An All-New US Open

This year's US Open is full of change.  The mixed doubles tournament is already complete.  This year, they tried a new format with 16 teams (made up primarily of singles players) in a quick, two-day format.  Mary Joe Fernandez and the McEnroe brothers loved it.  They were praising the USTA for being innovative and predicted that we'll see it at the Australian Open in January (which we probably will since the Australian Open likes to copy the US Open).

I still consider it a slap in the face to mixed doubles.  Sure, they had the spotlight and a sold out Arthur Ashe Stadium for the final.  But it was also treated like somewhat of an afterthought--played before the tournament actually starts!  And recruiting the singles players to play with a $1 million prize (that they don't need) at the expense of doubles specialists (who very much do) was such an insult!  That's why I found it so satisfying that Sara Errani and Andrea Vavassori--two actual doubles players--won the title.

The other big change, of course, is the schedule.  The US Open has become the third Grand Slam to go to a Sunday start.  It doesn't really change much.  All it does is spread the first round over three days instead of two.  But, it also gives the USTA an opportunity to sell five extra sessions' worth of tickets (day and night on the two main stadiums, grounds passes on the outer courts).  So, it really shouldn't be surprising.  Expect the US Open overall attendance record to be broken.

On the men's side, there's a clear favorite in World No. 1 and defending champion Jannik Sinner.  He's the best hardcourt player in the world and has won four of the last seven Grand Slam tournaments.  Sinner is a five-hour epic French Open final loss away from going for a calendar-year Grand Slam.  Although, let's not pretend luck hasn't been on his side.  He was down two sets to Grigor Dimitrov at Wimbledon when Dimitrov got injured and had to retire.  We can only guess what would've happened had Dimitrov been able to finish, but Sinner obviously doesn't win the title if he loses that match.

Anyway, sometimes luck is on your side.  And I'm not taking anything away from him.  Because Sinner sailed in his final three matches.  Although, he's only played once since Wimbledon and had to retire in the final of Cincinnati, then withdrew from the mixed doubles tournament.  So, is Sinner completely healthy?  An injury may be the only thing that can neutralize him and give somebody else a chance.

Maybe it'll be one of the Americans.  John McEnroe made a bold prediction that this US Open could be where we see the 22-year drought end for the American men.  Taylor Fritz became the first since Andy Roddick to even make a Grand Slam final last year, and that momentum has carried into 2025, with at least two Americans reaching the quarterfinals at the previous three Grand Slam tournaments.  Ben Shelton (Australian) and Fritz (Wimbledon) have both been Grand Slam semifinalists this year.  Between those two, Frances Tiafoe and Tommy Paul, there's plenty of reason to be optimistic for a long run.  A title run, though?  That's a lot to expect.

Tiafoe, Fritz and Shelton are all in a loaded bottom half of the draw, along with Novak Djokovic and Carlos Alcaraz.  Former champion Daniil Medvedev and former finalist Casper Ruud reside on the bottom half of the draw, as well.  This is the section where the first round is split between Sunday and Monday, which works out well with all the big names.  And whoever comes out of this section will have earned it.

Joining Sinner on the top half of the bracket, meanwhile, is Alexander Zverev, who had that shocking first-round loss at Wimbledon.  He was a finalist in Australia this year, but he got thumped by Sinner.  That could be Zverev's problem here.  Unless there's an upset, he'll have to beat Sinner just to make the final.  That first career Grand Slam title we've been waiting for may have to wait.

If Sinner doesn't win, Alcaraz has to be the guy.  He's looking for redemption after that shocking second-round loss last year, but, don't forget, he won the title as a 19-year-old in 2022.  Djokovic, meanwhile, hasn't won a Slam since he tied the record with his 24th in 2023.  He's ceded the title of best hardcourt player in the world to Sinner.  Even he'd admit that.  And, you'd have to think his best chance to get No. 25 is at Wimbledon, not here.  But do you want to count Novak Djokovic out of any tournament?  There's a reason why he only plays the Grand Slams at this point in his career.

Meanwhile, it's been a very interesting Grand Slam season on the women's side.  Three different American women have made Grand Slam finals this year, with Madison Keys (Australian) and Coco Gauff (French) winning titles.  The final streak is actually at four with four different women, stretching back to Jessica Pegula a year ago.  Can that run possibly continue?  If it does, Emma Navarro could be a candidate as that fifth different finalist.

There are two other reasons why this year has been interesting for the women.  Iga Swiatek is a clay court star.  She was given no chance to win Wimbledon.  Not only did she win Wimbledon, she dominated!  She only lost two total games in the semifinal AND final, including a 6-0, 6-0 victory for the championship.  That was Swiatek's first title of the year and shot her back up to No. 2 in the world.  She already made the final here in mixed doubles and is definitely one of the top contenders.

Another of the top contenders is defending champion and World No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka.  (Sidebar: How had I not seen or even known about the pictures of Sabalenka looking absolutely stunning in that red dress at last year's championship photo session until like two days ago?!)  Anyway, Sabalenka made the final at both the Australian and French Opens, losing to Keys and Gauff, then she lost to Amanda Anisimova (who had the match of her life!) in the Wimbledon semifinals.  So, she enters the US Open looking for her first Grand Slam title this year.  Like I said, this season has been funky!

Sabalenka's been fine as long as you keep the Americans away from her.  Unfortunately, there are so many Americans who figure to go deep in the draw that it'll be tough for her to avoid them all.  She could potentially face Pegula or Navarro in the semis, then Gauff or Keys in the final.  Although, Swiatek may be able to help her out there.  With the way Swiatek has been playing all summer, that's not a crazy thought.

While I'm tentatively labeling Swiatek as the "favorite" on the bottom half of the women's draw, it's very tentative.  Because the bottom half of the women's bracket is as loaded as the bottom half of the men's.  Four former US Open champions, Swiatek, Gauff, Naomi Osaka and Venus Williams, who it's so great to see back at the US Open, even if it for a farewell.  Plus, two other Grand Slam champions (Keys and Sofia Kenin) and two other Grand Slam finalists.  If the seeds hold, we could get a rematch of the Wimbledon final in the quarters.  We could also get a fourth-round matchup between Gauff and Osaka, with the winner set to potentially face Keys in the quarters (then Swiatek in the semis).  

That's where I think Sabalenka has an advantage.  Her draw is much easier.  It's not a cakewalk by any means.  But, I'd much rather be in the top half of the women's draw than the bottom half.  And that, I think, will pay dividends for Sabalenka later in the tournament.  While the heavy hitters on the bottom half are beating the crap out of each other, she can take advantage of her draw and save some bullets for the later rounds, where, if she's lucky, she won't lose to an American.

With the way this year has gone, it would be almost fitting to see the American women make it 4-for-4 in Grand Slam finals.  It is the US Open after all!  However, I'm not sure that's in the cards.  Like Sinner, Sabalenka is the best hardcourt player in the world.  She'll prove it by defending her title and avoid going all of 2025 without winning a Grand Slam.

SEC Going to Nine

After years of talk and speculation about when/if it would happen, the SEC announced today that it's going to a nine-game conference schedule for football.  The coaches had actually been the ones pushing for it, so you know they're not gonna be too upset, even if it means fewer 70-3 wins over Mercer.  And it'll make everyone else happy, too.  ESPN gets eight more SEC conference games, the Big Ten can stop whining about the SEC playing one fewer conference game than them, and the in-state rivalry games against ACC teams (which had been the sticking point) won't be affected.

Strength of schedule is a key component considered by the College Football Playoff selection committee.  The SEC had already put in a provision that you must play one non-conference game against the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 or Notre Dame.  Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Louisville are all in the ACC, so that provision was already being met by their in-state rivals anyway.  What it does mean for the SEC schools, really, is replacing a guarantee game (at home) with another conference game.  Which obviously means (likely) eight additional losses, which is one thing they won't like.

While it's been a topic of discussion for a while, the timing of this isn't a coincidence.  ESPN is launching its direct-to-consumer streaming service very soon.  One of ESPN's biggest properties is SEC football.  They just got eight more SEC conference games for that service.  Yes, they traded 16 non-conference games for them, but people would much rather see Alabama-Texas than LSU-Lamar, so is that even really a loss?

This makes a lot of sense for the SEC schools for a lot of reasons.  The first and most obvious is that it means they'll play everybody else in the league at home at least once every four years.  Under the division structure, they'd play the same teams every year and sometimes go more than a decade with a team from the other division not visiting their stadium.  More than 10 years without playing a conference opponent at home!  That's just absurd!

From a competitive standpoint, there was some inherent unfairness in that.  Teams like Mississippi State would have to play Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M AND Mississippi every year while maybe not playing Vanderbilt.  On the flip side, Georgia's opponents in the SEC East included Vanderbilt, South Carolina and Kentucky.  I know it's the SEC and everyone is good, but even the best leagues have teams at the bottom.  Likewise, Alabama's a Top 10 team every year, so they weren't exactly the easiest opponent for SEC West teams.

Frankly, they probably should've done this last year when Texas and Oklahoma joined the SEC.  I know they were talking about it then.  Because setting up a nine-game schedule with 16 teams is actually pretty easy.  They'll play three permanent opponents (which may not necessarily be permanent), while the other 12 will be six on, six off.  I thought it would be a two-year cycle, but it looks like the six they play and the six they don't play will flip every year.  So, they're playing everybody at least once every two years, which is actually much better.

Three permanent opponents preserves the big rivalries, too.  They couldn't just do one permanent opponent.  Because some schools have more than one rival they want to play annually.  And, seriously, how could you decide between Oklahoma and Texas A&M for the permanent rival of Texas?  LSU would also like to play both of those schools annually, as well as probably Alabama.  Florida-Georgia and Florida-Tennessee, etc.  So, figuring out two permanent opponents for each team is actually pretty easy.

Not every team necessarily has a third natural rival, though.  That's why having that third "permanent" opponent possibly change isn't a bad idea.  You aren't touching Auburn-Alabama or Georgia-Florida.  That's obvious.  But, it's very easy to envision them basing that third "permanent" matchup on games they want to make sure happen every year.  That could mean Alabama-Georgia, then, if Georgia and Texas are the two best teams, you swap that out for Georgia-Texas.  I like that they're giving themselves some flexibility on that.

The expanded College Football Playoff and the emphasis on strength of schedule are key points here, too.  The SEC was hesitant to add a conference game when it was four-team playoff because a second loss (even to a Top 5 opponent) would kill your playoff chances.  And the SEC is guaranteed to have a collective eight additional losses starting next season.  That's offset, though, because the committee values a road loss to a good team more than beating up on an FCS team at home now.

I do feel somewhat bad for those FCS or lower-level FBS teams who'll likely end up getting dropped from SEC schedules as a result.  For a long time, I was a big critic of guarantee games.  But they're a vital source of revenue for the team receiving that guarantee.  Traveling to Arkansas to lose by 40 (or more) is worth it for the exposure.  And because of the impact it has on their budget.  The money brought in from guarantee games is one of the biggest sources of funding for those Athletic Departments (not just the football programs).

What's interesting, though, is how every SEC team except for Mississippi State only had three non-conference games scheduled for next season, allowing them to make this change effective in 2026.  Whether the nine-game conference slate was already in the works and was only just made public today, I don't know.  But the fact that they all had an open weekend where another conference game could be inserted seems to be more than a convenient coincidence.  And I'm sure the SEC will work the dates so that they can all still play their ACC rival in the final game like they always do.

You have to think the disagreement with the Big Ten over the composition of the College Football Playoff moving forward came into play here, too.  The Big Ten's big issue was how not everybody was playing the same number of conference games.  That's no longer the case, at least in regards to the SEC.  The ACC is sticking with eight conference games for now, but don't be surprised if they add a ninth soon, too.  And, don't forget, the ACC has the scheduling agreement with Notre Dame, which is an ACC school in every other sport.  However, the ACC is much less of a factor in the Big Ten's stance than the SEC was.

Now that they've eliminated a major sticking point, this likely means the College Football Playoff will, indeed, expand beyond 12 teams.  And it'll probably be closer to the SEC/Big 12/ACC's preferred format with five automatic bids and the rest at-large.  The Big Ten's whole thing about wanting a guaranteed number of bids per conference was obviously self-serving, but their stance was based on having that additional conference game the SEC didn't have.  Can't make that argument anymore!

So, while not overly surprising, this is still a positive development across the board.  The SEC had been thinking about it for a long time.  Now they finally pulled the trigger.  The nine-game SEC schedule that was seen as inevitable will soon become a reality.  Which is a win for all involved (even if eight teams will end up with an extra loss).

Hard Pass On Geographic Divisions

Sometimes, I think Rob Manfred breaks news just to give fans a heads up that change is coming to MLB.  Other times, I think it's just to troll people.  His comments during the Little League Classic on Sunday night fall into the latter category.  It achieved its purpose.  It got people all fired up, mostly against the idea, and there's been two days of mock divisions drawn up.  But, to me, it was all just to get the reaction.  Because there's no way the owners would go for an East/West alignment instead of the American and National Leagues.

Now, will there be expansion sometime within the next 10 years?  Most likely.  Baseball hasn't expanded since 1998 and it's no secret that they'd like to add two teams.  And that expansion, whenever it happens, will obviously have to result in realignment, probably into eight divisions of four.  Don't expect much beyond that, though.  Because the drastic realignment Manfred suggested, despite some "experts" suggesting it's further along than many might think, will be a very hard sell.

This isn't the NBA or NHL we're talking about.  Those two leagues have always been divided almost entirely along geographic lines.  It's more like the NFL, which has been the AFC and NFC since the merger in 1970.  That merger, of course, was the combining of two completely separate entities--the AFL and NFL.  Just like how the American League and National League are, for the most part, two completely separate entities.

And settling on the divisional alignment after the AFL/NFL merger wasn't exactly an easy task.  The Steelers, Browns and Colts all agreed to move the AFC, but that was about the extent of it.  Things got so complicated with how they'd configure the NFC that it ultimately came down to Pete Rozelle's secretary picking one of the options out of a hat.  That's how we ended up with the Dallas Cowboys in the NFC East, which makes absolutely no sense geographically, but you also can't picture that division without the Cowboys.  (That was also the only one that kept the four current NFC North teams together, and it's impossible to picture those four ever being separated.)

The National League was founded in 1876.  That's 150 years of history.  The American League was founded in 1901 and has 125 years of history of its own.  Going to an "Eastern Conference" and "Western Conference" wouldn't just erase a lot of that history (and for what reason?), it would eliminate rivalries that are built on that history (again, why?) and, frankly, confuse people more than anything else.

It's because of that history that the All*Star Game and World Series actually mean something.  The AL and NL didn't even play by the same rules until 2022!  The lines have been a little blurred because of the universal DH and the new schedule format in which you face every other team in the Majors every year, but that distinction is still important.  Winning the "Eastern Conference" pennant doesn't have the same cachet as winning the National League pennant.  Likewise, the AL and NL always wanted to beat each other in the All*Star Game.  It's why baseball's All*Star Game, ridiculous "swing-off" tiebreakers aside, is actually still relevant while the other three got so stupid they could do away with them entirely and I doubt anyone would even notice.

To eliminate the leagues and base divisions entirely on geographic is easier than it sounds, and you can bet there would be plenty of pushback from all sides.  Do you really think the Cubs and Cardinals, who've been grouped together for 125 years, would really go for being separated?  Same thing with the Orioles, who've been in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox since the AL East was formed in 1969.  You try telling them that they won't be in the same division anymore!

Matchups like Yankees-Mets, Dodgers-Angels and Cubs-White Sox would lose something, too.  Part of what makes those series between intracity or intrastate rivals so special is because they're in two different leagues and don't face each other that often.  Those matchups would lose something if they weren't just in the same league, but the same division.  Beyond that, it would be impossible for them to meet in the World Series.  Which is just stupid on so many levels.

I'm not even sure how they think these divisions would work, either.  Manfred mentioned something about travel and having two West Coast teams play postseason games in that late time slot, but there are only eight teams in the Mountain or Pacific time zone.  Houston and Texas are in the AL West, but they're in the Central time zone.  So, even if you put one of the expansion teams out west, there would still be seven teams in the Central time zone in the Western Conference, and you'd still have an Eastern/Central time zone team playing the Western Conference pennant winner in the World Series.  (This is the same sport where the Atlanta Braves were in the NL West for 25 years suddenly caring about travel.)

When the NHL realigned in 2013, they put all 16 Eastern time zone teams in the same conference and everybody else in the Western Conference.  Baseball couldn't even do that, though, unless both expansion teams were in the East (which seems unlikely), since there are only 14 teams in the Eastern time zone.  So, you'd be putting most, if not all, of the teams in the Central time zone in the Western Conference, which would entirely defeat the purpose!

Meanwhile, who's asking for this?  Who's been watching baseball thinking, "You know what MLB needs?  Geographic divisions!"  Especially when the existing divisions ARE geographic!  The entire point of having the Astros switch leagues a decade ago was because they were the furthest west and they needed somebody to move to balance the leagues at 15 teams apiece!  And, like I said, getting teams to agree to realignment within their existing leagues will be enough of a challenge when the time comes.

That travel thing is nothing more than a ridiculous (and convenient) excuse, too.  Unless they want to change the schedule back to where you're only playing the teams in your league, everybody will still have to make multiple cross-country trips per season.  The West coast teams will have more travel regardless simply because there aren't as many of them and they're further apart.  Giving them more games in the Pacific time zone and fewer in the Eastern time zone won't change that.  Seattle's still a lot further away than everyone.

His point about the postseason really made no sense!  Manfred used Boston-Anaheim as an example of an East Coast vs. West Coast series that would potentially have a 10:00 start time where Red Sox fans have to stay up (I feel compelled to mention here that when the Red Sox played the Angels in the 2009 ALDS, Game 3 at Fenway started at noon Eastern, 9 AM Pacific, but I digress).  Yes, but you'd at least have the Red Sox fans staying up, likely giving the game higher ratings as a result. 

Also, they hardly ever even schedule 10:00 Eastern playoff games!  The Dodgers have played another NL West team in the Division Series five years in a row (when 7:00 Pacific start times would conceivably not be a problem).  You want to know how many of those games have started at 10:00 Eastern?  One!  In 2022 against the Padres.  Most of the Dodgers' NLDS games have started at either 5:00 or 6:00 Pacific.  And all LCS games are scheduled for either 4:00 or 8:00 Eastern, so it's only the Wild Card or Division Series we'd even be talking about here!

They've moved away from 10:00 postseason starts regardless of who's playing in them, partially because of the lower ratings.  Which is something they've been able to do because FOX and TBS split the postseason.  What Manfred saying that says to me is that he wants to add 10:00 games.  Not take them away.  Which would only be convenient for people on the West Coast.  Having games start (and, thus, end) later wouldn't get more people to watch them.  It would do the exact opposite, in fact.  (The lowest-rated NLCS in history was Diamondbacks-Rockies in 2007, when no game started earlier than 9:00 Eastern.)

Expansion is inevitable.  Everyone acknowledges that.  That expansion will result in realignment.  Everyone understands that, too.  But that realignment shouldn't be as drastic as the Commissioner is suggesting and some seem to think is a done deal.  Because logistically, it doesn't really make sense.  Beyond that, though, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  And MLB's system of an American and National League, each with an East, Central and West division isn't broken.  So, why "fix" it?  Especially when that's only gonna make things worse!

Six Weeks to Go

We've reached mid-August.  Which means back-to-school and preseason football.  It also means we've reached the three-quarter mark of the MLB season.  Every team has roughly 40 games left, and the teams currently in playoff position do look like the 12 best teams in baseball.  While the playoff races are by no means over, I think we're looking at battles for division titles and positioning more than teams currently on the outside challenging for wild cards.

And, once we get to the postseason, anything can happen.  I really don't think there will be a clear favorite heading into October.  Because, while some of the playoff teams are in better shape than others, they're all flawed.  They're all just as capable of making a run as they are of crashing out in their opening series.

Blue Jays: Toronto is the biggest example of what I'm talking about.  The Blue Jays aren't nearly as good as they think they are.  They're practically unbeatable at home, which will be their clearest advantage in the playoffs.  They're also impossible to strike out, so, since they put the ball in play, you have to play rock solid defense against them.  Being sound fundamentally, tough to beat at home, and having solid pitching makes the Blue Jays a very tough out.  Tough, but not impossible.

Red Sox: Boston is also really good at home, but sub-.500 on the road.  So, it's incredibly important for them to catch the Blue Jays and/or hold off the Yankees and Mariners if they want to play at Fenway.  I'm also not sure about Boston's pitching behind Garret Crochet.  They'll get in, but they won't be a favorite.

Yankees: As annoying as Brian Cashman and Aaron Boone's constant votes of confidence about a team that's been awful for two months are, the Yankees have never really been in danger of dropping out of the playoffs.  And, if they can play like they did in April and May, look out!  If not, they've got early exit written all over them.  If they hit like they can, get good starting pitching and the bullpen actually does its job, though, look out!  That's what makes this team so frustrating to watch.  Everyone knows what they're capable of, but they're so inconsistent.

Tigers: Detroit has been the best team in the American League all season and has the best rotation in the AL.  The Tigers have dropped off after their torrid start, but they've built such a lead and the rest of the AL Central is so weak that they have nothing to worry about.  And that pitching can take them far.  Detroit will be a very dangerous team in October.

Astros: Despite losing so many players for extended periods due to injuries, it's been business as usual in Houston.  Losing Josh Hader for the year was a big blow, though.  Especially since that likely takes Bryan Abreu out of that setup role where he's been so valuable.  It's really questionable whether they'll hold off the Mariners.  Still, this is the Astros we're talking about.  They're in the ALCS every freakin' year for a reason.  Although, seeing them have to navigate the playoffs while not holding one of the top two seeds could be interesting.

Mariners: This is my pick to win the AL pennant.  Which is something the Mariners have never done.  Can the only team that's never been to the World Series finally get there?  They have the pitching, and now they have the lineup to go with it.  Seattle is that team nobody will want to face in the playoffs.  I think they need to win the AL West, though.  Otherwise, the travel will be a killer.

Phillies: Last season, I was very high on the Phillies heading into the postseason and they ended up losing the Division Series to the Mets.  Their big issue last year was the bullpen.  This year, they went out and got the Twins' Jhoan Duran to be their closer.  If they hadn't done that, the same fate would be awaiting them.  However, with the upgraded bullpen, an excellent rotation and a solid lineup, Philadelphia will be among the favorites.

Mets: All the Mets need to do is get in.  Like New York's other team, they were otherworldly in April and May before falling off a cliff in the summer.  Everyone knows the Mets are plenty capable of turning it around, especially with that lineup.  The question is whether they'll get the pitching.  If they do, their seed doesn't matter.  As they proved last year.

Brewers: I have no idea how Milwaukee is this good.  Nor do I have any idea how long this ridiculous run will last.  I'm also worried the Brewers have another first round exit in their future.  This is a team that's about to make its seventh postseason appearance in eight seasons, yet hasn't won a playoff series since sweeping the Rockies in the 2018 NLDS.  And whoever they face in the Division Series this season will be good and plenty capable of beating them.

Cubs: For a while, Cubs fans thought that this year would be just like 2016.  Then reality set in, the Brewers stopped losing entirely, and the Cubs dropped to a wild card position.  As a wild card, they're likely looking at playing either the Phillies, Mets or Padres.  I don't see them beating any of those three teams.  Which is why, while I see them making the playoffs, I can't see the Cubs making a deep run once they get there.

Dodgers: San Diego making them fight for the NL West title could be the best thing for the Dodgers.  The defending champs won't coast into the postseason.  Because they can't.  Talent-wise, they're obviously the best team.  What will their pitching look like, though?  That seems to always be the question.  And, don't forget, last year notwithstanding, this team does have a history of getting knocked out of the playoffs early.  That short series can be dangerous.

Padres: Don't be surprised to see a Seattle-San Diego World Series.  Because I think the Padres might be the best team in the National League right now.  (Yes, I'm aware the Brewers have had two winning streaks of at least 11 games since the All*Star Break.)  I like everything San Diego did at the deadline.  And all those moves were made with the postseason in mind.  Still, there isn't much that separates the six National League playoff teams.  So, the Padres winning the pennant and losing in the Wild Card Series seem equally plausible.

Marching Towards A Lockout

A few weeks ago, Rob Manfred was in the Phillies clubhouse meeting with the players when he was cursed out and told to leave by Bryce Harper.  What was it that got Harper so heated?  A salary cap.  The owners want one.  For the players, it's a non-starter.  As soon as Manfred brought it up, Harper immediately shut the conversation down.  Which tells you all you need to know about how the players feel about even discussing a salary cap.

Manfred's visit to the Phillies was just one stop on his tour of all 30 teams.  The goal was to gauge the players' concerns/priorities heading towards negotiations for the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.  The current CBA, which was signed in 2022 after a three-month lockout, runs through the end of next season.  And everyone is already bracing themselves for another lockout after the 2026 season.  Noting I'm not saying the possibility of a lockout.  Because it would be absolutely shocking if there isn't one!  And it's expected that this one will last longer than the last.

Tony Clark, the Executive Director of the MLBPA, indicated that the owners have already made it clear they intend to lock out the players when the CBA expires in December 2026.  At the All*Star Game, Pete Alonso admitted that, while no one is talking about it, the players have resigned themselves to the high likelihood it'll happen.  They're preparing themselves for it to be a long one, too.  Because the players will fight tooth & nail against a salary cap.  Manfred, meanwhile, is being coy and has never used the term "salary cap" in public.  The players all know the owners want one, though.  And it'll be at the heart of the CBA negotiations.

Major League Baseball, of course, has never had a salary cap.  Among the four major sports, i's the only one without one.  Instead, they have the luxury tax system, where teams can spend whatever they want, but if they pass certain thresholds, they're charged different amounts depending on how much they go over.  While some teams use the luxury tax as a sort of soft cap, others like the Dodgers and Mets have no issue paying the luxury tax.  Player salaries have skyrocketed as a result.

It's fairly obvious why the players like the current system.  Juan Soto has 51 million reasons a year to like it.  As long as they're willing to pay the luxury tax penalties, there's nothing stopping owners from signing multiple players to massive contracts.  Large market teams like the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets and Phillies have taken full advantage of that.  They have World Series aspirations every year and spend like it. 

Other teams have taken a different approach.  They spend the bare minimum on salaries while still collecting their portion of the revenue sharing pie.  That's beyond frustrating for the players.  Although, during the last CBA negotiations, they were also opposed to the seemingly obvious solution of a salary floor.  Why?  Because they think once a salary floor is in place, a salary cap won't be too far away.

The owners are frustrated on both ends.  There are plenty of teams that aren't happy about those who choose not to spend, but have no issue taking in their share of revenue sharing money.  There are also those teams that don't like the large market clubs' ability to freely spend, which they think give those teams an unfair advantage.  And those competitive balance concerns are the owners' biggest issue heading into CBA negotiations.

Making that payroll disparity an even bigger concern moving forward are the continued worries about regional sports networks.  We've already seen a few teams have their local TV rights taken over by MLB, and the thinking is that there'll likely be more in the future as the RSN model continues to be threatened.  The large market teams with solid RSNs don't have that problem.  And it further gives them an advantage since they bring in TV revenue that teams in smaller markets can't match.  The owners of those mid-level teams (the ones who can't be big spenders, but aren't actively not spending money) would like to see those scales balanced, at least somewhat.

So, they're at an impasse.  And it's not something that'll easily be solved in the next year and a half before the current CBA expires.  The owners will push for a salary cap that I'm not even sure they all want.  They also want assurances that teams can't just pocket their revenue sharing dollars while not making any effort to be competitive on the field.  And, if the owners can't even agree, how are they gonna present something to the players, who'll have their own list of things that they want addressed?

That's why there's absolutely no confidence that anything can get done without a lockout.  The sides are so far apart on the most basic issues and neither seems very willing to budge.  There's also some unresolved tension from the last CBA negotiations and the resulting lockout.  As a result, both sides expect the negotiations to be contentious.  Especially since they aren't even close to agreeing on basically any point.

Ultimately, though, this comes down to the owners.  Only ownership can initiate a lockout, and all it takes is eight unhappy owners to make it happen.  That's pretty much a certainty.  Because you'll have teams like the Dodgers that have no issues with the current system and, like the players, don't want a salary cap.  You'll also have teams like the Marlins who don't spend any money and don't want a salary floor.  Even if those two groups band together, there are still plenty of teams in the middle that aren't fans of the current system.  And they'll be the ones with all the power regarding whether there's a lockout or not.

What makes the looming threat of a lockout even more frustrating is how, overall, Baseball is in a very healthy position financially.  In 2024, the sport brought in $12.1 million.  So, you would think there's motivation on the owners' part to maintain that place of strength.  It's actually just the opposite, though.  Because the system is broken and the teams in the middle know it.  And they feel a lockout is the only way to fix the problem. 

Getting 30 different owners with competing priorities all on the same page is easier said than done.  And, frankly, that's the biggest issue at play here.  The players actually agree with the general sentiment that there's a competitive balance problem.  They don't like the Dodgers deferring 90 percent of everybody's contract or the Mets spending more money on Juan Soto than the Marlins are spending on their entire roster, either.  The only thing they're adamantly against is a salary cap.

If the owners push for a salary cap, they'll have quite a fight on their hands.  The Commissioner, for all his faults, does seem to somewhat understand that.  The problem is he needs to get the owners to see it and make them come to some sort of compromise among themselves.  Until that happens, the chances of there not being a lockout are slim to none.  That's why, even though the CBA doesn't expire for another 16 months, the writing is on the wall.  Brace yourselves.  A lockout is coming.

The Corporate Olympics

In 1984, Los Angeles completely changed the Olympic Movement.  By financing the Games with private and corporate funding, as well as using existing venues and infrastructure, LA showed that you can host the Olympics and actually make a profit.  That model became a template that future Olympic host cities followed.  In 1984, Los Angeles will completely change the Olympic Movement again.  And once again, it'll be by the use of corporate dollars.

The 2028 Olympics will be the first with venue naming rights.  The Honda Center in Anaheim, home of the Ducks during hockey season, will be hosting Olympic volleyball...when it will be called the "Honda Center."  The temporary squash venue in the Universal Studios parking lot, meanwhile, will be called the "Comcast Squash Center at Universal Studios."  Comcast, of course, is NBC's parent company.  (It's also worth noting that LA28 and NBCUniversal are working together to coordinate Olympic sponsorships.)

This is obviously a historic change, and it's being done with the IOC's full support.  Honda and Comcast are just the first two naming rights sponsors to be announced, but you'd have to figure there will be plenty more.  Other qualifying LA28 partners will be able to keep their name on existing venues, while up to 19 temporary venues will also have naming rights on offer, with participants in the IOC's existing The Olympic Partner program getting first dibs.

A few key clarifications were also made.  The first is that existing venues will either keep their regular name or, should a naming-rights deal with that company not be reached, be given a generic one like in Olympics past.  So, there's no chance three of LA's most iconic venues--Dodger Stadium, the LA Coliseum and the Rose Bowl--will suddenly have corporate names during the Olympics.  Nor will SoFi Stadium be referred to as (for example) Coca-Cola Stadium.  It'll either be SoFi or "2028 Stadium" (the temporary Olympic name it was given on the competition schedule that was released last month).

This isn't a requirement, either.  I don't know why a venue naming-rights sponsor would pass on the opportunity, but, if the price is too high or they can't come to an agreement with the organizers, they have the assurance that some other corporation won't be able to come in and slap their name on the venue during the Olympics.  If they don't want to do it, it'll just be the generic name that would've been used anyway under the previous rules where corporate venue names can't be used.

Existing IOC rules about maintaining a clean field-of-play will still apply, as well.  Which means no sponsor names or logos on the playing surface.  I've always loved that about the Olympics.  The field of play has nothing on it but simple, Olympic branding.  That will continue.  Although, this does presumably mean they won't need to cover up the scoreboard (assuming it has the sponsor's name/logo on it) or, more importantly, cover up the venue's name on the outside.

It's been a long-standing and well-known rule that corporate names aren't allowed by the IOC or FIFA.  This is a practical and reasonable provision to protect IOC and FIFA sponsors.  It prevents free advertising for a non-IOC/FIFA sponsor or, worse, for the competitor of an IOC/FIFA sponsor.  Although, the result is an often ridiculous generic name for the venue ("Dallas World Cup Stadium," anyone?) that will only be used on TV and in anything printed.  People attending the event will still refer to the venue by its actual name or nickname, regardless of what its "official" name during the competition is.

That's a point LA28 President Casey Wasserman was quick to emphasize.  Gymnastics will be at the Lakers' and Kings' home arena (which I will always call "Staples Center," even though that's not its name anymore).  People aren't suddenly going to start calling it "Downtown Gymnastics Arena" during the Olympics just because that's the name the IOC is using.  Ditto about all the NFL stadiums being used at next year's World Cup.

I do wonder, though, how Toyota (an IOC sponsor) feels about its competitor, Honda, getting a naming rights opportunity during the Olympics.  Assuming the IOC will continue allowing venue naming rights moving forward, this is a question that will have to be answered.  Sometimes there's no conflict.  Delta is the Official Airline of Team USA, so it won't be an issue for the Delta Center to keep its name when the Winter Games return to Salt Lake City in 2034.  But what will happen when there is one?  Or will this be a situation like the NFL/NBA, where team sponsors are often different than the league sponsors.

Still, while this is a somewhat surprising development, it's also something that feels like it was a long time coming.  And inevitable.  Venue naming rights aren't a phenomenon exclusive to the United States or even North America.  I'd argue that more sporting venues around the world than not have corporate names.  It's rare to not have multiple venues at an Olympics referred to by a generic name for those two weeks (there's always at least one).

And, from the sounds of Wasserman's comments in the release, it appears this isn't a one-time thing, either.  LA's in a unique position in that these Olympics are being completely privately funded without any governmental support.  That's why these corporate partnerships are so important.  They're a necessary extra revenue source.  That extra revenue won't just benefit the LA Games.  It'll benefit the entire Olympic Movement.

They wisely won't let it get out of control, either.  Giving the corporations that already have naming rights to the facilities the first opportunity to keep them during the Olympics is a reasonable accommodation.  I'd argue that it makes things even more worthwhile for them, especially since they wouldn't otherwise see any benefit from such a major event being held in the venue.  If they pass (and I'm not sure why any of them would), it's not like it'll be open bidding.  That corporate free-for-all could lead to a financial windfall, but this gives existing Olympic sponsors more bang for their buck, which gives corporations more incentive to be an Olympic sponsor.

Broadcast rights are the biggest source of IOC revenue.  That doesn't figure to change.  Individual Olympic host cities don't reap much of a benefit from that, though.  When it comes to the cost of running the Games, they're mostly on their own.  Which is why corporate sponsorships are so necessary.  And venue naming rights are a far more lucrative opportunity for both the sponsor and the organizing committee alike.  There's money to be had in naming rights.  Which is why they've been sold at virtually every major league venue (and many college venues) in the U.S.

Don't be surprised if this is the start of a trend, either.  You know FIFA saw this announcement and thought about how much more money they could've made had they allowed Met Life, SoFi, AT&T, etc., to keep their names on their venues during the World Cup (for an additional price, of course).  So, while the LA28 Olympics will be the first with venue naming rights, they won't be the last.  And World Cup venue naming rights will almost certainly follow.

The Upcoming Hall of Fame Conundrums

Now that the Baseball and Pro Football Hall of Fame induction ceremonies are both in the rearview mirror, it's time to start looking ahead to January and February, when the Classes of 2026 will be announced.  I'm curious to see how the voting will go in each.  Because both sports are heading into a very interesting few years...for completely opposite reasons.  Baseball doesn't have a clear-cut first-ballot Hall of Famer on the horizon.  Football has so many that it's going to create a logjam it'll take years to clear.

Let's start with baseball.  Ichiro was as clear-cut a first-ballot Hall of Famer as there can be.  The next one to hit the ballot is Albert Pujols in 2028, followed by Miguel Cabrera in 2029.  The next three ballots not only don't feature a clear-cut first-ballot candidate, there's a question of if anybody will get in on any of them.  While that scenario is unlikely, it does mean that we'll probably have smaller classes with guys who've been waiting a while coming up over the next few Hall of Fame elections.  

The Pro Football Hall of Fame, meanwhile, most decidedly does NOT have the same problem!  First-year eligible candidates for the Class of 2026 include Drew Brees, Larry Fitzgerald, Frank Gore, Phillip Rivers and Jason Witten.  That could be a Hall of Fame class right there.  (And, while coaches are a different category voted on separately, Bill Belichick is also eligible for the first time in 2026.)  Then you have Ben Roethlisberger, Rob Gronkowski and Adrian Peterson (among others) in 2027.  And, in 2028, two of the spots are already taken by first-ballot locks--J.J. Watt and some guy who played quarterback for the Patriots and won a bunch of Super Bowls.

Not all of those guys will get in on the first ballot.  And those who don't will then roll over into the next year, making those ballots even more loaded than they already will be.  Which means some of these players who otherwise would've been first-ballot locks will end up waiting multiple years before they finally get that knock on their door and give that speech while wearing their gold jacket.  Not to mention the backlog that already exists, and it's conceivable that there could be years where all 15 finalists eventually end up making the Hall of Fame.

Complicating matters even more in football is how they have a maximum class size, so they're already limited in the number of players who can be inducted in a given year.  And, as we saw this year, they changed the voting system and having the maximum number of inductees is no longer guaranteed.  So, if they don't have a maximum class, that increases the backlog even more.  Which is both good and bad.  Because, while some players will have an extra long wait, it does guarantee that we'll have some outstanding Pro Football Hall of Fame classes in the coming years.

This isn't the first time this has happened in baseball.  From 2010-13, a total of four players were voted in by the writers, including a shutout in 2013.  Then three players were elected on the first ballot in each of the next two years (five of the six were starting pitchers).  After the shutout in 2013, the writers elected a total of 22 players in the next eight classes before another shutout in 2021, then only one player voted in by the writers in both 2022 and 2023.  They've elected three in each of the last two years.  It might be three total over the next three.

Once we hit 2028, though, it'll again be an onslaught of first-ballot locks.  Yadi Molina could easily get in on the first ballot with his buddy Pujols.  Zack Greinke is also eligible for the first time in 2029.  And, let's not forget who else is coming up the pipeline pretty soon.  While they haven't retired yet, Justin Verlander, Max Scherzer and Clayton Kershaw are all nearing the end of their careers.  If they all retire together, that'll be one outstanding Hall of Fame class!  (It's also possible they may be the last three starting pitchers elected to the Hall of Fame for quite a while.)

Going back to the years between the two times the writers didn't select anybody, those large classes could've easily been bigger.  Because Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez, Mark McGwire, etc., were all on those ballots, too.  The Steroid Era players created quite a backlog, especially because voters are limited to 10 selections.  That backlog only started clearing up after the Steroid Era players exhausted their eligibility.  Now, we're at the point where there's no longer a backlog.  The list of candidates simply isn't as strong.  Although, it also means that players who've been waiting a while stand a better chance of getting in.

In football, it's the exact opposite.  The list of finalists for the Hall of Fame will be so good that we'll see players waiting years who otherwise would've been first-ballot locks.  Take next year for example.  They're not putting in five first-ballot guys.  Fitzgerald will get in.  Brees probably will too.  The others may end up all having to wait.  How long is the question.  Because the candidates coming up behind them are equally strong.

Football's coming up on a backlog similar to the one baseball had when the Steroid Era guys were still on the ballot.  The next three years will be stacked.  In 2029, Aaron Donald joins the fray, but after that, it clears up a bit.  (If Aaron Rodgers retires after this season, he'll become eligible in 2031.)  Still, though, simply because of the quality of the field, some guys might not be getting in until then at the earliest.  And I'm talking about obvious sure-fire guys like Frank Gore and Ben Roethlisberger.  I haven't even mentioned the second-tier Hall of Fame-quality players like Andrew Whitworth, Luke Kuechly, Clay Matthews and Adam Vinatieri.  Plus all the guys who are already eligible and haven't gotten in yet. 

These stand to be loaded classes.  Football's maximum of five doesn't seem to be changing, so we're already guaranteed to see some otherwise first-ballot locks not get in on the first ballot.  Which is guaranteed to shock some of their supporters.  And, as much as I criticize the Pro Football Hall of Fame voters and the way the voting is conducted, I don't envy them and the task they have in front of them over the next few years.  Separating some of these candidates will be close to impossible.  And, I fear, will result in split votes.  Which will mean not enough reach the 80 percent required for election.  Which will mean we get classes that aren't the maximum.  Which will mean those quality candidates end up staying on the ballot for another year...when they'll be joined by a whole new group of quality candidates.  

Baseball's "softer" ballots coming up in the next few years, meanwhile, are good news for those borderline candidates who've been on the ballot for some time.  Things bode well for Carlos Beltran and Andruw Jones to get over the 75 percent threshold.  You'd also have to think someone like Chase Utley may see his vote total shoot up dramatically.  Would they stand to make such a leap with an Ichiro or an Albert Pujols or a Miguel Cabrera on the ballot?  Seems doubtful.

Since the online tracker has become a regular part of the Baseball Hall of Fame election, people have wondered why/how writers can vote for a guy one year and not the next or start voting for someone after years of not voting for him.  This is why/how.  Because it's not about whether a player is a Hall of Famer or not.  It's about how they compare to the other candidates up for election that year.  Sometimes the quality of the field is so good that you have Hall of Famers with absolutely no chance at induction.

We had that in baseball for quite a few years.  Now, baseball's entering a lull while football's Hall of Fame voters will have an impossible task on their hands.  The quality of the Pro Football Hall of Fame candidates will be so good that they can't get it wrong.  Which all but guarantees someone will think they did.  All because somebody they thought should be a first-ballot lock will end up having to wait an extra year.  Or two.  Or three.

Olympic Sports' NCAA Future

We're about a week away from the start of the 2025-26 NCAA season, the first where student-athletes will be receiving direct payments from their school's Athletic Department (in addition to their NIL deals).  It's up to the Athletic Departments to decide which athletes will get paid and how much, but the expectation is that most of it will be funneled into football and men's and women's basketball.  Which, along with new scholarship limitations, has people legitimately worried about the future of some Olympic sports at the highest level of the NCAA.

The scholarship thing may actually have the biggest impact.  In the past, the NCAA had scholarship limits.  For the most part, full scholarships were only offered in football and basketball.  Other teams were given a certain number of athletic scholarships that they could spread across the roster however they saw fit.  The result was a lot of partial scholarships, which would often be combined with academic scholarships to cover the full cost of attendance.  That's no longer the case.

Under the terms of the House settlement, there are no more partial athletic scholarships.  All scholarships must be full rides.  The previous scholarship limits have been replaced by roster limits.  There's a maximum number of players teams can have on the roster.  They can't carry the fourth goalie or the extra bullpen catcher since those guys now require scholarships.  No more walk-ons (who every school wants since they're paying full tuition).

This is obviously going to have a huge impact on so many sports.  Particularly men's sports since schools will still need to meet all Title IX requirements.  Division I baseball, for example, will have a maximum roster size of 34 players starting this season, all of whom will be on full scholarships.  The previous limit was 40.  So, teams will have at least six fewer players each.  Likely more than that since some of the 40 were either on partial scholarships or walk-ons.

That's great news for the Division II and III programs where those players will transfer.  However, it means Division I baseball will look extremely different.  As will every other sport that will have significantly smaller rosters.  And we've already seen some of those reductions (which affect some women's programs, too).

Washington State's track & field team has eliminated sprint and field events and will be a distance-only program moving forward.  This applies to both the men's and women's teams, and is a direct result of the House settlement.  Washington State has decided to take its limited scholarships and reduced roster and focus on the distance events.  With Washington State no longer sponsoring their event (which was the entire reason they came to the school in the first place), a number of the Cougars' sprinters, jumpers and throwers have already transferred.  Which is a trend that we'll likely continue to see as schools and programs shift their focuses.

Expect other track & field programs to follow Washington State's lead.  Sure, there will still be the schools like Oregon, Arkansas and Texas that see the value in a comprehensive track & field program and continue to emphasize all four areas of the sport.  There are others, though, that will determine that it's not feasible to do so with limited scholarships and roster sizes.  And, as a result, they'll end up doing exactly what Washington State did and focus on just the distance events (cross country has its own scholarships that are separate from track & field, and a distance runner can get a cross country scholarship while a jumper can't.)

Track & field and swimming are the two sports with the greatest percentage of international athletes.  While there are international athletes in every sport, it's the individual sports of track & field and swimming where they're most prominent.  The field at the NCAA Championships is usually the same quality as what you'll see at the World Championships or Olympics (with an equally diverse number of countries represented).  Many of them go immediately from wearing their NCAA uniform to competing for their nation on the continental or global stage, then back again. 

These international athletes were already receiving full scholarships, so that won't change.  But will we see fewer of them coming over and being given those scholarships with limited rosters?  Especially since that means an American won't be receiving that scholarship?  So, it's not just American student-athletes who are being affected. 

International athletes help programs win at the NCAA level, so there will still be a significant number who come over.  I have a feeling it won't be as many, however.  There will always be a place for those difference-makers who are good enough to compete on the world stage.  With limited exceptions, they may end up being the only ones competing in the NCAA for American universities pretty soon, though.  And that may be where the House settlement is felt the most.

One of the NCAA's greatest attributes is how it's such a good development system for so many Olympic sports.  Not just Team USA.  There are so many Olympians from so many countries who compete in the NCAA in a given year.  Every four years, the NCAA and its member schools proudly proclaim the number of Olympians, the countries they're representing and their sport.  And rightfully so!  Just as they've got every reason to be proud should any of those athletes win a medal.

While I've only mentioned track & field and swimming, the same applies for the other Olympic sports.  Whether it's fencing, gymnastics, rowing, wrestling, triathlon, beach volleyball or diving, there's a good chance somebody currently competing in the NCAA either was an Olympian in Paris or will be in LA.  Some go on to become Olympians in another sport.  And the U.S. National Team in virtually every team sport is made up of athletes who first competed in the NCAA.  There are plenty of non-American team-sport Olympians, too.

It's a legitimate concern that this Olympic feeder system will take a hit because of the new NCAA rules.  Olympic sports aren't revenue-generators.  Does that mean those programs will become expendable as NCAA institutions need to reconsider their finances to cover direct payments to athletes?  We've already seen plenty of big-time schools cut or reduce programs for budgetary reasons.  It would be shocking if there weren't more.  Which will mean fewer opportunities for those student-athletes.  Which, in turn, impacts the entire sport at the NCAA level.

Football and basketball players will be the biggest beneficiaries of the direct payments to athletes.  Everyone just takes that fact for granted.  You know schools will find a way to take care of their most successful programs outside of those two sports, too (LSU baseball, Penn State women's volleyball, Oklahoma softball, for instance).  But, the fear is that will be at the expense of Olympic sports athletes.  I'm sure some schools will figure out a way to compensate everyone, whether they play football or golf.  But there are likely others who won't.  And, if that happens, who's getting short-changed?  Because you know it won't be football or basketball!

ESPNFL

The long-teased inevitable deal between the NFL and ESPN is finally official.  ESPN now owns NFL Media, including NFL Network and NFL RedZone.  The NFL, meanwhile, is now an equity partner in the NFL, with the biggest league of them all owning a 10 percent stake in the Worldwide Leader.  It's a massive deal to say the least.

As soon as the deal was announced (and long before it was official), the biggest concern most fans had was what would happen with RedZone.  Don't worry.  They made sure to make it known RedZone isn't going anywhere and neither is Scott Hanson.  The only thing that's changing with RedZone is now that it's Disney-owned, it'll be included with the other Disney channels in carriage negotiations with cable providers.  Which is actually a pretty big win for the NFL.

ESPN, of course, is also launching its own standalone streaming service later this month (for $30 a month!).  They needed content for that streaming service.  Now they have access to the NFL Films library, as well as more NFL games.  (Plus a whole slew of WWE events that they also just picked up.)  Does that make it worth $30 a month?  That's what both sides are banking on.

NFL Films itself, however, will still be owned by the league.  So will NFL.com and NFL+, the league's direct-to-consumer streaming platform (which, I'm assuming, is so that they can retain those rights to stream games internationally).  NFL Fantasy, meanwhile, shifts under the ESPN umbrella.  The interesting thing, though, is that some of this falls under a second non-binding agreement, which presumably means the NFL can license more or less content to ESPN and NFL Network as it sees fit.  ESPN is also moving into NFL Network's former studio space in LA (which is probably why they got rid of their own LA studio a few months ago).

Another aspect of the deal involves actual NFL game coverage.  ESPN gained three more games, all of which it will sublicense to NFL Network.  They'll also move four games from their current package to NFL Network.  This presumably puts an end to the Monday Night Football doubleheaders and the simultaneous games on ESPN and ABC.  (I'd imagine the ABC simulcasts will stay, especially since Super Bowl LXI will air on ABC in 2027.)  Likewise, the ESPN+ exclusive game will be going away.

There are seven games per season on NFL Network.  This season, the in-house package includes the five international games in Europe and a Saturday afternoon doubleheader in Week 17.  Nothing was mentioned about additional games on NFL Network, though.  Just that ESPN games were being shifted over there.  And four ESPN games that are being moved, plus the three additional ones, gives you a full NFL Network package of seven games.  They just won't be all on Sunday mornings and Saturday afternoons.

That's notable because it leads right into the NFL's likely desire to add another media partner during its next media rights negotiations.  They've already sold single games to every streaming service imaginable, and they've created windows such as the Black Friday game (Amazon Prime) and Christmas doubleheader (Netflix), and this is the second year they're having a Week 1 game in Brazil, which will be broadcast on YouTube.

Everybody wants a piece of the NFL action, but there's only so much inventory to go around.  And carving out a new package for a new partner wasn't exactly going to be easy.  By moving some of ESPN's games to NFL Network, though, covers the NFL Network allotment while opening up a small package that the league will now be able to sell separately.  That likely means the Sunday morning international games in Europe will be their own separate package for potential new partners to bid on while everyone else (assumingly) maintains their current packages.  Another media partner, obviously, means more money for the league.

While I'm sure there are many details that remain to come out, it seems likely that we'll see NFL Network personalities on ESPN and vice versa.  Rich Eisen, who was at ESPN for years before joining NFL Network, has already teased that he's "coming home."  Although, it wouldn't be surprising if NFL Network, which eliminated most of its studio programming well in advance of the pending merger, simply phased out all original non-game content and all NFL Network personnel officially shift to ESPN.  That would free up their analysts to do college games on the ESPN networks, too, and increase the number of people who can appear on their studio shows.

In a separate deal, ESPN signed a multi-year extension of its NFL Draft rights, which now run until 2030.  What I'm curious about is how this new relationship affects NFL Network's coverage of the Draft.  They've always produced their own.  Will it just be a simulcast of ESPN's broadcast moving forward?  Ditto about the Pro Football Hall of Fame induction.  And how about the events like the Combine that air only on NFL Network?  I'm assuming that's where they'll continue to air on linear TV, while also available on ESPN's streaming service.

With ESPN and the NFL now literally in bed with each other, it's a reasonable question to wonder how that will impact the network's coverage of the league moving forward.  ESPN has made assurances that it'll "maintain its journalistic integrity" and "cover the league fairly," while also insisting that the NFL didn't make any demands regarding ESPN's approach.  I guess we'll find out, but I just can't really see ESPN being critical of the NFL.  (Although, I can also see them being overly critical just to prove their point that they won't take it easy on the league.)

What this almost certainly means, though, is that we'll see even more NFL coverage on ESPN, especially with the streaming service launching.  There are only so many hours in the day.  Only 72 hours of content can air on linear TV across ESPN, ESPN2 and NFL Network on a given day.  But they can put an endless supply on the streaming service.  And that endless supply includes 28 regular season NFL games, plus the draft, plus some preseason inventory.  It's a lot of football.  Which is something people have a seemingly endless appetite for.  ESPN and the NFL are confident that will continue to be the case.

We all knew this deal was coming.  So, it's not exactly a surprise that they finally made it official.  The details of the deal are fascinating, though.  Both the NFL and ESPN clearly benefit from this expanded relationship.  It could completely change the landscape, too.  The NFL was the first league to launch its own network.  Now they've sold it and become partners with ESPN, instead.  Will the other leagues, all of which have their own network now, follow the NFL's lead again?

All of this needs to be approved and signed off on before the merger can officially go into effect, so it'll still be several months at least before everything is finalized.  Which means nothing will be different for the 2025 season.  That timing works out fine for ESPN, though.  Because, assuming everything's in place in time for next season, the first year of their expanded relationship with the NFL will coincide with their first Super Bowl.  Which, I'm sure, was just a coincidence.

Love For the Lefties

It's been a week and a half since the Baseball Hall of Fame induction, and something they said at the end of the broadcast has really stuck with me.  CC Sabathia and Billy Wagner are just the 19th and 20th left-handed pitchers to be elected.  They're the first lefties to be inducted together since Sandy Koufax and Lefty Gomez in 1972.  (The only other time two lefties went in together was in 1947, Lefty Grove and Carl Hubbell.)

That's really a mind-boggling stat if you think about it.  There are 351 Hall of Famers.  Only 20 (not counting Babe Ruth) are left-handed pitchers.  That's a little over 5 percent.  And that number might not become 21 until Clayton Kershaw gets in (unless Tommy John is elected by the Eras Committee before then).

The more I thought about it, though, it did make sense.  I never realized it until it was mentioned, but there really are that few.  Every time I tried to roll through the list of Hall of Fame lefties in my head, I didn't even get to all 20.  The most I could rattle off top of my head was only about 15.

Being a Baseball Hall of Famer is a pretty exclusive list.  Being a left-handed pitcher in the Baseball Hall of Fame is really exclusive!  How do those lefties compare to each other though?  Well, like most things, it's entirely subjective.  The list has already been narrowed down to 20 for us, though, so we can narrow it down from there.

10. CC Sabathia: While most people agreed that CC was a likely Hall of Famer when he retired, not many thought he'd get in on the first ballot.  Well, he did.  And I'd venture to say that he's the 10th greatest lefty immortalized in Cooperstown.  CC pitched for 19 years and put up statistics we may never see again.  He had 250 wins and 3,000 strikeouts.  He was the best pitcher in baseball for Cleveland, then won a World Series as the Yankees' ace.  Perhaps most impressively, Sabathia completely changed his pitching style later in his career and was just as successful as his overpowering early days.

9. Lefty Gomez: I'm not sure Lefty Gomez gets enough credit for how good he was.  Yes, he pitched on those great Yankees teams of the 1930s that were loaded with offensive stars (Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Bill Dickey, Joe DiMaggio, etc.).  But someone had to pitch, and Lefty Gomez was the ace of those staffs.  He went 6-0 in the World Series and his career winning percentage was .649.  Gomez started the first three All*Star Games and five of the first six (he also had the first RBI in All*Star Game history).

8. Tom Glavine: We may never see a pitching staff like the one the Braves had during their 90s dynasty again.  Three Hall of Fame starters, all of whom were elected in their first year of eligibility.  Glavine was there first.  He endured the losing seasons before Atlanta got really good.  So, it was only fitting that he threw eight innings of one-hit ball in the Game 6 clincher of the 1995 World Series and was named World Series MVP.  It was with the Mets, though, that Glavine earned his 300th win.

7. Carl Hubbell: Any baseball fan knows what happened in the 1934 All*Star Game.  Carl Hubbell, pitching in his home park, struck out five Hall of Famers in a row.  At one point, he posted 24 consecutive wins for really good New York Giants teams of the 1930s.  Hubbell was a two-time NL MVP and who knows how many Cy Youngs he would've won had that award existed then?

6. Whitey Ford: Whitey Ford is the greatest pitcher in Yankees history.  Period.  End of sentence.  He's the franchise's all-time leader in wins (236) and has the fourth-best winning percentage (.690) in Major League history.  He also holds numerous World Series pitching records and was a six-time champion during one of the Yankees' most dominant eras.  Ford's career ERA of 2.75, meanwhile, is the third-lowest in the live-ball era.

5. Lefty Grove: Probably the first truly great left-handed pitcher and just the second lefty elected to the Hall of Fame, Grove was the ace of Connie Mack's Philadelphia Athletics that won back-to-back World Series in 1929 & 1930.  In a three-season span from 1929-31, he went a ridiculous 79-15!  Grove led the AL in ERA a record nine times, in strikeouts seven times and in wins four times.  He was the first left-hander to reach the 300-win mark.

4. Warren Spahn: Spahn & Sain and Pray for Rain.  That was the mantra if you went against the Braves in the 40s and 50s.  His 363 wins are the sixth-most in history, most all-time by a lefty, and the most by any pitcher who wasn't born in the 1800s.  He also had more than 2,500 strikeouts, which was the most-ever by a lefty at the time of his retirement and is still fifth on that list.

3. Steve Carlton: An argument could be made that Steve Carlton should be in the No. 1 spot.  For me he's No. 3.  He wasn't just the best lefty of his era (with all due respect to Ron Guidry), he was arguably the best pitcher PERIOD in the 70s and early 80s.  Carlton won a World Series early in his career with the Cardinals, then was the ace of that legendary 1980 Phillies team.  His 329 wins and 4,136 strikeouts are both second-most all-time among left-handers.

2. Randy Johnson: When you think of dominant pitchers, Randy Johnson's name is one of the first to come to mind.  For starters, he scared the crap out of you.  Just ask John Kruk or that bird (well, actually, you can't ask the bird).  The Big Unit threw a perfect game at 40.  He won four straight Cy Youngs.  He came out of the bullpen in Game 7 of the 2001 World Series on no days' rest and earned the win.  And, oh yeah, he's second all-time in strikeouts.

1. Sandy Koufax: There could only be one for the top spot.  Sandy Koufax only played 12 years and retired at 30.  Just imagine how insane his numbers would've been had he played longer!  He was THE dominant pitcher of his era and is arguably the greatest pitcher ever (left-handed or right-handed).  Three Cy Youngs, an MVP, four no-hitters (including a perfect game), four World Series rings and two World Series MVPs.  And, again, his counting numbers would be so much higher had he pitched into his 30s.

On Top of the Swimming World (Sort Of)

The World Swimming Championships just concluded and the United States led the way in both gold medals (9) and total medals (29).  Just like at the Paris Olympics.  Yet, despite winning the Best Team trophy, the meet was considered a disappointment for the Americans.  Just like at the Paris Olympics.

Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte were very pointed in their criticism on social media, and Rowdy Gaines said basically the same thing on the broadcast throughout the meet.  Rowdy gave the team's effort a grade each night, and, especially on the first few nights, that grade wasn't good.  It got higher as the meet went on and the U.S. collected more medals, but his overall impression still wasn't great.  He was also quick to note, however, that there's still plenty of time until the LA Olympics.  And that it's not all negative.

There were plenty of reasons for the Americans' troubles in Singapore.  A big one is the fact that a majority of the team was sick with acute gastroenteritis at early in the week.  The timing of the illness obviously wasn't ideal, as it affected swimmers' training and recovery schedules.  Some medal contenders had to withdraw from their primary events because of their sickness.  As they recovered later in the week, the performances improved.  This is not an excuse, mind you.  It's merely an explanation.

And, just like in Paris, there were some events where the Americans just got beat.  The United States finished with 11 silver medals.  In four of those events, the gold medalist set a championship record.  In two others, the gold medalist was either Summer McIntosh or Leon Marchand, the two dominant swimmers in the world right now.  And another was an American sweep.  So, it's not crazy to think that some of those silvers easily could've been gold...which would've made the medal table look very different.

It's also important to note that this was the fourth consecutive year with a World Championships.  There was both an Olympics and a Worlds last year.  A lot of top swimmers already sit out the post-Olympics Worlds, and that was especially the case this year.  So, Team USA was missing a lot of its biggest stars.  Especially on the men's side.  Which means the team was weaker than it otherwise would've been.  Which, again, is not an excuse.  

With all that being said, however, the criticism of the team was entirely valid.  Especially with a home Olympics coming up in three years.  And the team's performance in Singapore was lackluster.  By any other standard, that effort at the World Championships would've been considered a success.  We're not talking about any other standard, though.  We're talking about what's come to be expected from USA Swimming.  Which isn't what we saw in Singapore.  Or Paris.

At the Olympics last year, the American men won a total of two gold medals and, notably, didn't get an individual gold until Bobby Finke set a world record in the 1500 freestyle--literally the last individual event of the meet!  At this year's World Championships, you know how many total gold medals the American men won?  One!  Luca Orlando in the 200 butterfly.  That's it. 

They didn't even win a relay, the first time that's ever happened.  In fact, they only won two bronzes in the three relays and were off the podium altogether in the 4x200 freestyle.  And, in the medley relay, they only got the bronze because of a crazy anchor leg by Jack Aleksy that moved the U.S. from fifth to third.  It's not just that they didn't win any of the relays, either.  It's that instead of going into the relays among the favorites, the consensus was that they'd be lucky just to medal--which turned out to be prophetic.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, though.  There was a grand total of one American finalist in the three men's backstroke events.  The backstroke.  An event that the U.S. used to dominate!  There were multiple events where the American men didn't even reach the semifinals!  Not winning medals is one thing.  Even not making the final is somewhat understandable.  But, at the very least, you should be able to get out of the prelims.

Things weren't much better in the breaststrokes.  The U.S. also failed to medal in any of the men's breaststroke events.  Of the six swimmers in the three events, only two even made the semifinals (they'd both make the final).  The 200 butterfly, where Urlando won gold, was the only non-freestyle event where the U.S. had multiple finalists.  Of the 17 individual men's events, seven didn't have an American finalist.

If you think this was exclusive to the men's team, think again.  The U.S. set the world record in the mixed medley relay while winning gold in Paris.  It's an event where you'd expect the U.S., at the very least, to be on the podium.  But in Singapore, the "A" team (perhaps consisting of, say, Regan Smith, Josh Matheny, Gretchen Walsh and Jack Aleksy) didn't even get the chance.  Because the "B" team that swam in the prelims ended up 10th.  Unacceptable!

Fortunately, outside of the mixed medley relay, the struggles were mainly limited to the men's team.  The women won six individual golds and set a world record in the medley relay (which clinched the top spot ahead of Australia on the gold medal table).  Of the 20 women's events including the three relays, the U.S. won at least one medal in 17 of them, including two medals in all three backstrokes.  And, in the three where they didn't, the top American was fourth once and fifth twice.

So, things are not as dire as they seem.  The women's team was strong in Paris, was strong in Singapore, and figures to remain strong in the leadup to LA.  The men's team, however, struggled in Paris and struggled again in Singapore.  That's two major global championships in a row in back-to-back summers where the U.S. men failed to live up to the standard that's expected of them.  And, for the men's team, the clock is ticking until the 2028 Olympics, which are just three short years away.

Maybe this is just a lull.  American fans got spoiled by Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte, then Caeleb Dressel.  The best men's swimmers in the world right now, however, aren't American (although, they do train in the U.S. with American coaches).  But, with the LA Games approaching, the American men need to get out of this lull fast.  Otherwise, things will get uglier than they already are.