Three Straight or A New Champ?

I came thisclose to nailing my Stanley Cup Final pick!  Going with Colorado in the West was easy, but I should've stuck with my gut and gone with Tampa Bay in the East, which I was definitely thinking about.  (I even think I said the winner of the Lightning-Leafs series could very well end up in the Final.)  I should've known better, though.  Because the Lightning know how to win in the playoffs.

What Tampa Bay has done is even more impressive when you consider that they've reached the Final in three completely different seasons.  In 2020, the playoffs were in a bubble four months after the season was shut down.  In 2021, they played an abbreviated season against only the other teams in their realigned division.  Now, finally, in 2022, they'll play for the Cup following a normal, 82-game regular season and standard playoffs.

Their series against the Rangers was incredibly impressive, too.  They were rusty in Game 1.  That was obvious.  But, as soon as the Rangers blew that 2-0 lead in Game 3, you knew it was Tampa's series to lose.  They dominated the final three games in every aspect.  Much in the same way Colorado has dominated the entire postseason.

The Avalanche were far-and-away the best team in the West all season, so it wasn't really a surprise that they made quick work of their playoff opponents.  I thought Edmonton was the only team that might have a shot at being competitive with them, and even the Oilers were overmatched.  Colorado was playing its backup goalie, too, and still didn't miss a beat.

For me, the most impressive part of the Avalanche's playoff run is the fact that they're undefeated on the road so far in the postseason.  Both of their losses to St. Louis came at home.  They actually have a better record on the road, 7-0, compared to 5-2 in Denver.  Of course, they don't even need to win a road game to lift the Cup.

These teams are remarkably similar.  They're both deep and incredibly talented, but they each only have one or two "superstars" surrounded by a bunch of really good pieces.  And that depth has been on full display for both the Lightning and Avalanche.  You never know who it's gonna be who comes through with the big goal, like when Mikhail Sergachev had a goal and an assist in Game 5 of the East Final.

Although, the stars are stars for a reason, and I'm sure they'll leave their mark on the series.  With all due respect to Adam Fox, Victor Hedman and Cale Makar are the two best defensemen in hockey.  And there's Colorado's 1-2 punch of Nathan MacKinnon and Gabriel Landeskog.  While Tampa has so many scoring threats it's easy to lose track.  They seem to have figured out the lineup without Brayden Point that works.  They felt that loss early in the Rangers series, but by the end, you didn't even know he was gone.

Then there's the goalies, who could be the biggest factors in this series.  Andriy Vasilevskiy has been the best goalie on the planet over the past few years.  Will Darcy Kuemper be ready to go for Colorado?  Although, as we saw against Edmonton, Pavel Francouz is just as capable between the pipes.  If he has to play, will the magic wear off?

So, how does the series play out?  I think the first two games will be very important.  If the Lightning can go into Denver and get a split, they'll be in great shape to win the Cup once again.  The Avalanche don't have to win them both since they've been so good on the road, but winning both and doing so emphatically would send a message that this won't be like the East Final, where the Rangers won the first two before Tampa rolled off four straight.

That's a factor I'm curious about, too.  The Lightning were heavy favorites against Dallas in 2020 and even heavier favorites against Montreal last year.  This year, it's at best a toss-up.  They haven't been in this position before.  For the first time in their three appearances, they aren't the overwhelming Cup favorite.  Will that make any difference at all?

Of course, if we've learned anything over the past three years is that the circumstances don't really matter to the Lightning.  They can have home ice, they can start on the road, they can fall behind in the series.  No matter what the situation, they end up winning anyway.  It's not a coincidence they've won 11 straight playoff series.

Tampa Bay's run is reminiscent of the Islanders dynasty of the early 80s.  They were the last team to play in three straight Stanley Cup Finals, actually making it to five in a row from 1980-84.  After winning four consecutive Cups, they lost the fifth final to Edmonton, sparking the Oilers' dynasty.

It wouldn't be a surprise at all to see a similar result here.  The Avalanche's last Cup win, in 2001, came against the defending champion Devils.  Now it's a two-time defending champion that they're facing.  But Colorado's certainly capable of playing the role of the 1984 Oilers to the Lightning's 1984 Islanders.

This will be Colorado's biggest test of the playoffs.  It'll also be the biggest test Tampa Bay has faced in its three consecutive Stanley Cup Finals.  We could be in store for a seven-game classic.  At the end, though, I've gotta stick with what I've been saying all year.  The Avalanche are the best team in hockey.  They'll prove it by dethroning the champs.

Our COVID-Created Crazy Summer

Normally, the even-year summer between Olympics is incredibly quiet.  That was especially going to be the case this year, with the World Cup taking place in November-December instead of its usual June-July timeframe.  Then our buddy COVID hit and turned a quiet summer into one that will be ridiculously busy.

Athletes from Great Britain, especially, will get plenty of opportunities to make up for lost time.  The Commonwealth Games are held in the non-Olympic even years, so they were already scheduled for 2022.  So were the every-two-years European Championships, which are in even years since World Championships take place in odds.  Except all of the 2021 World Championships were pushed back, so they're all happening this year, too.

I used Great Britain as the example because that's the only country that will definitely be involved in all three.  And they're all squeezed to a period of about two months!  For British track & field athletes, it'll be three major championships in six weeks!

It's not just British athletes, either.  Pretty much everybody except the Americans and athletes from some of the Asian nations will have at least two championship events this summer, whether it be the World Championships and Commonwealth Games or World Championships and European Championships.  

Because of that tight schedule, some athletes have understandably decided that their summer would be a little too busy if they chose to compete at every major championship event.  Ariarne Titmus, for example, has decided to focus on the Commonwealth Games (which are huge in Australia), so there won't be any duels between her Katie Ledecky at the World Championships.

Skipping the World Championships can't be an easy decision, but it shows you how important the Commonwealth Games are to athletes from those nations!  And the Commonwealth Games are only once every four years, while this year wasn't even supposed to include Worlds, so you can see why that would be the one to take a pass on.  Besides, a lot of athletes usually skip the post-Olympic World Championships anyway.  The pre-Olympic Worlds in 2023 are the really important one.

That's the craziest part of all this.  It's not just the summer of 2022 that will be jam-packed.  We'll be jam-packed all the way until the Paris Olympics!  With the 2021 Worlds pushed back a year, all of the major Olympic sports will have back-to-back World Championships this year and next year, then another World Championships in 2025.  Counting the Tokyo and Paris Olympics, it'll be five straight years with a major global championship!

For swimming, it'll actually be four straight years with a World Championships.  For about a week, there wasn't going to be a World Championships this year at all after the Worlds in Fukuoka, Japan were moved to next year.  Then Budapest stepped in at the last minute to guarantee there still would be a 2022 World Championships.  They also moved the 2023 World Championships in Doha to January 2024, so there'll be both a World Championships and an Olympics that year before they finally get back on schedule in 2025.

So, after having an entire season wiped out by a global pandemic, athletes will get plenty of opportunities to compete on a worldwide stage.  Never before have there been so many elite, championship events in such a short period of time.  I won't say it completely makes up for 2020 because nothing ever will.  But an annual global meet for the next few years is their reward for enduring the lockdowns and coming out on the other side.

This is actually a reward for all of us.  Because, unlike at the Olympics, these World Championships are staggered.  So, it's gonna be a jam-packed summer in more ways than one.  One event will end and the next will start almost immediately.  How can you be anything but excited about that?

In fact, the fun has already started.  The Beach Volleyball World Championships in Rome got underway over the weekend, with the finals scheduled for Sunday.  Those last two days will actually overlap with swimming, which starts on Saturday in Budapest and runs until June 25 (with diving to follow during the second week).  Then the World Track & Field Championships come to America for the first time in from July 15-24 in Eugene, Oregon (it's exactly one month until I leave for Eugene).

You might be thinking that it's kind of early for World Championships.  "Aren't they usually later in the summer?"  The answer to that question is "Yes, they are."  But they had to be shoehorned into a summer where the prime dates were already taken by the Commonwealth Games (July 28-August 8) and the multi-sport European Championships (August 11-21).

Now, just think what would've happened had the word "COVID" never entered our vocabulary.  This summer would've been completely empty (at least from an American perspective), especially with the later-than-usual World Cup.  Instead it's loaded!  There's World Championships in everything!

The summer sports schedule for 2022 never would've changed without COVID, so, in a weird way, there's a silver lining to what we've all had to endure over the past two years.  Some athletes will be very busy as a result of the schedule changes, but I'm sure they don't mind.  After all, we've all seen the alternative.  And being incredibly busy sure beats not being allowed to do anything at all.

LIV From Saudi Arabia, It's a New Golf Tour

I never thought there'd be a day where there was not only a golf controversy, but one I was interested in, yet here we are!  Because all of this stuff with the LIV Tour is just wild!  I even found myself trying to explain it to someone else, even though, I'll admit, there's still a lot of stuff that I don't understand!

The basic details seem simple enough.  This new breakaway tour is funded by the deep-pocketed Saudi government and actively recruited players, successfully convincing a number of high-profile names to come over.  Whether it's because they liked the format (54-hole events, no cuts, a team element), were unhappy with the PGA Tour, and/or were simply lured away by the money doesn't even really matter.  The point is the LIV Tour was successful in gaining enough top-tier players to make their events worthwhile.

Not surprisingly, the PGA is none too pleased about any of this.  In fact, the PGA has suspended all 17 players who participated in this week's inaugural LIV event and promised that any others who take part in a future LIV event will be suspended, as well.  They're even going so far as to remove them from the FedEx Cup rankings, which also means they won't be able to play in the President's Cup.  In response, many of them have resigned their membership in the PGA and turned in their Tour cards.

Their status for the Majors is unchanged, however.  The US Open is, by definition, "open," meaning anyone who qualifies is allowed to play.  The PGA doesn't run the British Open, so they have no control over who can play in that.  And the Masters does its own thing.  The only one they could conceivably prevent the LIV players from entering is the PGA Championship, although several of the LIV players are Major champions, which gives them an exemption into the other Majors, including the PGA Championship.

So, the Majors, for the most part, will be unaffected.  And the players who've joined the LIV Tour, most notably Dustin Johnson, have said they still plan on playing the Majors.  The only difference is that, instead of playing in PGA tournaments every week, they'll be playing in LIV Tour events instead.

It seems likely that there will be some sort of legal action regarding these players' PGA Tour suspensions.  In their eyes, they're independent contractors, free to play whenever and wherever they want.  In the PGA's eyes, being a card-carrying member of the PGA means you're essentially signing a non-compete clause and agreeing to participate in only PGA-sanction events.

Frankly, I see both sides' point.  Which is why I'm very interested to see, if this does end up in court, how the litigation plays out.  Because the PGA does seem to be well within its rights to suspend them.  But, with those who've resigned from the PGA to join the LIV Tour, there isn't really anything they can do.

All week, I've been making the comparison between this and tennis.  It's the best parallel I could think of.  Imagine if there was a rival tour and Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, the Williams sisters, etc., decided they were fed up with the ATP and WTA, so they went to play on that tour instead.  How would the ATP and WTA respond?  Probably the same way.  More importantly, though, would they be welcomed back if/when the rival tour failed?

That's the biggest question I have regarding the LIV defectors.  The Saudis have plenty of money, so I'm sure they'll be able to fund this thing for a while, but what happens when to those players when they inevitably get bored or the funding dries up?  Their only option would be to go back to the PGA, assuming that bridge isn't completely burned.

Each of them had their reasons for joining the LIV Tour, but, if it were me, I would've been hesitant.  For that reason.  They all made an incredibly risky decision to jump right into this thing feet first.  There's no guarantee the LIV Tour will last.  If, a few years from now, it's clear the LIV Tour isn't going anywhere, that's a completely different decision.  But right now, it's a massive risk.

Especially when you consider the fact that these players are losing sponsors to play on the breakaway circuit.  I'm sure there was some pressure applied by the PGA that resulted in these sponsors choosing to cut ties with the players, but, whatever the reason, that's what they did.  So, add that to the financial implications of their decision. 

Sure, the prize money on the LIV Tour is lucrative (and, while not being publicized, I'm sure they're offering signing bonuses for coming over, too).  But, as has been pointed out by many of the critics, that money is coming from the government of a country with a very poor human rights record (and where it was illegal for women to go out alone at night until just a couple years ago).  And, by taking that money when you know where it's coming from, you're indirectly condoning it (whether you intend to or not). 

If it's all about the money, that's fine.  Just say that then!  Because Phil Mickelson has looked ridiculous tripping over himself trying to not answer those uncomfortable questions.  Saying that you're just doing it for the money, though, is something that most reasonable people would understand, even if they didn't necessarily agree with it.  And frankly, which is worse, looking greedy or looking like you support human rights violations?

And what about TV coverage?  Who's actually going to broadcast LIV tournaments?  The PGA has contracts with virtually every network.  And you can bet CBS, NBC/Golf Channel and ABC/ESPN aren't gonna risk their relationship with the PGA by showing LIV events, too.  Who's left then?  Pretty much just FOX and Turner.  Would either have any interest at all?

Granted, the LIV Tour wasn't launched with TV in mind.  But what was the purpose of starting it then?  That's the part I understand the least.  If there were more players that the PGA could accomodate or they were getting shut out in some way, it might make a little bit of sense to me, but that's not the case.  Was anybody, in the golf world or outside, clamoring for an alternative to the PGA?  Or did the Saudis just have money to burn and decide they wanted to start a rival golf tour?

Who's to know what's ultimately gonna come out of the LIV Tour?  Maybe it'll last and players will have a choice as to which tour they want to join.  Or maybe it'll be a failure and these guys will be left out on in the cold.  That's why all of this is so fascinating!  Because nobody knows how this will all play out!  All we do know is that, right now, this whole thing is a mess!  A wonderful, delicious mess!

A Welcome Change

Tara Lipinski was 14 when she won the 1997 World Championship and 15 when she won Olympic gold in Nagano.  By the time the next Olympics rolled around, she was retired as a competitive figure skater.  Yulia Lipnitskaya was the 15-year-old darling of the Sochi Games.  By 2017, she was retired.  At the PyenongChang Olympics, it was Alina Zagitova (15) and Evgeniya Medvedeva (an old lady of 18).  They, too, retired before the next Olympics.  Do you sense a theme here?

Then in Beijing, of course, it was Kamila Valiyeva.  We were in awe of her brilliance during the team event before she became the center of the controversy that dominated the second week of the Games.  And we all saw what happened after her free skate, which served as a painful reminder that Vailyeva, too, is just 15.

That's the important point.  Valiyeva isn't the first 15-year-old prodigy to dazzle at an Olympics.  But she will be the last.  Because the ISU has finally raised the minimum age to compete at the senior level.  Come the Milano-Cortina Olympics four years from now, the minimum age will be 17.  It's a long overdue change that the sport desperately needed.  And figure skating will be better for it.

Momentum for raising the age limit was already growing before the Olympics.  What happened in Beijing was simply the last straw that pushed things over the edge.  So, if there's anything good to come out of the whole Valiyeva saga, it might be that.

I'm not just talking about the loophole that made it so that Valiyeva was able to compete in the women's event, either.  I'm talking about the rest of it.  Because it seems highly likely that Valieyva, as well as gold and silver medalists Anna Shcherbakova and Alexandra Trusova will be one-and-done Olympians.  Just like Zagitova, Medvedeva, Lipnitskaya and 2014 gold medalist Adelina Sotnikova before them.

It's a well-known fact that Eteri Tutberidze, the coach of the Russian team prefers younger skaters.  After all, they're the ones who can not only do the quads, they can do them over and over again in practice.  Then, once their body fully forms and they're no longer able to do the jumps and spins with ease, they're phased out and replaced with a new crop of 14- and 15-year-olds.  (Which is the exact same thing that happens with a lot of Olympic gymnasts, who may only get one Games as a teenager and that's it.)

What too often goes unmentioned is the toll that repeatedly performing all of those jumps and spins take on those young skaters' bodies.  When you're 14 or 15, you might feel invincible.  Those things come easy, so you don't even feel it.  That can't be sustained, however.  In fact, it leads to the long-term injuries that cause these women to retire from competitive skating when they've barely hit their 20th birthday (if they even have).

Alysa Liu is already retired.  She won her first U.S. title at 13 and her second at 14.  Liu was the first American woman to land both a triple Axel and a quad in the same competition, and she was the top American at the 2022 Olympics, where she finished seventh.  Liu followed that up with a bronze at the World Championships.  It sure looked like she'd be one of the top skaters to watch heading into Milano-Cortina.  Until she retired in April at the ripe old age of 16.

We don't know if there's an underlying reason behind Liu's decision to retire, but it wouldn't be surprising to find out if it's injury-related.  Again, she wouldn't be the first one.  Medvedeva retired with a chronic back injury.  Lipnitskaya sought treatment for an eating disorder.  Sotnikova had spinal fusion surgery.  Tara Lipinski, of course, has since become a member of NBC's broadcast team, and it was during an Olympic figure skating broadcast that she detailed the various injuries she had to deal with after her career.

To their credit, the ISU recognized the problem.  While all the young phenoms with their dynamic technical routines were spectacular, was it really good for the sport for them to disappear as quickly as they arrive?  And how healthy is it for those skaters to be doing that to their not-fully-developed bodies, especially when the early retirements and chronic injuries of others are well-documented?

As the Valiyeva saga illustrated, there's also the different legal statuses of athletes in the same competition.  Since the 15-year-olds are considered "protected persons," there's one set of anti-doping rules for them and another for those 16 and older.  That alone is not enough of a reason to raise the age limit.  But when you consider it with the other factors, it's more proof that raising the age limit was the right call.

The way they're doing it makes a lot of sense, too.  It'll still be 15 for the upcoming season, then go to 16 in 2023-24 before finally settling at 17 in 2024-25.  So, all that means is the age limit moves up with the 15-year-olds who first become eligible for senior competition this season.  They won't be affected.  They just won't have anybody younger than them come onto the scene.  They'll get three years to establish themselves without having to worry about being overtaken by the latest prodigy.

Hopefully this will have a positive impact on figure skating in several respects.  For starters, it levels the playing field.  We may also see longer careers that span multiple Olympics.  And, without the pressure to win gold medals at such a young age, the toll on those teenage bodies should be much less.

Think about what this means for those junior skaters.  Yes, it's unfortunate that they'll now need to wait a little longer before they're eligible for senior competitions.  But they'll also get a chance to grow into their bodies without subjecting them to the punishment of the intense training required to be elite at such a young age.

Will it eliminate some (if not all) of the spectacular jumping?  Most likely.  So what if it does?  There's more to figure skating than jumps.  Maybe the new age limit can help bring the sport back to that, too.  Yet another reason why this is a win for everybody.

Figure skating has a long history of young prodigies in the women's event, dating all the way back to an 11-year-old Sonja Henie in the first Winter Olympics nearly a century ago.  There have been numerous 15- and 16-year-old champions in the years since.  There no longer can be after the 2023-24 season.  Which will be an adjustment, but a necessary one.  Because raising the age limit to 17 wasn't just the right move, it was long overdue.

A Terribly Tone Deaf Message

Yet another woman has accused DeShaun Watson of sexual misconduct.  That now makes 24.  Watson continues to proclaim his innocence, but does that even matter at this point?  The man has no business playing in the NFL until his legal situation is resolved.  Not getting a massive contract to be the Cleveland Browns' starting quarterback.

To be fair, Watson hasn't been criminally charged in any of the complaints.  The civil cases are still pending, however.  And the NFL does still have the option of suspending him if they find he violated the personal conduct policy.  They're presumably waiting for everything to play out first, but that's not good enough.  Because he should've been suspended already.

I'm not the only person who thinks this.  Mike Florio went on Rich Eisen's radio show and said the same thing.  And, frankly, it's the only sensible thing to do.  Because the NFL and the Cleveland Browns both look very, very bad right now.

Watson didn't play at all for the Texans last season.  He was on the roster all year, but was the inactive third quarterback for every game.  There were several reasons for that, the pending litigation being one of them.  But it was also because Watson had already worn out his welcome in Houston and requested a trade.  They couldn't trade him last offseason, so that was their way of dealing with him while not having to deal with him.

That was absolutely the best way to go about it last season when everything was still pending.  It wasn't a long-term solution, though, and the Texans knew that.  Their plan was to trade him in the offseason, which is exactly what they did, sending him to Cleveland for a fully-guaranteed $230 million over five years, the most guaranteed money in NFL history.  Despite already having Baker Mayfield on the roster.

While some may see it as a shrewd football move by the Browns, it's actually a very tone-deaf one.  I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, but what does this say to Watson's accusers?  All those women see is him being rewarded with $46 million a year to play football while their voices are ignored.

Contrast this situation to Trevor Bauer's.  Bauer has also not been criminally charged with anything.  That didn't stop MLB from immediately putting him on administrative leave and continually extending that leave thru the end of last season as they conducted their investigation.  Despite there being no criminal charges, MLB's investigation determined that Bauer did something and suspended him without pay for 324 games.  That's two full seasons!

MLB sent Trevor Bauer a very clear message.  Whether it was technically a "crime" or not, your conduct was unacceptable and we don't want you around.  They believed the woman and took what they thought was appropriate action.  Even if Bauer has the suspension reduced on appeal, it's obvious that he has no place in the game.  There's no question the Dodgers won't be welcoming him back, and I doubt he'll be able to catch on with anybody.  It's very possible that Bauer's Major League career is over.

Unfortunately, the NFL is sending the exact opposite message with DeShaun Watson.  He was accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women (and that number just keeps growing) and has faced absolutely no consequences for his actions.  In fact, he got exactly what he wanted.  He didn't want to be in Houston anymore, complained his way out of town, and got a massive guaranteed contract somewhere else. Sorry, but that just rubs me the wrong way.  And I'm not the only one.

The NFL isn't entirely to blame here.  The Browns deserve their fair share of criticism, as well.  Cleveland has to know how this looks to a good portion of both their fanbase and NFL fans in general.  It's obvious they're either willing to take the PR hit or, even worse, simply don't care.  As long as DeShaun Watson can help them win football games (and I'm not even sure he's an upgrade over Mayfield, but that's beside the point).

Ultimately, though, the responsibility here falls on the league itself.  It's the NFL that has the personal conduct policy.  Sure, teams are able to discipline players themselves for violating team rules, but this isn't that.  He's been on the Browns for three months.  They traded for him knowing that this was hanging over his head and pulled the trigger anyway.  So, unless he's done something to violate team policy since then, they would have no reason to issue any sort of team suspension (Watson, in fact, was at the Browns' golf outing on Monday).

And, frankly, this is what the NFL's personal conduct policy is for.  Under the current CBA, Roger Goodell has the authority to suspend players up to six games (or longer if warranted) for personal conduct policy violations.  And he hasn't been shy about using that power in the past.

In 2014, Ray Rice was suspended two games under the personal conduct policy for a domestic incident with his then-fiancee...and was released by the Ravens as a result.  Or how about Jamies Winston?  He was suspended three games in 2018 under the personal conduct policy for inappropriate behavior towards a female Uber driver.

So why hasn't Watson been suspended yet?  Is his behavior somehow not as bad as Rice's or Winston's?  If not, what's even the point of the personal conduct policy then? 

If you want to wait to conclude your investigation first that's one thing, but the NFL doesn't even seem to be doing that.  He's essentially being given a free pass.  By not suspending Watson, the NFL is implicitly condoning his behavior.  And by trading for him as if it's nothing, the Cleveland Browns are complicit.

There's a simple solution here, and it's the one the NFL should've taken a long time ago.  If you don't want to suspend him without pay fine, but, at the very least, DeShaun Watson should be put on paid leave while this plays out.  Because right now, no one looks good.  Not the NFL.  Not the Cleveland Browns.  And certainly not DeShaun Watson.

Does the Math Add Up?

Loyola Chicago is joining the Atlantic 10 on July 1, which is something I completely missed during this latest wave of conference realignment.  The article I saw about it offered some interesting insight, though.  It made the argument that with Loyola Chicago joining, it actually stabilized the A-10, which might not be feeling as immediate a threat of somebody leaving for the Big East as some (including me) might think.

I've been saying for a long time that I think Saint Louis should and will go to the Big East eventually.  It seems like a no-brainer in so many ways.  And, if the Big East does eventually decide that they want 12, Saint Louis does seem to be the obvious choice.  But how inclined are they to actually go to 12?

When UConn rejoined the Big East, it seemed like adding the 12th team was inevitable.  It would make travel and scheduling easier, and they could easily split into East and West divisions.  But that may not actually be what the Big East wants.  Having UConn back is huge.  And they may be content with 11 for a while.

The argument against adding another team is really a pretty simple one.  Would a 12th team add enough value?  More specifically, is there a school that would warrant a big enough increase in the FOX contract that it would be worth it for everybody to split it 12 ways instead of 11?  The only school that seems to fit that bill is Gonzaga, which would be great for men's basketball, but wouldn't work logistically in any other sport.

There's also this to consider.  Even with UConn back in the fold, the Big East kept the double round-robin basketball schedule.  Everybody plays 20 games, which is probably the absolute max in terms of number of conference games you can get away with.  Adding somebody else, whether it's Gonzaga, Saint Louis or another school, would mean they'd either have to increase that to 22 or not play the full double round-robin (which is important to the current conference members).

Including the Big East Tournament, there are 120 scheduled conference games in men's basketball each season.  Bringing in somebody else and going from a 20-game conference schedule to an 18-game conference schedule wouldn't increase that inventory, though.  In fact, it would actually decrease to 119 (108 regular season, 11 tournament)!  And why would FOX want to shell out more money for one fewer game, that the teams would then have to split 12 ways instead of 11?

Contrast that to the Big 12's upcoming expansion.  The Big 12 will likely maintain a nine-game football schedule once Texas and Oklahoma leave and BYU, Cincinnati, Central Florida and Houston join.  In that case, however, the two additional teams will result in nine additional Big 12 football games.  I don't know what their basketball plans are, but the nine football games alone are enough to warrant a huge increase in TV rights!

Of course, the Big East is unique in that it's the only major basketball conference that doesn't have football.  Which is both a good thing and a bad thing.  It means decisions are driven by basketball, not football.  And that's certainly the case in this situation.

So, again, it really comes down to whether the Big East members think a 12th team would add value or if they'd be adding a 12th member just to have an even number.  And, while a smaller conference might want to have an even number because it's easier to deal with, that's not really an issue the Big East has.  The Big East is one of the elite conferences where the first consideration while making the schedule is TV and teams are already flying to multiple conference away games.

However, while that's not an issue in basketball, it would be in other sports.  That's why Gonzaga doesn't actually make sense.  It would be great for men's basketball, but that's not the only sport they need to consider.  Yes, men's basketball would be the primary consideration for any potential Big East expansion, but would it make sense for Gonzaga to do that to all of their other sports just to be in a more prestigious men's basketball conference (especially when they're already a marquee national program despite playing in the West Coast Conference)?

Saint Louis wouldn't have any of those same logistical issues as Gonzaga.  In fact, St. Louis is right smack in the middle of the Big East footprint!  So is Dayton!  Neither one is Gonzaga, though.  And are either the Billikens or Flyers enough to move the needle?  Unfortunately, probably not.

While bringing UConn back into the fold was a no-brainer, the decision whether to add a 12th team or not is much tougher.  It's been brought up to the Big East presidents and athletic directors, but they seem to agree that they're good with 11 right now.  That's not to say they won't consider expansion in the future.  Right now, though, 11 works.

Which is good news for the Atlantic 10.  I'm sure if the Big East expressed interest, Saint Louis and Dayton would listen.  I wouldn't be surprised if they've inquired with the conference, either.  But, as of now, it doesn't seem like any interest is mutual.  So, Dayton and Saint Louis will continue to be in the Atlantic 10.  Which, again, is good news for that conference.

Will that change in the future?  Who's to say?!  My gut still tells me that eventually, the answer will be "Yes."  That may not be as inevitable as I originally thought, though.  So, while I'd love to see Saint Louis (or Dayton) in the Big East, I no longer think it'll happen anytime soon.

NHL Award Picks

Remember back to pre-COVID days when they had the NHL Awards Show sometime after the end of the Stanley Cup Final where they gave out all of the major postseason hardware?  Well, they'll still have a show this season, but that'll only be for the five major awards (Hart, Vezina, Norris, Calder, Ted Lindsay).  The rest are being announced one-by-one this week during the conference finals.  They actually already started with the Adams Award for Coach of the Year.

The Adams Award went to Calgary's Darryl Sutter, who wouldn't have been my choice.  I would've gone with Andrew Brunette, who led the Panthers to a franchise record for points and the President's Trophy.  Since I missed that one and didn't even realize they'd already started naming winners, I figured it would probably be a good idea to start unveiling my selections for the remaining awards.

I'll go in chronological order, starting with the Masterson Trophy, which is next up.  I will, however, be skipping the Willie O'Ree Community Hero Award since that doesn't go to an NHL player.  Once I get to the five awards that will be presented at the end, I'll do them in order of significance (meaning Hart Trophy last).

Masterson: Carey Price, Canadiens-Montreal left Price exposed in the expansion draft, knowing Seattle wouldn't take him because he was having knee surgery and would be out to start the season.  Little did anybody know there would be setbacks and Price would end up questioning whether his career was over.  Yet, despite everything, he made it back on the ice this season, making his debut on April 15 and playing in seven games.

Selke: Elias Lindholm, Flames-Patrice Bergeron has won the Selke Trophy four times and Aleksandr Barkov was last year's winner.  It won't be either one of them this time.  Because it'll be Calgary's Elias Lindholm.  He did the offensive part of his job, finishing with 82 points and a plus-61 rating.  This is the best defensive forward, though, and he was great at that part, too.  He played on the penalty kill, took faceoffs (and won 52 percent of them), blocked shots and intercepted passes.

Lady Byng: Kyle Connor, Jets-Connor had just four penalty minutes all season!  That's it!  Two minors!  The other two finalists had five penalties each, which is still not a lot, but it's more than twice as many as Connor.  He played in 79 games and averaged nearly 22 minutes of ice time while leading Winnipeg in scoring.  Yet he only went to the penalty box twice.  The definition of the award is the "player adjudged to have exhibited the best type of sportsmanship and gentlemanly conduct combined with a high standard of playing ability."  I'd say he checks both of those boxes.

King Clancy: Ryan Getzlaf, Ducks-Andrew Whitworth of the Rams won the NFL's Walter Payton Man of the Year the day before his current team met his former team in the Super Bowl.  He then promptly retired.  Wouldn't it be fitting if another retiring veteran from a Southern California-based team won the NHL's version in his final season?  And Getzlaf would certainly be deserving.  He's been a great humanitarian throughout his 17 years in Anaheim.

Ted Lindsay: Connor McDavid, Oilers-It's rare that the Ted Lindsay Award and Hart Trophy don't go to the same player, but it has happened before.  And I think it's possible that it will this season.  Stay tuned to see my Hart Trophy pick in a little while.  McDavid has clearly earned the respect of his fellow players.  He's won this award three times in the last five seasons.  Make it four of the last six.

Calder: Michael Bunting, Maple Leafs-Honestly, I have no idea who's going to win the Calder.  Most of the predictions I've seen have it going to Moritz Seider, who played all 82 games for the Red Wings and had 50 points as a defenseman.  I just can't get past Michael Bunting's numbers, though.  He had 63 points and was plus-27 for the season.  The Maple Leafs are good.  I get it.  But just because they have Auston Matthews doesn't mean everybody else should automatically be overlooked.

Norris: Cale Makar, Avalanche-Fellow finalists Victor Hedman and Roman Josi have both won the Norris Trophy before.  Cale Makar has not.  I think that changes this year.  Makar's 86 points were 10 fewer than Josi, but 28 of those were goals, which led all NHL defensemen.  And his goals were big ones, too.  Six game-winners, including three in overtime.  Beyond that, he's perhaps the most important player on an Avalanche team full of superstars.  Incredibly, no Colorado/Quebec player has ever won the Norris Trophy.  This season, he should become the first.

Vezina: Igor Shesterkin, Rangers-Of all the awards, this is perhaps the most obvious.  Succeeding Henrik Lundqvist wasn't an easy task, but Shesterkin was more than up for it.  He was the best goalie in the league all season, which is a big reason why the Rangers are having as good a year as they are.  Jakob Markstrom had one more win and more shutouts.  Shesterkin had the better save percentage and GAA.  More importantly, though, the Rangers won a lot of games because of their goalie.  That's why he's an MVP candidate, too.

Hart: Auston Matthews, Maple Leafs-Shesterkin being a finalist for the Hart pretty much means he's a lock for the Vezina.  I don't think he should be a finalist for the Hart, though.  Not because of any bias against goalies winning MVP, but because of someone who isn't a finalist and should be.  How Jonathan Huberdeau isn't a finalist with his 115 points and NHL-leading 85 assists for the team that won the President's Trophy is beyond me.

But I digress.  This is really a decision between last year's winner Connor McDavid and his 123 points and Auston Matthews with the league's first 60-goal season since Steven Stamkos in 2011-12.  Stamkos played all 82 games that season.  Matthews missed seven this year.  He easily could've had a few more.  Both are great and had great seasons.  McDavid has already won the Hart Trophy twice.  I think the 60 goals are what will get Matthews his first.

If it is Matthews, he'll be the first Maple Leaf to win the Hart Trophy since the 1954-55 season.  McDavid, meanwhile, would be the first repeat winner since Alex Ovechkin went back-to-back in 2007-08 and 2008-09, and Sheserkin would be only the seventh goalie (and the first since Carey Price in 2014-15).  So, no matter what, this year's MVP will be ending some sort of streak.