the first time this has been proposed.  It seems to come up every few years where somebody thinks it's unfair that a wild card team with a better record has to go on the road in the playoffs.  But is that any more fair than telling a division champion that their only reward for winning their division is a guaranteed playoff berth?  They did something that the wild card team didn't.  Win their division. 

If the wild card team really is better, going on the road shouldn't be a problem.  The Steelers and Packers have both won Super Bowls as the 6-seed playing nothing but road games during the playoffs.  Likewise, we've seen wild card teams with a much better record than their opponent lose in the Wild Card round.  Would things have been different if they were playing at home?  Maybe.  But they had their chance to earn a playoff home game during a 17-game regular season and didn't do it.  That's not their opponent's fault.

It's easy to see where this sudden push to change the playoff format came from.  Last season's Week 18 game between the Lions and Vikings.  The winner would be the 1-seed.  The loser would be the 5-seed.  The 15-2 Lions got the 1-seed.  The 14-3 Vikings ended up as the 5-seed and had to go on the road in the playoffs despite having the fourth-best record in the NFL.

Situations like what happened with Detroit and Minnesota are incredibly rare.  In fact, that game was the first time in NFL history that two 14-win teams were facing each other in the regular season.  So, it's not like this is something that happens every year.  The 5-seed does often have a better record than the 4-seed, but we're usually talking about 11-6 vs. 10-7 here, which isn't that great a disparity.

On the surface, what's interesting here is that the proposal came from Detroit, not Minnesota.  But, if you think about it, it probably shouldn't be that surprising that it came from the 1-seed.  Because if the 2- and 3-seeds win on Wild Card Weekend, who does the 1-seed play?  The 4-5 winner!  So, they want to face the "weaker" 10-7 team.  Not the 12-5 team that ended up as a wild card because they play in the good division.  (Although, it's not like facing Washington last year really worked out for the Lions, now did it?)

They did put in a provision that would still "protect" division winners if this format change does get adopted.  They'd add a tiebreaker that a division title automatically gives you the higher seed over somebody with the same record, even if they beat you head-to-head.  That's not enough to sway me, though.  Because the proposal is stupid.  It's an unnecessary overreaction to an extraordinary situation that is unlikely to happen again.

Winning your division is incredibly hard.  It's an achievement that should be rewarded.  Not just with a playoff berth.  With at least one home playoff game.  Every team in the league goes into the season knowing they have (theoretically, at least) a 25 percent chance of that.  They all know what they have to do.  If you want to play at home in January, win your division.  It's really that simple.

A Lot of Sports On Fall TV

Last week, the four major broadcast networks announced their fall schedules.  This, in and of itself, is not news.  They do it every year.  The schedules themselves were particularly noteworthy, however.  Because they indicate a trend that network TV has been moving towards for a while.  Fewer nights of scripted shows, long the bread-and-butter of network television.  More nights of live sports.

Sunday Night Football is entering its 20th season on NBC, and it's long been the highest-rated program on TV.  That's not going to change anytime soon.  Not with how dominant the NFL is right now.  Not with NBC also having the Super Bowl this season.  But it's not just Sunday Night Football on NBC.

When they got the Big Ten contract last year, it included a Saturday night game.  Occasionally they'll swap out the Big Ten for Notre Dame, but the point remains, NBC will have a football game on both Saturday and Sunday nights in the Fall.  And now, with the NBA On NBC returning next season, you can add a third night of sports in primetime on NBC.  The NBA will get Tuesdays, then take over the Sunday night spot in February once football season ends and the Olympics are over.

So, to sum up, NBC is dedicating three nights of primetime to sports in the Fall: NFL on Sunday, NBA on Tuesday, college football on Saturday.  Then it'll become NBA on both Tuesday and Sunday in the Spring.  And, of course, it'll be the Olympics every night (and most of the afternoon each day) for two weeks in February.  So, yeah, there'll be a lot of sports on NBC.  But they're far from the only ones.

ABC has dedicated Saturday nights to college football for a while.  But, like NBC, they'll have two nights of football in the Fall.  Because Monday Night Football is coming home!  Monday Night Football moved to ESPN in 2006, but started simulcasting select games on ABC starting in 2020 (when they needed programming during the pandemic).  That gradually transitioned to ABC having the full Monday Night Football schedule, either as simulcasts or a handful of ABC exclusives, last season.  And, when the 2025 NFL schedule was unveiled earlier this week, it had a Monday night game on ABC every week.

That pretty much cements the NFL's presence on ABC moving forward.  All of ESPN's playoff games are simulcast on ABC, and the network will broadcast the Super Bowl for the first time in 21 years at the end of the 2026 season.  ABC also simulcasts that Week 18 ESPN doubleheader.  And that Saturday night block that goes to college football in the Fall is turned over to the NBA and NHL come January.  So, like NBC on Sundays, ABC will have sports on Saturday night every week in the Fall and Spring.

FOX's college football night is Friday, a previously untapped timeslot where they've found great success.  Saturday nights on FOX, meanwhile, are dubbed "FOX Sports Saturday" on their Fall schedule.  If what we've seen this year is any indication, we'll continue to see various sports on FOX every Saturday night (including IndyCar, which is in its first season on FOX, with a commitment for most races to be on the broadcast network).  And every Friday night, for that matter, even after college football season ends.

They're very committed to their college basketball schedule, and that college football spot typically gets handed over to Big East and Big Ten basketball come January.  They even show high-profile women's basketball games from those two conferences on the FOX broadcast network.  And, of course, they're the primary broadcast partner for MLB.  FOX's Baseball Night In America has become a Saturday night staple, and that'll take them all summer, leading right into college football in the Fall.  The Friday night gap, meanwhile, is filled by UFL games.

And, let's not forget FOX's commitment to soccer.  Don't be surprised if they sprinkle in some MLS (they're the secondary broadcaster behind that disastrous deal with Apple), but their rights include the MLS Cup.  It's all leading up to the World Cup in the U.S. in 2026.  Which means we can probably only expect to see more soccer on FOX.

CBS is the only one of the four networks that has what you'd consider a "traditional" schedule in the Fall.  While the other three are all dedicating multiple nights to sports, CBS won't have any.  Which isn't really by choice, though.  CBS doesn't have the rights to anything except the NFL, which pushes back to the start of 60 Minutes every week they have the doubleheader game, and the Big Ten.  Their Big Ten game is in the 3:30 window, but even they'll have the occasional Saturday night Big Ten game (when NBC puts Notre Dame in primetime, they'll just flip spots for their Big Ten game).

Even The CW has gotten in on the act.  The CW's sports offerings have gone from nonexistent to dabbling to pretty expansive.  It's a lot of "minor" sports, but it's still a committing airtime to sports programming rather than scripted content.  And, The CW broadcast football home games for Oregon State and Washington State last season, which they will do again in 2025 (along with ACC games).  So, you'd have to figure they'll be a major player for a likely expanded role once Oregon State and Washington State are joined by the rest of the rebuilt Pac-12 in 2026.

Simply put, there will be a lot of sports on broadcast TV in the Fall.  More than traditional, scripted programming in many cases.  Which isn't surprising with the way things have been trending in recent years.  In fact, it may have been inevitable.  For a few reasons.  And, now that "traditional" TV has made the transition to so much sports coverage, will it ever go back?  Or, will the networks double down and show even more sports?

As people have, by and large, begun to abandon linear TV for streaming, sports is the thing that's been immune.  Even though ratings for sports broadcasts are far lower than they were even a decade ago (levels that they'll realistically never approach again), they're still most of the highest-rated programs in a given TV season.  That's why the networks pay so much for sports rights.  And it figures that they'd want to maximize their potential audience by putting those games on the broadcast network (that far more people get) than cable or streaming.

It's long been known that sports rights are a valuable commodity.  Networks wouldn't spend so much for them if they weren't.  It makes sense that they want as many eyeballs as possible on those events.  And, if the 2025-26 Fall TV schedule is any indication, that likely won't be changing anytime soon. 

NFL 2025 Schedule

 After slowly trickling out individual games one-by-one for a few days, the NFL finally released the full 2025 schedule on Wednesday.  I get why they do this individual reveals.  They give each network a chance to give a little teaser for their best game(s) during the season.  But I still don't like it.  Announce the international games, but only the matchups.  And announcing the season-opening Thursday night game hosted by the Super Bowl champion is fine.  I'll even give you who the Cowboys and Lions are hosting on Thanksgiving.  But knowing random single games definitely takes some of the suspense out of the schedule release.

Anyway, as expected, teams like the Chiefs, Eagles, Cowboys, Bills and Ravens will be featured in standalone games a lot!  The Chiefs, Cowboys and Lions are all playing on both Thanksgiving and Christmas.  And they're touting the fact that the Vikings are playing back-to-back international games in different countries, but that comes with an asterisk.  They're playing in Dublin and London.  They're 500 miles apart!  That's basically the same as traveling from New York to Buffalo!

Both of Minnesota's international games will be on NFL Network, which will have all six of the 9:30 AM games from Europe as part of its eight-game package.  They'll also have their standard Week 17 doubleheader, although that used to be a tripleheader, but the third game is Peacock's exclusive game now.  The five options are Seahawks-Panthers, Cardinals-Bengals, Ravens-Packers, Texans-Chargers and Giants-Raiders.  My early guess is that Ravens-Packers and Texans-Chargers will be two of the Saturday games, with one on Peacock and the other on NFL Network, and the other NFL Network game will be Cardinals-Bengals.

There's also a Saturday doubleheader in Week 16: Packers-Bears and Eagles-Commanders, both on FOX.  The order is still TBA, but it's notable that the NFL kept this doubleheader on the schedule.  Last season, they went head-to-head against the College Football Playoff quarterfinals on that Saturday.  Many football fans didn't like that and hoped it would be a one-year thing.  I guess not!

The NBA also has to get used to the idea of sharing Christmas with the NFL.  That Netflix Christmas doubleheader isn't going anywhere.  This year, it'll have the two traditional Thanksgiving teams, but on the road and in the reverse order--Dallas at Washington, followed by Detroit at Minnesota.  The Chiefs have made it publicly known that they want to be the NFL's "Christmas team," and it looks like they're getting their wish.  They host Denver in the Christmas nightcap, which will be a regular Thursday Night Football game on Amazon.

I know a lot of people are sick of the Chiefs, but there's a reason why they're featured so often.  They're a ratings draw.  That's why it was kind of surprising to see their game in Dallas was scheduled for Thanksgiving.  It'll probably end up being the highest-rated Thanksgiving game in history.  The Thanksgiving late game is always highly-rated anyway.  Which is why I pretty much just assumed they'd make Cowboys-Chiefs a standalone Sunday 4:25 game.

Counting featured Sunday 4:25 games (Week 18 they're at Las Vegas, so that has to be late, but I'm not counting it right now), Kansas City has 11 games in national windows--six in primetime, Thanksgiving, and four late Sunday kickoffs (against Philadelphia, Baltimore, Buffalo and Denver...my guess is CBS & FOX wanted to make sure they got marquee Chiefs games, as well)!  They don't have a Sunday 1:00 kickoff until Week 7!

While it wasn't "official" until the schedule came out, one of the worst kept secrets in the NFL was that the Chiefs are the Chargers' opponent in the Friday night Brazil Week 1 game.  For the first time, that game will be broadcast on YouTube, which adds another broadcaster/streamer to the fold.  In total, NFL games will be shown in 11 different places this season (CBS, FOX, NBC, ABC, ESPN, NFL Network, Amazon, ESPN+, Peacock, Netflix and, now,YouTube)!

More on this in a future post, but Monday Night Football makes a full-time return to its longtime home of ABC.  And the NFL is continuing to experiment with two Monday night games in some weeks--one only on ESPN, the other only on ABC.  Although, that has me curious about Week 4.  The Jets are the ESPN-only game while Bengals-Broncos is on ABC.  But, as part of the NFL's broadcast agreement, every game has to be available on over-the-air TV in home markets, which usually means they get flipped over to the ABC affiliate.  So, if the Jets-Dolphins game gets moved to ABC, what happens to Bengals-Broncos?  Does that move to ESPN?  Or will the secondary Jets-Dolphins broadcast be on a different station instead?

And the Jets' no longer having Aaron Rodgers resulted in a significant decrease in their number of national games.  After two years of Jets overload in primetime, they have a grand total of two primetime games this season--Monday night in Week 4 at Miami and Thursday night in Week 11 at New England.  They're also playing Denver in London, so that's three.  But, otherwise, the Jets are back to the way things used to be.  Their other 13 currently-scheduled games are Sunday at 1:00.

But, still, two primetime games is two more than three other teams.  In a move that I'm sure will infuriate the Shedeur Sanders Fan Club, Cleveland's only national game is their matchup with Minnesota in London.  The Titans don't even have that.  They're currently scheduled for 17 Sunday afternoons.  So are the Saints, which is kind of surprising since NFC South division games usually end up on Thursday or Monday night at least once.

Equally surprising is some of the teams that do have primetime games.  The Panthers play in San Francisco on a Monday night.  Jacksonville-Kansas City is also on a Monday night for some reason.  The Giants have three primetime games, including a Sunday night.  Although, that makes sense since they're one of those teams who'll get primetime games every season no matter what.  Same with the Raiders, who have three.  Arizona has two.  New England has three (including both New York teams).  The Bears have three, plus Black Friday and that Week 16 Saturday game.  I don't know why the NFL is so insistent on giving Chicago so many national games every season, but they do, so I guess I'd better get used to it.

Believe it or not, the Bears have as many national games as the defending champion Eagles!  Philadelphia getting Dallas in the opener surprised some people, but the selection makes sense.  An Eagles-Cowboys game is usually on Sunday Night Football every season anyway, and they haven't played in Week 1 since 2000.  No worry, though.  Philadelphia will be featured plenty.  Likely at FOX's request, they have a lot of Sunday 4:25 games, including the Super Bowl rematch in Week 2 (had the Chiefs won, I think this would've been the season opener).

It seems like the NFL has made a concerted effort to make the Sunday Night, Monday Night and Thursday Night Football schedules at least somewhat comparable.  Sunday night obviously still has the best matchups on paper, but they've got some clunkers, too.  The Thursday night schedule has a lot of division games, but they're good division games.  I'd even venture to say that it's a stronger schedule than Monday Night Football got.

As has been the case every year since 2010, Week 18 features all division games.  The last two years, they've gotten lucky.  Game 272 in 2023 was Buffalo at Miami, where the Bills would either win the division or miss the playoffs entirely.  Then last year, they got Lions-Vikings for the No. 1 seed in the NFC.  It's obviously way too early to make a prediction which game will be picked for the Sunday night finale on Jan. 4, 2026, but four options that stand out are Green Bay-Minnesota, Washington-Philadelphia, Baltimore-Pittsburgh and Seattle-San Francisco.  My very early guess is that it'll be one of those.

NBC has the Super Bowl, which will be part of a very busy month of February for them.  They worked it into the contract that their turn in the Super Bowl rotation falls in Winter Olympic years, and they have the NBA All-Star Game again starting this season, too.  I'm worried about Mike Tirico.  I don't think he'll be sleeping much in February, especially since this will be the first time he does play-by-play for the Super Bowl!

Reinstated

Shoeless Joe Jackson was banned from baseball for life in 1921.  That was 104 years ago.  He's been dead for 74 of those years.  Pete Rose, meanwhile, received a lifetime ban in 1991.  He spent most of the next 33 years until his death in September hoping for reinstatement, only to have his requests repeatedly denied.  Now, seven months after his lifetime ended, so has his lifetime ban.  Shoeless Joe's has too.

In a somewhat shocking announcement on Tuesday, Commissioner Rob Manfred removed both Rose and Jackson, as well as 14 other deceased players and one deceased owner from MLB's permanently ineligible list.  His rationale for removing their lifetime bans is exactly that.  They're "lifetime" bans.  As such, a lifetime ban ends upon that person's death.  And, since players who are on MLB's ineligible list are also ineligible for the Hall of Fame, that ban no longer applies either.  Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson are once again eligible for Hall of Fame induction.

While there are still some people who are disappointed with the Commissioner's decision, this is welcome news to many.  It seemed awfully hypocritical of MLB, with its newfound acceptance and embrace of gambling, to keep the bans in place when all but one of the ineligible individuals was banned for that very reason.  Especially since so many of these men have long since passed away.

On paper, Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson are Hall of Famers.  Rose is the all-time hit king.  Jackson has the fourth-highest batting average in history.  If not for being on the ineligible list, they likely both would've had plaques in Cooperstown long ago.  While it's by no means a certainty that they eventually will, it's now at least a possibility.

Their names won't even appear on a Hall of Fame ballot until December 2027, however.  That's the next time candidates from the Classic Baseball Era (which considers those whose primary contributions came before 1980) will be up for election.  And that's assuming their names are even put on the ballot (although, I can't think of a reason why Rose's won't).  Once his name finally appears, it'll be the first time Pete Rose even has a chance at getting into the Hall of Fame, which is by no means a slam dunk.

If it were based strictly on statistics, Pete Rose would be as big a Hall of Fame lock as there's ever been.  It's not that simple, though.  There's also a morality clause, so, ban or no ban, all of that other stuff will come into play.  He also needs to get 12 of 16 votes.  If just five of the voters on that committee have their reservations about Pete Rose, for whatever reason, he won't get in.  It's really hard to predict which way that will go.  Especially since it's two and a half years from now!  We don't know who the other candidates will be or even who'll be on the committee.

You can bet that Pete Rose's Hall of Fame candidacy will be hotly debated until then.  I just have a feeling, though, that both he and Shoeless Joe will continue to be in Hall of Fame purgatory.  The only difference is that now their names can appear on an Eras Committee ballot whereas previously they couldn't.  Some voters feel a certain way about them and that hasn't changed.  As a result, I think they could get the Bonds/Clemens treatment and keep not getting in despite being eligible.

Manfred met with Rose's eldest daughter and lawyer in December, which got the ball rolling on his reinstatement.  All of Rose's previous requests were denied, but Manfred began to reconsider after his death, at which point the reinstatement only seemed a matter of time.  Waiting until 2027 won't satisfy Rose's lawyer or family, either.  His lawyer already said that he'll push for induction as soon as possible (which is up to the voters, not the Hall of Fame itself).  And it is conceivable that Rose, who played until 1986, could be included in this winter's Era Committee ballot for Post-1980 players (even though the bulk of his career was in the 60s and 70s).

I also can't help but notice the timing and how all of this has really come full circle.  Kenesaw Mountain Landis was made Baseball's first commissioner in 1920 primarily because of the Black Sox scandal.  One of his first acts was to ban all eight players--including Shoeless Joe Jackson--from baseball for life.  Landis was also vehemently opposed to the game's integration.  He passed away in 1944 and Jackie Robinson's debut was in the works not too long after that.

Bart Giamatti is the commissioner who banned Pete Rose, but he died of a heart attack just a week later and was succeeded by Fay Vincent.  Vincent was vehemently opposed to Rose's reinstatement, both during his tenure as commissioner and after.  He passed away in February, only a few months after Rose.  Now, with both Vincent and Rose himself no longer with us, the time was right for Rose's (and Jackson's) ban to come to an end.

We're talking about two very different individuals and two very different Hall of Fame cases here, too.  Pete Rose obviously has the numbers.  His on-field credentials were never in doubt and are the crux of the argument for his supporters.  He was also one of the biggest stars in the game during the 1970s.  I don't even think the gambling is frowned upon as much now.  The repeated denials and other character flaws certainly won't help his case, though.

As for Shoeless Joe Jackson, he, of course, was implicated in the biggest scandal in baseball history--the Chicago White Sox throwing the 1919 World Series.  All eight players involved in the fix, including Jackson, were banned for life in 1921.  The degree to which Jackson actually participated in the scheme has been debated ever since.  He admitted to taking $5,000 from the gamblers, but later recanted that confession.  And his series stats sure don't look like those of a guy who was trying to lose.  However, simply knowing about the plot was enough, and it's been a black mark against Shoeless Joe Jackson's name for more than a century.

With the benefit of time, most now agree that Jackson's punishment was too harsh.  Especially since it's questionable how much involvement he actually had in the Black Sox Scandal, which is really the only thing that's impacting his candidacy.  Jackson was technically eligible for the Hall of Fame until the 1991 ruling, but he never came close to induction because of his lifetime ban.  It's also worth noting that his career was cut short because of the ban.  His numbers, which were already spectacular, likely would've been even better.

A little over a week before his death, Pete Rose gave his final interview.  In it, he predicted that he'd eventually be elected to the Hall of Fame, but only after he was dead.  He was probably right.  While I don't think it's as much of a lock as some others might, I do think Pete Rose will get into the Hall of Fame somewhere down the line, even if it's not right away.  There's a lot of enthusiasm about his reinstatement from fans and former teammates alike.  (Mike Schmidt called it "A great day for baseball.")

It should be a little more straightforward for Shoeless Joe Jackson.  His ineligibility was vastly different than Pete Rose's.  Yes, the Black Sox Scandal was one of the worst things ever to happen to Major League Baseball, and that was the basis for Shoeless Joe Jackson's ban.  However, that was over a century ago and the degree of his involvement's in question.  Even some of those who agreed with his lifetime ban feel that he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

When his name appears on the Classic Baseball Era ballot in 2027, don't be surprised if Shoeless Joe Jackson is elected to the Hall of Fame.  It wouldn't be a shock to see Pete Rose join him somewhere along the line, too.  Even if they don't get in, though, the fact that we're even talking about their Hall of Fame candidacies as something that exist in reality and not just hypotheticals is a huge, long overdue step.  For the first time in 34 years, Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose are eligible for the Hall of Fame.  It's about time.

National Means Neutral

Just in case you didn't know, Stephen A. Smith is a fan of the New York Knicks.  He also hates the Dallas Cowboys.  Paul Bissonette, meanwhile, really likes the Toronto Maple Leafs.  And Charles Barkley went to Auburn.  I'm not sure how many people were aware of that.

Stephen A., of course, has built his brand on being a loudmouth giving his opinions on one of ESPN's numerous debate shows.  People seem to enjoy that (as evidence by the abundance of those type of shows not just on ESPN, but on all of the sports networks), and there's usually someone making the counterpoint, as well.  And I get that he's ESPN's biggest personality and that's the main reason why.  But there's a time and a place for it.

The problem with Stephen A.'s obvious Knicks fandom is that he's also one of the most prominent voices on ESPN's NBA coverage.  And the lead commentators on network broadcasts should at least give the appearance of being neutral.  People watching may be fans of the other team.  Or fans of neither.  Or just want to watch the game.  And those people want analysis.  Not a completely biased love letter from one announcer to one team.

They seriously dedicated an entire pregame segment to Stephen A.'s Knicks love during last year's playoffs!  Whether they're simply giving him a longer leash because of who he is or Stephen A.'s just doing whatever he wants, why hasn't anyone at ESPN reined him in?  Do they really think that's what people who are tuning into the national broadcast of the game want to see and hear?  Again, this is the national broadcast.  Not the Knicks broadcast.

I understand that sometimes the lines can be blurred.  Mike Breen is the lead play-by-play voice for the NBA on ESPN and Knicks games on MSG.  Same thing with Kenny Albert, who's the lead announcer for TNT's NHL coverage, as well as the Rangers' new play-by-play announcer.  And FOX's No. 1 MLB announcer, Joe Davis, also does Dodgers games locally.  

With play-by-play announcers, that's both common and necessary.  There are just a handful of sports commentators who have exclusive deals with the national networks.  The rest are all part-time/freelance who work different sports for different networks.  For many of them, their full-time gig is on a team's local broadcasts.  So, it's possible, I'd even venture to say likely, that they'll cover the same team on both local and national broadcasts.

On local broadcasts, you can root for the team.  That's understandable.  The team (or their TV partner) is your employer, so you want to make sure the people who sign your paycheck are happy.  Beyond that, though, you're traveling with the team and see them every day.  It makes sense that you'll get invested and want to see them win (and not just because it's more enjoyable).  The better announcers are the ones who are just as likely to be critical of the team as they are to praise them, and the better teams are the ones that give their announcers the latitude to do just that.

Those lines can get somewhat blurred when an announcer who covers a team on their local broadcast also covers them nationally.  What's funny is how you always have the two completely different groups saying completely opposite things.  Fans of the team want to know why the announcer suddenly "hates" them.  Fans of the other team, meanwhile, will undoubtedly accuse the announcer of being biased towards the team they cover regularly.  Like most things, the reality is somewhere in the middle.  They aren't cheering for or against either team.  They're simply being neutral.  Which is exactly what you're supposed to do on a national broadcast.

For the most part, that's exactly what Charles Barkley is during the NCAA Tournament.  While he probably doesn't know a damn thing about half the teams in the field and as likely seeing the mid-majors play for the first time in the game he's actively watching, he's at least unbiased and neutral (and occasionally gives good analysis).  Except when it comes to Auburn.  With Auburn, he becomes the proud alum and the fan comes out.  He isn't shy about it, which makes it kind of endearing.  And in the college setting, especially with their most famous alumnus, you kind of get it.  Which is why he can get away with it.

Likewise, Paul Bissonette's Maple Leafs fandom often makes him the butt of the joke on TNT's NHL studio show.  That's the character they want Bissonette to play, and, like Chuck, he has the personality for it.  During this year's playoffs, he's taken it to a new extreme.  On the days the Leafs play, Biz wears his Leafs tie and Leafs blazer.  He leaves no question about who his favorite team is.

While he does it in a much different way, Paul Bissonette openly embracing his Maple Leafs fandom really isn't any better than Stephen A. Smith's openly rooting for the Knicks.  And, had TNT not turned it into a running joke, Bissonette would be getting similar criticism.  It's neither neutral nor unbiased.  I'd even say it's unprofessional.  Simply put, it's out of place on a national broadcast, where some people may enjoy it, but just as many won't find it funny at all (if they even get it).

Meanwhile, look at the NFL studio shows.  Is there the occasional rooting interest here or there?  Sure.  But, for the most part, you have no idea what teams the announcers like or don't like.  Which is how it should be.  They're unbiased and neutral.  They're paid to give analysis and break down the game.  Which is exactly what they do.  If they make it known which team they're rooting for (especially if they do so passionately), their opinion is no longer unbiased and their credibility is shot.

Mike Tirico, who's widely regarded as one of the best in the business, appeared on a podcast last week and lamented exactly that.  He told a story about how he grew up a Mets fan, but allowed himself to gradually phase that fandom out.  If he wanted to be respected national voice, he had to.  People don't care what team he roots for.  Just like he doesn't care what team other broadcasters root for.  Because if you're doing a national broadcast, you shouldn't be rooting for anybody.

Broadcasters are fans, too.  No one is pretending they aren't.  There's a point when you need to separate the fan from the professional broadcaster, though.  The fan can root for whoever he wants.  The broadcaster needs to be neutral.  Especially on a national broadcast.  Even if they're Knicks fan Stephen A. Smith or Maple Leafs fan Paul Bissonette.

Next Retired Numbers (Football, Part II)

I have good news everybody!  Abdul Carter picked a number!  He found one that isn't retired that I guess he deemed acceptable--51!  Thank goodness that's over!  I don't know how I would've been able to go on not knowing which retired number Carter would ask for next.  But don't worry Eli Manning and Michael Strahan, you're safe.

Of course, the one good thing about the Abdul Carter number saga was that it inspired this recent series.  Our last installment featured the "next" retired number for each franchise in the AFC (I put "next" in quotes since some teams don't retire numbers).  Today, it's the NFC's turn.  Now, I'm just counting down the days until the Giants retire No. 51.

Cardinals: 11 Larry Fitzgerald-It's actually kind of surprising that this hasn't happened yet.  They may be waiting until he's elected to the Hall of Fame next year.  Larry Fitzgerald isn't just the best player in Cardinals history and the face of the franchise for more than a decade.  He's one of the greatest wide receivers ever to play in the NFL.

Falcons: 21 Deion Sanders-Atlanta is one of the teams that doesn't retire numbers.  But that's no fun, so we're gonna act like they do.  If they did retire numbers, Tommy Nobis, the original Falcon, would certainly have his No. 60 retired.  He's not the greatest player in Falcons history, though.  That would be Shadeur's dad (just when I thought the Abdul Carter number drama would be the most ridiculous thing coming out of the NFL Draft, here comes that Colorado fan with his ridiculous lawsuit).  Anyway, if the Falcons retired number, Deion's either would be already or would be next.

Panthers: 90 Julius Peppers-Sam Mills was the first Panther to have his number retired.  So far, he's the only one.  An argument could definitely be made that Julius Peppers should join him.  Peppers is arguably the greatest player in Panthers history and spent the majority of his Hall of Fame career playing in Carolina.

Bears: 50 Mike Singletary-The Bears have more retired numbers than anybody, which makes sense considering their rich history.  The crazy thing is they could easily have more.  Nobody from that historic "46 Defense" has been honored.  Let's rectify that and retire No. 50 for Hall of Fame middle linebacker Mike Singletary.  Then we'll get to Richard Dent and Brian Urlacher.

Cowboys: 4 Dak Prescott-Here we have a problem.  Because the Cowboys don't retire numbers.  If they did, they'd have a lot.  So, we'll just act like they've been retiring numbers this whole time and use their Ring of Honor as the de facto list.  Their lack of recent success certainly limits the options, and you've gotta think that anyone from the 90s who'd be honored already has been.  Which leaves us with Cowboys of recent vintage.  Of that group, Dak Prescott seems the most likely.

Lions: 97 Aidan Hutchinson-If this momentum continues in Detroit, and there's no reason to believe it won't, I'd envision several members of the current Lions who'll eventually have their numbers retired.  Especially when/if they finally get to the franchise's first Super Bowl.  Anyway, it was a tough call between Hutchinson and Jared Goff.  The Stafford-for-Goff trade is what started this going, but it really took off when they drafted Hutchinson.  (Although, Goff will likely retire first.)

Packers: 12 Aaron Rodgers-Despite how things ended in Green Bay, there's no doubt the Packers will retire No. 12 as soon as Rodgers officially retires.  It might even be as early as this season (although, he needs to decide quick so the NFL can schedule it on Sunday Night Football).  Although, it did take them a few years to retire Brett Favre's No. 4, so maybe it won't be right away.  Regardless, it's the next number that will be retired at Lambeau.

Rams: 13 Kurt Warner-Every player whose number the Rams have retired is in the Hall of Fame.  Kurt Warner is in the Hall of Fame because of what he did in a Rams uniform.  Sure, he did it in St. Louis, but Marshall Faulk and Isaac Bruce have their numbers retired, so that's clearly not disqualifying (nor should it be).  It's also likely that Aaron Donald's No. 99 will be retired by the Rams sometime relatively soon.

Vikings: 84 Randy Moss-Remember how good the 1998 Vikings were?  They had two Hall of Fame wide receivers on that team.  Randy Moss was the Rookie of the Year that season.  Cris Carter's No. 80 has already been retired.  Time to do the same thing with No. 84.  It would be only fitting.  Especially with Moss' recent health problems.

Saints: 9 Drew Brees-New Orleans used to retire numbers, but no longer does.  The Saints have actually put their retired numbers back in circulation.  We'll act like they do, though.  And, like Larry Fitzgerald in Arizona, Drew Brees would either already have his number retired or would have the ceremony pretty much right after his induction in Canton.

Giants: 53 Harry Carson-No. 51 for Ahmad Carter!  I'm just kidding.  Maybe someday.  That was LT's entire point!  Anyway, since nobody current or recent is remotely close to deserving, let's go way back.  The 2026 season is the 40th anniversary of that legendary 1986 team.  Why not honor their defensive captain and retire Harry Carson's No. 53?

Eagles: 62 Jason Kelce-While it may seem like there's some recency bias in this selection, there really isn't.  It's an appreciation of what Jason Kelce meant for the organization as one of the best offensive linemen in football for his entire career.  The only reason the "Tush Push" even became a thing is because of how good Jason Kelce was.  Don't be surprised if he gets elected to the Hall of Fame.  Even if he doesn't, don't be surprised if the Eagles retire No. 62.

49ers: 97 Nick Bosa-With all of their success through the years, you'd figure the 49ers have a lot of retired numbers.  And you'd be right.  Outside of maybe Terrell Owens, there aren't really any retired 49ers who deserve it and haven't already had their number retired.  Which leaves us with current players.  And, when all is said and done, Nick Bosa will likely be among the franchise's all-time leaders in most defensive categories.

Seahawks: 3 Russell Wilson-Sure, the Giants' new starting quarterback has sucked since he left Seattle.  But there's no denying how good he was during his prime with the Seahawks.  They won a Super Bowl, should've won another, and were good every year for a while.  So was their quarterback.  There are guys from that Legion of Boom defense who could be honored, too, but Wilson was the face of those teams.

Buccaneers: 20 Ronde Barber-An argument could be made for Tom Brady, despite the fact that he only played three years in Tampa.  But, ultimately, I couldn't do it.  Not when there are still members of that legendary defense from the late 90s/early 2000s who deserve it before him.  Frankly, it's ridiculous that Ronde Barber's number hasn't been retired already.  He retired in 2012 after spending his entire 16-year career with the Bucs.

Commanders: 81 Art Monk-Until 2020, Sammy Baugh's number was the only one that had been retired in Washington.  If that sounds ridiculous, that's because it is.  They've been playing catch-up since then, retiring the numbers of Bobby Mitchell, Sean Taylor, Sonny Jurgensen and Darrell Green (it took them more than 20 years to retire Darrell Green's number, and he's arguably the best player in franchise history).  Anyway, since they're still playing catch-up, how about another guy from the Joe Gibbs Era?  Art Monk.

Next Retired Numbers (Football, Part I)

It was Abdul Carter who inspired my sudden obsession with retired numbers, and it led to a three-part series with the next retired numbers for each team in baseball.  Continuing the series with the other sports was TBA, but snice this all started because of football, it only seemed appropriate to extend it at least to the NFL.  Then they had that whole thing about what number Shadeur Sanders will wear in Cleveland, which got me thinking about it again.

In the NFL, it's interesting, too.  Some teams just don't retire numbers (presumably to keep as many numbers available as possible because of the roster size) and have Ring of Honor instead.  Which actually makes this a fairly easy exercise.  Since there are Hall of Fame franchise icons who haven't had their numbers retired yet.  Granted, if that team doesn't retire numbers, it's unlikely to happen.  But that's not the point of this exercise.  So, let's assume that it will happen for every team.

Same rules apply with football that applied with baseball.  It's only one retired number per franchise, even if they have multiple obvious candidates.  So, for example, I have to pick between Travis Kelce and Patrick Mahomes.  Which brings me to Rule No. 2.  Players can still be active as long as they've already done enough in their careers to warrant it.

So, with that, here we go.  I'll start with the AFC, then round it out with the NFC in our next installment:

Ravens: 52 Ray Lewis-The Ravens have technically only been around for 30 years, so in that regard it makes some sense that they haven't retired any numbers.  But, in that time, they've won two Super Bowls and had some iconic, Hall of Fame players.  Players like Ray Lewis, whose name is the first one that comes to mind when you're asked to think of a Baltimore Raven.

Bills: 83 Andre Reed-For a while, Jim Kelly was the only Bill whose number was formally retired.  Thurman Thomas and Bruce Smith have since joined him.  That dynasty of the early 90s had four Hall of Famers, though.  As such, all four should have their numbers retired.  Which means Andre Reed's No. 83 should be up there with the other three.

Bengals: 78 Anthony Munoz-Cincinnati is one of those teams that simply doesn't retire numbers.  Only one.  For Bob Johnson, who played in the 70s.  And that number was retired in 1978.  Not Anthony Munoz, the greatest player in franchise history, one of the best offensive tackles ever, and a Hall of Famer.  Sorry, but it's just dumb that Munoz's number hasn't been retired all this time.

Browns: 73 Joe Thomas-All of Cleveland's retired numbers are from their original incarnation (and most of those are from the pre-Super Bowl days when the Browns were the dominant team in the NFL).  Which makes sense, since things haven't exactly gone that well since they rejoined the league.  There's one exception to that, though.  No matter how much the Browns sucked, Joe Thomas was still being selected for the Pro Bowl and named All-Pro every season.

Broncos: 30 Terrell Davis-Denver only has three retired numbers, but could easily have more.  There are so many great players who've worn a Broncos uniform.  Two of the three who've been honored--John Elway and Floyd Little--are career Broncos who are in the Hall of Fame.  If that's the criterion we're using, Terrell Davis certainly applies.

Texans: 80 Andre Johnson-Like the Ravens, the Texans have never retired a number.  Like the Ravens, the Texans certainly have players who'd be worthy of the honor.  And I can't think of anyone more worthy of being the first player to have his number retired in Houston than Andre Johnson, who's already the first Texan with a bust in Canton.

Colts: 93 Dwight Freeney-Except for Peyton Manning's No. 18, every number retired by the Colts is from their time in Baltimore.  Which is silly.  Because Peyton wasn't the only guy on those outstanding teams in the early 2000s.  I can think of at least three other guys from that offense alone (Marvin Harrison, Edgerrin James, Reggie Wayne).  But my first choice would be someone from the defense that was often overlooked but just as good during that era--Dwight Freeney.

Jaguars: 82 Jimmy Smith-Tony Boselli is the greatest player in Jaguars history and the only Jaguar who's had his number retired.  Appropriately so.  And, really, the options for who should be next are somewhat limited since Jacksonville really hasn't been that good for most of its 30 years.  I'm going with the franchise's all-time leading receiver and multi-time Pro Bowler Jimmy Smith.  Although, he's had some legal trouble since retiring from the NFL, so he'd definitely be a controversial choice. 

Chiefs: 87 Travis Kelce-Let's not kid ourselves.  Travis Kelce and Patrick Mahomes will both have their numbers retired in Kansas City.  It's not even a question.  Kelce is much closer to retirement than Mahomes is, though.  As such, Kelce will have his number retired first.  That is, assuming they don't honor another tight end--Tony Gonzalez--before him.

Raiders: 32 Marcus Allen-Al Davis didn't retire numbers, and his son, Mark, has continued that policy.  As such, there are no Raiders retired numbers.  But, since we're acting as if they are, it's really free reign to pick anybody in franchise history.  There are so many to choose from, so let's start with Marcus Allen and go from there.

Chargers: 85 Antonio Gates-Speaking of tight ends and the Hall of Fame, there's one who'll be headlining this year's class.  The Chargers have actually been pretty good with their retired numbers.  Every number you'd think would be retired is, with the exception of No. 85 for Gates and No. 17 for Philip Rivers.  It seems likely that both will be soon, with the 2025 Hall of Fame inductee getting the honor first.

Dolphins: 99 Jason Taylor-Believe it or not, not a single defensive player in Dolphins history has had his number retired.  Jason Taylor may not seem like an obvious pick for the first, but he was an NFL Defensive Player of the Year and Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year, as well as a first-ballot Hall of Famer.  He also owns Miami's all-time record in numerous defensive categories.

Patriots: 11 Julian Edelman-No. 12 was retired immediately after Tom Brady officially hung it up.  And rightfully so.  You've gotta think that he won't be the only one from the dynasty years, though.  I'm not suggesting they go crazy.  But honoring Brady's favorite receiver who won three Super Bowls with New England and was the MVP of Super Bowl LIII.  Robert Kraft likes him, too.

Jets: 24 Darrelle Revis-After it was just Joe Namath and Don Maynard for the longest time, the Jets expanded the list of players who've had their number retired a few years ago, adding Hall of Famers Curtis Martin and Joe Klecko to that list, as well as Dennis Byrd.  The most recent Hall of Fame inductee who was primarily a Jet is Darrelle Revis, who's widely considered one of the best cornerbacks in NFL history.  His stats weren't great because nobody wanted to throw anywhere near "Revis Island"...and he was still voted to seven Pro Bowls!

Steelers: 12 Terry Bradshaw-Pittsburgh's another one of those teams with a surprisingly small amount of retired numbers.  Although, if you retired every Steeler who was worthy's number, they'd be like the Yankees and run out.  Still, it feels like they should have more than three (and they only retired No. 32 for Franco Harris in 2022).  When he retires from broadcasting, it'd be such a fitting tribute to honor Terry Bradshaw for a career in football.

Titans: 22 Derrick Henry-Rounding out the AFC, we've got the Oilers/Titans.  Steve McNair and Eddie George are their two best players of the Tennessee era.  All of their other retired numbers were Oilers.  And, obviously, though he's a Raven now, Derrick Henry was the best damn player in the league for a few seasons while with the Titans.  I don't think it's a crazy suggestion that, once his career is done, he'd be a candidate for a number retirement in Tennesse.  Especially if he goes back to the Titans at some point.

Diamond League vs. Grand Slam Track

The 2025 Diamond League season has gotten underway.  Two meets have been contested, both in China.  I haven't seen a second of either one.  Not because of a lack of interest.  Because of an idiotic decision to move the Diamond League broadcasts from NBC/Peacock to FloTrack on a multi-year deal.  It's about as short-sighted as thinking can get.

If you haven't heard of FloTrack, you're not alone.  It's a track & field streaming service that costs $29.99 a month or $149.99 a year.  Even track & field junkies think that price is ridiculous!  Yes, they have full coverage of numerous high school and college meets, but even the biggest diehards aren't paying $30 a month to watch Heat 5 of the girls' 1500 at some random high school meet in Massachusetts, let alone the entire eight-hour meet!  A Peacock subscription, meanwhile, costs $7.99 a month for the cheapest package and gives you a whole lot more content than a niche sport!

Simply put, this is a money grab.  There's no other way to put it.  NBC is in the midst of a 10-year deal with World Athletics for all World Athletics Series events, including the World Championships.  The Diamond League isn't managed by World Athletics and is on a separate contract.  NBC's contract with the Diamond League (which featured live streaming on Peacock and tape-delayed TV coverage on CNBC) expired after last year.  And FloTrack outbid NBC when the rights came back around.

Not surprisingly, this was met with universal disdain from both track & field fans and the athletes themselves.  It's easy to see why.  With the next Olympics in LA, you want track & field to be in Americans' consciousness until then.  That requires more exposure, not less! 

But, instead of keeping the Diamond League in the same place people watch the Olympics (and a viewer may just casually stumble upon it after watching something else), it moved to a streaming service with far fewer subscribers who are mainly already fans of the sport.  And even they're being asked to pay significantly more for the same product.  That's not exactly how you grow the sport.  It is, however, a way to make sure track & field moves further out of the mainstream.

There are plenty of reasons for this.  First and foremost, the Diamond League doesn't care how many Americans are or aren't able to watch the meets.  It's a business and FloTrack offered them more money.  That's the only thing they were concerned about.  And NBC apparently had a chance to match FloTrack's bid, but chose not to, so they clearly didn't think it was worth it to continue airing the Diamond League, at least for that price.

Evidently, NBC thinks that their existing World Athletics and USA Track & Field contracts are enough.  And they'll still have one Diamond League meet.  The Prefontaine Classic in Eugene, the only domestic Diamond League stop, will continue to be on NBC.  Even without the Diamond League, though, there will still be track & field on Peacock in the form of the new Grand Slam Track.

Grand Slam Track was the brainchild of Michael Johnson and features four meets in its debut season.  All of them are three days long (Friday-Sunday), with the first day broadcast exclusively on Peacock.  The Saturday and Sunday coverage, meanwhile, is simulcast on Peacock and The CW.  So, even without the Diamond League on NBC, there's still professional track & field being shown on regular TV in the U.S. in 2025.

In Grand Slam Track, there are six event groups (short sprints, long sprints, short hurdles, long hurdles, short distance, long distance), with athletes in each event group racing twice over the weekend.  There are eight competitors in each race, and points are awarded based on your finishing position.  Whoever has the most points after the two races is the event winner for that race group and wins $100,000.  So, if you win your race group at all four Grand Slam Track events, that's a cool $400,000.  Not a bad chunk of change!  They'll also keep a season-long score and crown both a men's and women's "Racer of the Year."

One of the unique things about Grand Slam Track is that each race includes four "Racers" and four "Challengers."  The "Racers" have signed on to compete in all four meets.  The "Challengers," meanwhile, will vary from race to race.  Even with some high-profile opt-outs, Grand Slam Track has put together an impressive roster of "Racers" for its inaugural season, headlined by stars such as Sydney McLaughlin, Gabby Thomas, Kenny Bednarek and Alison dos Santos.

Head-to-head competition is at the heart of Grand Slam Track, and it's one of the reasons Michael Johnson started the circuit.  Track & field athletes are notorious for avoiding each other outside of the big meets.  In Grand Slam Track, you're guaranteed to see some of the biggest names in the sport race against each other twice in a weekend.  And, it's a chance for the American stars to compete and earn money without having to fly to Europe or Asia.  Just as importantly, American fans get to watch their favorites live and in person, not on TV in the middle of the afternoon from somewhere in Europe.

However, there are some things about Grand Slam Track that make it clear this is a start-up organization.  For starters, attendance at the first two meets hasn't been great.  I don't know about the TV/streaming numbers, but the quality of the broadcasts hasn't been great, either.  Michael Johnson is confident in Grand Slam Track's long-term success, but they still need more big names to sign on.  They've gotten a few, but not enough.  And, since Grand Slam Track and Diamond League do have some meets on the same weekends, that means they can't compete in both.  And the top athletes are still more likely to pick the Diamond League.

I also think they need to tweak the concept a little bit.  The whole idea is that Grand Slam Track is a made-for-TV event with each race highlighted separately within the broadcast window.  However, that means no field events.  Grand Slam Track is just that.  It completely ignores the & Field part of "track & field."  That's a common problem with track & field broadcasts, where the field events often become an afterthought.  But they at least provide constant action even when there are no track races in progress.  In Grand Slam Track, the field events aren't even an afterthought.  They're not a thought at all.

According to its founder/commissioner, Grand Slam Track is here to stay.  I hope it does and that it can become a success.  Right now, that prediction seems to be a little optimistic, but he's confident in the circuit's long-term prospects.  The financial backing certainly seems to be there, which is obviously vital.  And there may even be a world where Grand Slam Track and the Diamond League can coexist.  I really don't see why not.

Ideally, Grand Slam Track and the Diamond League won't just coexist, they'll both be available and easily accessible for American viewers.  Because that's really the most important thing for the sport.  Whether it's Grand Slam Track domestically or a Diamond League meet somewhere else in the world, more track & field on TV can only be good for the sport heading into an Olympics on U.S. soil in 2028.  Especially since the United States has the best track & field team in the world!  By a mile!

Also, I'm not sure how long this Diamond League/FloTrack partnership will last.  I have a feeling that FloTrack will realize they overpaid and that their having the Diamond League didn't result in this influx of new subscribers.  They'll find that people who want a FloTrack subscription already have one.  Which could bring the Diamond League back to NBC/Peacock, where people can already watch Grand Slam Track.  In other words, it would put all of the elite, professional track & field in the same place.  Which is what all track & field fans want.