B1G Changes In LA

Wow!  That all went down fast!  I know I shouldn't be surprised by anything involving big-time college sports anymore, but I am.  In fact, I'm shocked by UCLA and USC's move to the Big Ten.  Not necessarily that it happened, but how it happened.  And how it happened so quickly.

It went from a rumor to a done deal within a matter of hours!  Seriously, how did nobody have a heads up about this?!  It had obviously been in the works!  And, make no mistake, this has the potential to shake up the Power 5 even more than Texas and Oklahoma's move to the SEC.

That, of course, was the first move.  Once they officially join in 2025, the SEC will have 16 teams.  You knew the Big Ten wasn't gonna sit there and let them be the only one with that many schools, so the Big Ten going to 16 seemed like it was only a matter of time.  Especially since we were coming up on the time for them to negotiate their new TV deal.

Even before this expansion announcement, it was suspected that the Big Ten's new rights package would be the biggest in college sports history.  Now that they've added two marquee national programs in the second-largest media market in the country, there's no doubt that will be the case.  Beyond that, though, the Big Ten is now truly a national conference, stretching from coast to coast.  That's quite a pitch to any possible recruit in any sport!

And it makes sense that UCLA and USC would be a package deal.  That obviously makes things easy from a travel perspective for the other 14 Big Ten teams since it's just one trip to LA to play both of them.  But it makes sense for the two LA schools, as well.  They're archrivals who'll always be linked together.  It's impossible to picture them not being in the same conference!  They know that too, which is why they made this move together.  It was either gonna be both or neither one!

Of course, this now raises all sorts of questions, as another round of conference realignment begins.  Most significantly, where does the Pac-12 go from here?  Just like the Big 12 a year ago, it isn't just losing its two premier programs, it's losing programs that are irreplaceable!  Whoever they add as replacements won't have anywhere near the same brand-name value.  And, no offense to Stanford, Oregon and Washington, but how do you sell a conference where those are the anchor institutions?

Besides, who could the Pac-12 possibly add as replacements?  The obvious answer is to have another raid of the Big 12.  But who from the Big 12?  A few rounds of realignment ago, when there was talk of a Pac-16, Oklahoma State was one of the schools mentioned.  And Kansas would be a no-brainer from a basketball perspective, but brings absolutely nothing to the table in football!

Or, how about one of the Big 12's newest members?  Would BYU consider leaving the Big 12 before even really joining and go to the Pac-12 instead?  If you think about it, the Pac-12 almost makes more sense for them.  They already have a rivalry with Utah and play in the MPSF with a lot of Pac-12 teams in sports like men's volleyball and indoor track & field.

So, I think BYU and Oklahoma State would make the most sense, but they certainly aren't the only options.  In fact, there are several Mountain West schools who I bet would be more than willing to answer the Pac-12's call.  Four in particular.  San Diego State, Boise State, UNLV and Colorado State.

Boise State is perhaps the most attractive competitively.  They've had a strong football program for a while and have become reasonably good at basketball.  But replacing Los Angeles with Boise, Idaho?!  That's where San Diego State has the advantage.  San Diego State would keep Southern California in the conference footprint and would add value in both sports.  (San Diego State is also a school that I think can become very good if it joins a Power 5 conference.)

UNLV, meanwhile, is an intriguing possibility.  It might seem like an out-of-the-box selection, seeing as their football team isn't good and they haven't made the NCAA Tournament in men's basketball since 2013.  But...Las Vegas is the only city they could add that's anywhere near as sexy as Los Angeles!  And the Pac-12 Men's Basketball Tournament is already at T-Mobile Arena!

Colorado State is probably the least likely of the bunch.  They'd be a good travel partner for Colorado, though.  That's probably not enough of a reason to make them a Pac-12 candidate, but we have no idea how this is all gonna play out, so it would be smart to keep their options open.  It's also a much more distinct possibility now than it was this morning that there could be some sort of Pac-12/Big 12 merger, especially if any more members of either conference get poached.

Now that all this has gone down, Kansas has apparently entered discussions with the Big East about joining in every sport but football, which would become independent.  Losing Kansas would be devastating to what remains of the Big 12.  And, should that happen, suddenly Baylor, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech might seriously start thinking about the Pac-12.

Once the Texas/Oklahoma and UCLA/USC moves take effect, we'll be in a situation where two Power 5 conferences have 16 members, with the ACC sitting at 15 if you include Notre Dame.  Their media rights are locked in for a while, so they're not looking to expand right away, but how long until they go for the 16th to stay even with the Big Ten and SEC?  And who will it be?  West Virginia?  Cincinnati?

The Big 12, meanwhile, will be back at 12 while the Pac-12 will once again be the Pac-10.  That's a combined 22 schools between them.  One or both of them would obviously need to expand.  But how many realistic expansion candidates are there?  Or, they could merge and bring all the remaining marquee programs from the two leagues together, which may actually be the best option (even if a 22-team conference would be a logistical nightmare!).

Just when we thought we might be getting a break from Power 5 realignment, UCLA, USC and the Big Ten throw a huge wrench into everything!  And what happens next will have a lasting impact on the long-term survival of both the Pac-12 and Big 12 (and, to a lesser extent, the Mountain West).  Let the dominoes fall!

Another Oakland to Las Vegas Move?

It's no secret that the Oakland A's need a new stadium.  That's been the case for years, and MLB is really starting to press the issue.  And, after multiple attempts to find a location either in Oakland or elsewhere in the Bay Area (which the Giants would need to approve, complicating matters significantly), a move to Las Vegas is beginning to look more and more likely.  So likely, in fact, that, should they decide to move, MLB has waived the relocation fee.

When the Expos moved to Washington, they were owned by MLB at the time, so no fee was charged then either, but it is common practice across the major pro sports.  The Rams and Chargers paid $645 million each to return to Los Angeles, and the Raiders' move to Las Vegas cost them a relocation fee of $378 million.  An A's move, meanwhile, could net a relocation fee of as much as $1 billion.  (Should MLB decide to expand again eventually, the expansion fee could top $2 billion.)

What's unclear is whether Oakland would be charged a relocation fee should it move somewhere other than Las Vegas.  But the message is clear.  The A's have full approval to move to Las Vegas, perhaps as early as 2025.

Of course, this is all contingent on them getting a stadium in Las Vegas.  While they'd likely get some public funds, the team would likely be on the hook for most of the financing of that stadium, which would need to have a retractable roof (way too hot in the desert in the summer), adding to the cost.  So, not having to pay a relocation fee would go a long way in helping fund the Las Vegas stadium.

While it's not a done deal, it's pretty obvious MLB would prefer have the A's in Las Vegas than in Oakland.  Just like it was obvious during the Expos' final years in Montreal that they would rather have a team in Washington.  So, it really seems like it's more a matter of when the A's move to Las Vegas as opposed to if they will.

And, frankly, it looks like they're getting ready to move.  Because they've been working on getting a new stadium in the Bay Area with very little luck.  While they claim that's still the truth (and it very well might be), they sure haven't given the people of Oakland any reason to think they're in it for the long haul, though.

Consider: The A's, in their perpetual state of rebuilding, sold off their best players and completely gutted the roster.  Meanwhile, they also raised ticket prices...to watch what everyone knew would be a bad team.  In a 50-year-old stadium that's a piece of crap.  Is it any surprise then that they have the lowest attendance in baseball?  They draw less than 10,000 a game!

Fans in Oakland have every reason to be skeptical, too.  After all, just within the past few years, they've seen the Warriors move across the Bay to San Francisco and the Raiders leave town for a second time.  That leaves just the A's, so you'd actually think the city would put on the full court press to make sure they stick around.  But that, unfortunately, has not been the case.  And the stalemate is what's led to them looking elsewhere.

After looking at a site in San Jose about 10 years ago, the A's have focused their efforts on the Oakland waterfront.  The renderings of the proposed 35,000-seat stadium are beautiful!  The project has the mayor's support, but some are skeptical of the location, claiming it could negatively impact port operations.  There's actually a public vote scheduled later this week.  If the stadium proposal is shot down, the chances of the A's staying in Oakland decrease dramatically.

So, really, the fate of the Oakland A's could come down to that vote.  If the stadium gets the go-ahead, they'll presumably stay in Oakland long-term.  If it doesn't, it's back to square one.  And, after trying and failing so many times in Oakland, Las Vegas really does seem like the only viable option.

Las Vegas has long been the most sought-after potential market for every league.  And that was before the Golden Knights ever existed.  They've since proved that Vegas is, indeed, a Major League town.  Then the Raiders moved there and showed that fans in Las Vegas will support a transplanted team, too.  (Plus, the fact that the gambling stigma isn't just gone, but leagues openly promote their relationships with the sports gambling websites obviously works in Las Vegas' favor.)

Baseball would be something different entirely, though.  The Golden Knights only play 41 home games a year and the Raiders only play eight.  Baseball teams have 81 home games.  It's nightly entertainment when they're home.  Of course, with all of the entertainment options in Las Vegas, especially during the summer, do fans really want to spend three hours watching a baseball game?  Well, seeing as the Las Vegas Aviators have led Triple-A in attendance in each of the last two seasons, I'd say the answer to that question is "Yes."  (The Aviators and A's actually have very similar attendance numbers.)

Another key note here is that the Aviators are Oakland's Triple-A affiliate.  So the fans are already familiar with some of the names who could be with the big club by the time any relocation becomes official.  While that's certainly not the deciding factor, the fact that fans in the city are already coming out to see their Minor League team has to make Las Vegas even more attractive to the A's.

The Raiders left Oakland for Las Vegas, leaving the A's alone.  They may be reunited again soon.  Because it seems like just a matter of time until the A's move to Las Vegas themselves.

A Weird Wimbledon

Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal are currently ranked third and fourth in the world.  As shocking as that is on its own, you'd never know it by looking at the seeds for Wimbledon, where Djokovic is his familiar No. 1 and Nadal is right behind him at No. 2.  That's because Daniil Medvedev, the actual No. 1, is banned from the tournament because he's Russian and No. 2 Alexander Zverev is out after suffering that gruesome ankle injury against Nadal at the French Open.

So, the men's seeds will be familiar.  Which is the only thing about this year's Wimbledon that won't feel completely strange.  Because the rest of it sure will be!  In fact, this will probably go down as the strangest Grand Slam tournament on record (and that includes the 2020 US and French Opens under quarantine with no fans!).

Of course, this is all because of the British government's decision to prohibit Russian and Belarusian players from participating in the tournament and the ATP/WTA's response by stripping Wimbledon of ranking points.  Which makes this essentially an exhibition event.  Albeit an exhibition event with a ton of prize money and the prestige of winning a Grand Slam title at stake.

Some players have chosen not to play because there won't be ranking points available, and I can't say I blame them.  Especially if they don't play well on grass.  I do feel bad for players like Matteo Berrettini, though.  Last year's finalist will lose 1200 ranking points regardless of how well he does this year.  Likewise, Djokovic's ranking will drop even further because his 2000 points for winning last year drop off and zero go on.  Although, on the flip side, losing early won't cost you rankings-wise!

It's also crazy to think that last year, Djokovic won the title to make it a three-way tie at 20.  He was three-quarters of his way to the calendar year Grand Slam and everyone took it as a given that he'd win the US Open to finish off the calendar-year Slam and become the all-time leader at 21.  Fast forward 12 months and Djokovic is still sitting on 20, while Nadal has surged ahead, winning both of this year's first two Grand Slams to take a 22-20-20 lead in the all-time tally.

Wimbledon 2021 is also the last time Roger Federer played a competitive tennis match.  He lost to Hubert Hurkacz in the quarterfinals, then had another knee surgery and has been out since.  Roger has maintained that he's coming back, but isn't ready yet.  You know that if he was, he'd be here.  Wimbledon has always been his baby and, even at 40, he still has a chance to win when healthy.  In fact, I'd argue that Wimbledon isn't just his best chance to add another Grand Slam title to his resume, it might be his only chance.  That chance, unfortunately, will have to wait until 2023, however.

In 2022, it'll be about Nole, Rafa and if anyone else can beat either one of them.  (It's been 20 years since somebody other than the three of them or Andy Murray has won the title.)  Frankly, I don't see it happening.  And the fact that they're the top two seeds, as well as the fact that Medvedev and Zverev won't be there, makes it even more likely that they're on a collision course for the final, where Djokovic could either win his fourth straight Wimbledon or Nadal could win his first since 2010.

If there's anyone else who has a chance, which, again, doesn't seem likely, it could be Cameron Norrie, the first Brit to be ranked in the Top 10 since Murray in his prime.  Norrie's obviously comfortable playing at Wimbledon.  I also like the Canadians, Felix Auger-Aliassime and Denis Shapovalov, as well as Marin Cilic and Matteo Berrettini, who've both been finalists at Wimbledon before. 

I don't like the chances for either French Open finalist Casper Ruud or Carlos Alcaraz, who dominated the clay court season.  They're both top-five seeds, but they both seem poised for an early upset (which, again, if you're a high who's gonna lose in the early rounds of a Slam, this is one to do it at).

Women's French Open champion Iga Swiatek, meanwhile, has absolutely solidified her No. 1 ranking.  She's on the longest winning streak of any player since Venus Williams in 2000, and there's no reason to believe she won't make a deep run at Wimbledon.  Can she win the title?  Absolutely!  Is it a guarantee like it was at Roland Garros?  No.  Would I consider her the favorite?  While I wouldn't go that far, she's certainly among the favorites.

During the French Open final, they made a really interesting point that had Coco Gauff won, she would've been the ninth different women's French Open champion in nine years.  It's the same thing at Wimbledon.  Five different women have won the last five tournaments since Serena's back-to-back titles in 2015-16.  (Although, it's worth noting that one of the Williams sisters was the losing finalist three straight times from 2017-19 before last year's Barty-Pliskova final.)

Speaking of Serena, she hasn't been seen since having to retire during her first-round match at Wimbledon last year.  As a result, her ranking is 1204 and she needed a wild card to get into the field.  Here's the crazy thing, though: She can win!  That doesn't mean she will.  I don't think it's realistic to say she'll win seven matches in a row after not having played in a year.  But the name "Serena Williams" in the draw, especially an unseeded Serena Williams, is enough to scare any one of the top players!

Serena's looming presence is the biggest factor in the women's draw.  While even she'd probably agree that it's unlikely she'll make a run, she'll make life difficult for every player she faces.  She'll get through the first round no problem, then it's the seeds--and the seeds in Serena's section of the draw include 2021 finalist Karolina Pliskova, French Open finalist Coco Gauff, and a pair of former Wimbledon champions--Simona Halep and Petra Kvitova.  So, life won't be easy for either Serena or any of those seeded players she might face.

The lack of Russians in the draw isn't as significant on the women's side.  In fact, the only two big names missing are Belarusians Aryna Sabalenka and Victoria Azarenka.  Although, I don't think either one would've been a contender for the title.  Sabalenka could've made a deep run, but it would've been a stretch to say she would've been among the favorites.  And Azarenka did win two Olympic medals on the Wimbledon grass, but that was 10 years ago!  (Sidebar: how were the London Olympics 10 years ago?!)

For some reason, I really like another Olympic medalist--Tokyo Olympic champion Belinda Bencic.  I say this despite the fact that she's never been past the fourth round at any Grand Slam other than the US Open.  I can't tell you why I like Bencic except for the fact I like her draw.  Although, the bottom half of the draw also includes Emma Raducanu, who made the fourth round last year in her Grand Slam debut before her breakout at the US Open.  And wouldn't it be something if a British woman wins for the first time since 1977?!  She's definitely got a shot!

Ultimately, though, I see a Bencic-Pliskova final, with Pliskova finally getting her first Grand Slam title.  And I doubt she'll care rankings points won't be included!  Likewise, Djokovic won't care as much about losing 2000 ranking points when he's hoisting the champion's trophy for the fourth consecutive time and the seventh time in his career.

Otto Nuovi Eventi In Milano-Cortina

While it's only been a few months since Beijing 2.0, planning for the next Winter Olympics in Italy is already well underway.  In fact, the event program for Milano-Cortina 2026 has been finalized.  There will be eight new events, including three in a new sport, while one event has been dropped.  So, the 2026 Games will once again offer the most medals in Winter Olympic history.

The event that's out is the alpine skiing team event.  That, frankly, is a little surprising because (a) it only debuted in 2018 and (b) the IOC loves its mixed-gender events, and the team event was the only one on the alpine skiing program.  I'm not exactly sure what the IOC's reason for dropping it is.  Maybe it's because the men's and women's alpine skiing events are scheduled to be held at completely different resorts in totally separate parts of Northern Italy.  Either way, I won't miss it.  I'm just indifferent.  I would've been fine had it stayed, but I have no problem with it being out.  

They also only provisionally included the men's and women's alpine combined, which is an event I do enjoy.  I can't even imagine not having the alpine combined on the Olympic program.  Downhill and slalom are completely different disciplines.  That's what makes the combined so entertaining.  It's kinda like the IM in swimming!  You have to be good (or at least good enough) at both if you want to medal.  It's the event that determines the best all-around skier.

Apparently part of the reasoning with the combined is because not that many people entered it in Beijing (there were only 20-something competitors in both the men's and women's events).  It's also not held that much on the World Cup circuit (which is generally only one discipline at each stop, so I'm not sure how/where a combined would fit in), but is a part of the World Championships. 

If the alpine combined is taken out in 2030, it would potentially be replaced by a parallel event, which has become popular on the World Cup circuit.  Which has me a little confused.  Since the team event, which they just removed, is a series of parallel slalom races.

Another event at risk of being removed after 2026 is Nordic combined.  The IOC has even called it a "very concerning" situation about Nordic combined, the only sport on the Olympic program that's only open to men.  Women's Nordic combined was rejected for 2022 because it's not developed enough.  There's only been one World Championship, with only 10 countries represented.  For Nordic combined to survive past Milano-Cortina, they have to increase participation of women.

All of the new events will ensure that the Milano-Cortina Games are the most gender-balanced in Winter Olympic history.  They won't get to the straight 50-50 split that we'll see in Paris, but it'll be close.  The projection is 47 percent of the athletes will be women, and, including the new events, there will be 50 women's events.

One of those new women's events will be the large hill in ski jumping.  So, the men and women will both be jumping off both hills.  It's not completely gender-balanced since they didn't add a women's team event for some reason, but that might be coming next.  After all it took to get women's ski jumping into the Olympics (remember the lawsuit prior to the Vancouver Games?), seeing it continue to grow is tremendous.

Doubles luge has also been separated into men's and women's events.  Frankly, I didn't even know that there were women's doubles teams, but evidently there are.  And there's enough of them to have their own competition.  Which probably just means Germany will be able to add another gold medal to its tally.  How the doubles team in the luge team event will work is a different question, but I'd imagine countries will simply be able to choose a doubles sled from either gender.

Luge won't be the only sliding sport with a mixed team event in 2026.  A mixed team event in skeleton has been added.  I'd imagine it'll be similar to the luge team event where the man will go, then the woman will start once he gets to the bottom (or vice versa).  If it's anything like the luge mixed team event, it could be cool.

It seems like forever ago, but there was a time when moguls was the only freestyle skiing event in the Winter Olympics.  Since then, so many freestyle skiing and snowboarding events have been added, while moguls has still had just the men's and women's events.  That'll change in Milano-Cortina, when men's and women's dual moguls make their debut.  I'd imagine dual moguls is two athletes going down the course at the same time head-to-head, which could be interesting.

Ski mountaineering also looks interesting.  It's the only new sport on the program for Milano-Cortina, and it may only feature at the 2026 Games.  This is the first Winter Olympics that will include that same provision where host countries can add sports popular in the country for their Olympics.  Japan added the five sports in Tokyo, and the French have added breaking for Paris.  For Milano-Cortina, the Italians have chosen ski mountaineering.

There will be three ski mountaineering events, the men's and women's sprints and the mixed relay.  Why they felt the need to point out that the men's and women's individual events are "sprints," I don't know, but having a mixed relay included, as well, is a big deal.  And who knows?  Maybe ski mountaineering will prove to be popular enough to keep its place beyond 2026!

That's my hope at least.  Because, as you know, I'm not a big fan of sports being in or out depending on where the Olympics are.  Either they're Olympic sports or they're not!  The same could also be said for events.  Although, I've got no problem with the new events for Milano-Cortina 2026, which hopefully don't go the way of the alpine skiing team event and go from added to dropped over the span of just two Games!

Building the Home Team

Oregon 22 is getting close!  So close in fact that the team will be formed this weekend at the U.S. Championships, which will be held at the exact same venue...Hayward Field.  Part of a crazy six weeks at Hayward Field, which hosted the NCAA Championships two weeks ago, the National High School Championships last week, and the U.S. Senior and Junior Championships this week.  That's right.  There are some college coaches and athletes who could conceivably spend a month in Oregon preparing for and competing in three major championship meets without ever having to leave!

I'm curious to see how the timing of everything impacts the college athletes.  Nationals are always around this time, but the global meet usually isn't until much later in the summer.  And maintaining their peak for that long can be difficult.  But maintaining your peak for a month while not having to go anywhere?  That's vastly different!  And it could be hugely beneficial!

We won't be building the entire team this weekend.  Because Worlds are so close to U.S. Nationals, they had the 10k's last month at the Prefontaine Classic (also in Eugene), and the heptathlon/decathlon were a couple weeks ago in Arkansas.  And the race walks are always held earlier in the year.  The marathon teams, meanwhile, were picked last year based on results at specific marathons.  The three highest-placing Americans were given the opportunity.

Don't forget about the wild cards, either.  Defending World Champions and defending Diamond League winners get automatic berths at Worlds.  The U.S. has 10 defending World Champions and eight Diamond League champions.  However, in some events (such as the men's 100 and men's 200), both the 2019 World Champion and 2021 Diamond League winner are Americans.  The World Championship supersedes, so that means those Diamond League winners still need to qualify.

What's interesting about that, though, is athletes are required to run at the U.S. Nationals to claim their wild card.  They don't need to run their primary event, though, so will Christian Coleman, who has a wild card in the 100 only run the 200?  Likewise, will Noah Lyles only run the 100?  (The start lists are already out, and Coleman is in the 100 and Lyles is in the 200.)

Winning Olympic gold also has no bearing on World Championships qualification, so Oregon native Ryan Crouser will have to go top three at Nationals.  So will Katie Nageotte, Athing Mu and Sydney McLaughlin.  (Valarie Allman also won the Diamond League last season, so she's all set.)

Because of wild cards, the U.S. will have four entries in 14 different events: men's 100, men's 200, men's 400, men's 800, men's 110 hurdles, men's pole vault, men's triple jump, men's shot put, women's 400, women's 100 hurdles, women's 400 hurdles, women's shot put, women's discus, women's hammer throw.  Which doesn't make those events any less competitive at Nationals.  In fact, I think the fact that those will be some of the most competitive events!

U.S. Nationals is always one of the most competitive meets in the world every year.  There are people who could be medalists at Worlds who won't even make the team!  (Just ask Keni Harrison and Maggie Ewen about that.)  Throw in the fact that Worlds aren't just in the U.S., but on the exact same track, and there will be some battles this weekend!

This is a chance for some athletes to gain some redemption, too.  Christian Coleman couldn't compete at Olympic Trials last year because he was suspended for missed doping tests.  Sha'Carri Richardson did run at Olympic Trials and won the 100, only to fail her doping test and get DQed, costing her a shot at running in Tokyo.  As a result, she's still looking to make her first U.S. team.

Let's not forget the Oregon factor either.  There will be plenty of Oregon Ducks who you know will be spurred on by the home crowd.  That includes Devon Allen, who ran a time that I still can't believe last week in New York...and I was at the freakin' meet!  And Raevyn Rogers is on the giant tower outside the stadium, so it goes without saying that she'll have some support.

So, who'll make the cut?  As usual, I'm expecting to see a few surprises.  But there are also some athletes who've dominated their event so much this season that they're virtual locks to return to Eugene for Worlds (and maybe even win medals next month.)  With all that in mind, here's who I've got representing the home team at Oregon 22...

Men's 100: *Christian Coleman, Trayvon Bromell, Fred Kerley, Kyree King
Men's 200: *Noah Lyles, Erriyon Knighton, Kenny Bednarek, Christian Coleman
Men's 400: *Michael Cherry, Michael Norman, Randolph Ross, Will London
Men's 800: *Donavan Brazier, Clayton Murphy, Bryce Hoppel, Isaiah Harris
Men's 1500: Cole Hocker, Cooper Teare, Yared Nuguse
Men's 5000: Paul Chelimo, Woody Kincaid, Emmanuel Bor
Men's 110 Hurdles: *Grant Holloway, Devon Allen, Daniel Roberts, Trey Cunningham
Men's 400 Hurdles: Rai Benjamin, Amere Lattin, Quincy Hall
Men's Steeplechase: Hillary Bor, Bernard Keter, Mason Ferlic
Men's Long Jump: JuVaughn Harrison, Marquis Dendy, Steffin McCarter
Men's Triple Jump: *Christian Taylor, Will Claye, Donald Scott, Chris Benard
Men's High Jump: JuVaughn Harrison, Shelby McEwen, Vernon Turner
Men's Pole Vault: *Sam Kedricks, Chris Nilsen, KC Lightfoot, Andrew Irwin
Men's Shot Put: *Joe Kovacs, Ryan Crouser, Tripp Piperi, Payton Otterdahl
Men's Discus: Sam Mattis, Reggie Jagers, Andrew Evans
Men's Hammer Throw: Rudy Winkler, Daniel Haugh, Sean Donnelly
Men's Javelin: Mike Shuey, Curtis Thompson, Ethan Dabbs
Men's 4x100: Marvin Bracy, Isiah Young, Mike Rodgers
Men's 4x400: Bryce Deadmon, Vernon Norwood, Elija Godwin, Champion Allison

Women's 100: Sha'Carri Richardson, Aleia Hobbs, Teahna Daniels
Women's 200: Abby Steiner, Gabby Thomas, Anavia Battle
Women's 400: *Quanera Hayes, Talitha Diggs, Allyson Felix, Wadeline Jonathas
Women's 800: Athing Mu, Ajee Wilson, Raevyn Rogers
Women's 1500: Elle Purrier St. Pierre, Sinclaire Johnson, Cory McGee
Women's 5000: Elise Cranny, Josette Norris, Karissa Schweizer
Women's 100 Hurdles: *Nia Ali, Keni Harrison, Gabby Cunningham, Christina Clemons
Women's 400 Hurdles: *Dalilah Muhammad, Sydney McLaughlin, Shamier Little, Anna Cockrell
Women's Steeplechase: Emma Coburn, Courtney Frerichs, Courtney Wayment
Women's Long Jump: Tara Davis, Quanesha Burks, Monae Nichols
Women's Triple Jump: Tori Franklin, Keturah Orji, Jasmine Moore
Women's High Jump: Vashti Cunningham, Jelena Rowe, Rachel McCoy
Women's Pole Vault: Sandi Morris, Katie Nageotte, Olivia Gruver
Women's Shot Put: *Maggie Ewen, Chase Ealey, Jessica Ramsey, Raven Saunders
Women's Discus: *Valarie Allman, Rachel Dincoff, Laulauga Tausaga-Collins, Veronica Fraley
Women's Hammer Throw: *DeAnna Price, Brooke Andersen, Janee Kassanavoid, Alyssa Wilson
Women's Javelin: Kara Winger, Ariana Ince, Maggie Malone
Women's 4x100: Marybeth Sant Price, Cambrea Sturgis, Javianne Oliver
Women's 4x400: Kendall Ellis, Kaylin Whitney, Lynna Irby, Taylor Manson

Now, this is assuming the top three finishers in each event have the qualifying standard.  Even if they don't, they can still get in via their world ranking, which we won't find out until Worlds get closer.  But they can't get too much closer.  Especially now that the team is about to be named.

Modern Sports Dynasties

With both the Warriors and Lightning back in the Finals, there's been a lot of talk about dynasties this month.  Golden State's status as a modern-day dynasty was already established.  Another title just added to that legacy.  Tampa Bay, meanwhile, could become the first team in nearly 40 years to win three straight Stanley Cup titles, which would absolutely put the Lightning into "dynasty" territory if they aren't already.

Yesterday I was listening to ESPN Radio and whoever was hosting that particular show suggested the Warriors are the third-greatest NBA dynasty of all-time, which is quite a stretch (he was presumably talking about the Bill Russell Celtics and Jordan Bulls, but what about the Showtime Lakers and Shaq/Kobe Lakers?).  While I would put them above Shaq and Kobe, there's no way the Warriors rank above Showtime.  I don't see any HBO series being made about them, do you?

That got me thinking about another question, though.  What are the greatest sports dynasties of the last 50-ish years?  A number of teams have won multiple championships, and some gave gone back-to-back, but which ones are truly era-defining dynasties?  The NHL expanded from 6 to 12 in 1967-68, MLB expanded from 12 to 16 in 1969 and the AFL-NFL merger was in 1970, so that's what I'm defining as 50-ish years.  And there are 13 teams that meet that criteria...

13. Oakland A's (1972-74): It was a full decade before I was born, but the A's of the early 70s must've been an extremely fun team to watch!  They're the only team other than the Yankees ever to win three straight World Series, and they did it with a cast of characters that featured a young Reggie Jackson, Catfish Hunter, Rollie Fingers and Vida Blue among others.  Then free agency came to baseball and the A's were broken up (sound familiar?).

12. Dallas Cowboys (1992-95): Dallas had some epic playoff battles with the 49ers in the early 90s and ended up winning three Super Bowls in four years, the first team ever to do that.  Six players from those teams (Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin, Emmitt Smith, Larry Allen, Deion Sanders, Charles Haley) now have busts in Canton, as does Jimmy Johnson, the coach of the first two.  What's probably disappointing to Cowboys fans is the knowledge that it could've been so much more.

11. Houston Comets (1997-2000): As soon as the WNBA was founded, the league immediately had its first dynasty.  Cynthia Cooper, Sheryl Swoopes, Tina Thompson and Co., won each of the first four WNBA championships.  The Comets weren't just the best team in the WNBA during those early years, they were the DOMINANT team!  Unfortunately, the franchise folded in 2008.  Their four championships are still tied for the most in WNBA history, though.

10. Pittsburgh Steelers (1974-79): Led by perhaps the greatest defense in NFL history, Pittsburgh won four Super Bowls in six years.  Last year, Donnie Shell became the 10th member of those Steelers teams inducted into the Hall of Fame, not including Head Coach Chuck Noll and owners Art and Dan Rooney (a number that should be 12 because it's a joke that L.C. Greenwood isn't a Hall of Famer!).  The NFL has changed a lot since then, and watching old NFL Films video of the Steel Curtain shows just how brutal the game was in the 70s!

9. Golden State Warriors (2015-22): Today's Stephen Curry-led Golden State Warriors come in at No. 9 for a few reasons.  First, the run started with five straight trips to the Finals (the first four of which were against LeBron's Cavs...an unofficial NBA rule for a few years!).  Second, it could easily be eight straight had they not had to deal with a slew of injuries (and everything else) over the past two seasons.  Third, the way the NBA salary cap requires the constant roster reconstruction.  Fourth, and perhaps most significantly, there's no indication this is the end of it.  They ain't stopping at four!

8. Montreal Canadiens (1976-79): There are three NHL teams on this list who dominated the league back-to-back-to-back.  I couldn't really separate them, so I'm putting them all in a row here, too (and leaving them in chronological order), starting with the Montreal Canadiens and their Stanley Cup four-peat from 1976-79.  The 1976-77 Canadiens are widely considered the greatest NHL team ever, going 60-8-12 and outscoring their opponents by more than 200 goals.  They lost one home game all season and never two in a row!  It ended with a four-game sweep of the Bruins for the Cup.  They went 16-3 in the Finals over the four series.

7. New York Islanders (1980-84): After the Canadiens, it was the Islanders who took over as the NHL's dominant team.  As we've kept seeing on graphics during the Lightning's current run, the Islanders still hold the record with 19 consecutive playoff series wins, four straight Stanley Cups from 1980-83, followed by a run to the 1984 Final, where they lost to the next team on our list.

6. Edmonton Oilers (1984-90): Edmonton lost to the Islanders in 1983 before turning the tables in the 1984 Final and starting a remarkable run of its own.  Gretzky, Messier and Co., won the Cup four times in the next five seasons.  Then, after Gretzky left, Messier led the Oilers to another title in 1990.  That's five Cups in seven years, with only a pair of Montreal vs. Calgary series in 1986 and '89 interrputing the run.

5. Los Angeles Lakers (1980-91): The Lakers three-peated from 2000-02 and went to three straight Finals from 2008-10, but the Shaq/Kobe Era pales in comparison to Magic, Kareem and Showtime.  Magic Johnson's rookie year was 1979-80.  They won the championship that season.  They went on to win four more in the 80s and lost in the Finals four other times in that span.  Nine NBA Finals appearances in an exceptional 12-year period!

4. San Francisco 49ers (1981-89): In the 70s, the Steelers rode their defense to four Super Bowl titles in six years.  In the 80s, the 49ers used their offense to win four in nine.  They won in 81, then had that historic 18-1 season in 84.  Then Jerry Rice showed up and they won back-to-back titles in 88 and 89.  No team has ever won three straight Super Bowls, but they came close.  They were the best team in the league in 1990, but lost to the Giants in the NFC Championship Game.

3. New York Yankees (1996-2000): Believe it or not, no team has even won back-to-back World Series since the Yankees' three-peat from 1998-2000.  And it looked like it would be four if not for that fateful bottom of the ninth in Game 7 in 2001.  Another AL pennant in 2003 was their sixth in eight years.  The Yankees have won a grand total of one pennant (and World Series) in the two decades since.

2. Chicago Bulls (1991-98): While some might think my ranking for the Jordan Bulls may be a little high, consider this: they won six championships in eight years, and two years they didn't, he didn't play!  Had Jordan not retired after the third championship, it easily could've been eight in a row!  Especially when you consider that his first full season back, 1995-96, they went 72-10 to start the second three-peat!

1. New England Patriots (2001-18): Based on both longevity and sheer domination, there's no dynasty like the 20-year reign of the Bradicheck Patriots.  Six Super Bowl titles, including three in four years from 2001-04 and three in five from 2014-18, which easily could've been nine if not for three memorable losses.  Beyond that, though, they won the AFC East and were in the AFC Championship Game EVERY! FREAKIN'! YEAR!  It's two decades of unmatched brilliance (in a salary cap era) that we'll likely never see again.

80 Games, 16 Cities, 3 Countries

There weren't many surprises in FIFA's long-awaited announcement of the 2026 World Cup host cities.  I was a little confused as to why Miami over DC at first, but then I found out Washington and Baltimore combined their bids, which made it DOA.  Kansas City was also a little unexpected, but not entirely, since there was some speculation that Edmonton wouldn't make the cut and get replaced by KC, which is exactly what ended up happening.

The original plan was to have three cities host the 10 games in Canada, though, so I wonder how that changes the planning.  I'd imagine it means Toronto and Vancouver will just get five games each now (which apparently was part of the problem with Edmonton...they reportedly wanted a guarantee of five games).  It would be easy to do, too.  Three group stage, a round of 32 and a round of 16.  And do they have Canada play one game in each city?

All three Mexican cities that were submitted were obviously going to be chosen, and you'd have to think that, if they divide Mexico's 10 games 4-3-3, Azteca will get the extra game.  There's some speculation that Azteca will host the opening game, which would be a pretty cool reward for the stadium that will be the first to hold games in three separate World Cups.

Speaking of that, SoFi was picked as the LA stadium instead of the Rose Bowl.  I was expecting it to be the Rose Bowl since it seats 100,000 people and it hosted the 1994 final, but SoFi is the shiny, new toy that just hosted the Super Bowl, so I get it.  No Rose Bowl, however, means that none of the nine venues from 1994 will be used again in 2026.

In fact, only five of the nine cities used in 1994 will get World Cup games again--New York, LA, San Francisco, Dallas and Boston.  Seeing as those are five of the biggest cities in the country, that's not exactly a surprise.  Chicago, Detroit, Orlando and Washington hosted then and won't in 2026, while Atlanta, Houston, Miami, Philadelphia, Kansas City and Seattle will host for the first time.

Of those six new cities, Atlanta, Houston and Seattle seemed like virtual locks.  The Sounders and Atlanta United both play in the NFL stadiums that will be hosting the World Cup games, and they have two of the highest average attendances in MLS.  Houston, meanwhile, is America's fourth-largest city and has played host to several Mexican National Team games, so that one makes sense, too.

As for Philadelphia, I think there's one big reason why it was picked over DC.  July 4, 2026 is a Saturday.  Likely quarterfinal Saturday.  And a World Cup quarterfinal in Philadelphia, America's first capital, on the country's 250th birthday was simply too good to pass up!

That hasn't been officially announced yet, but I'd be shocked if Philly wasn't hosting a quarterfinal (on July 4).  Likewise, the selections of Atlanta and Dallas were no surprise since they were listed as potential semifinal hosts in the bid book.  And the World Cup Final will be at MetLife Stadium.  Gianni Infantino was non-committal about that during the show, but there's no reason to believe that won't be the case, as has been speculated for a while.

While it made sense to have the 1994 Final at the 100,000-seat Rose Bowl, having the 2026 Final at MetLife makes sense, too.  For starters, New York is the largest city in the country and already has pockets of supporters from every country.  More importantly, though, is the time difference.  I'm assuming they'll have the game in the mid-afternoon for European TV.  A 3:00 kickoff in New York would work (even though it'll be crazy hot in the middle of the afternoon in mid-July!).  A noon kickoff in LA, while doable, would not.

I also really like that they divided the venues by region and will keep travel down by keeping teams within the same region.  That was one of the few problems with the 1994 World Cup, when they had teams flying all over the country (and this country is pretty big!).  In 2026, however, they'll be crossing at most one time zone (from Central to Eastern), which makes it easier on everybody.

Other than Atlanta somehow being "Central" instead of "East," the regions all make sense.  Although, looking at the map of the 16 cities exposes the one big miss of the venue selections.  There's a bunch on the West Coast, a bunch in the Northeast and a bunch in the Texas/Mexico area, with Atlanta and Miami covering the South.  With the exception of Kansas City, though, the entire middle of the country is missing!  (Even Edmonton is close enough to Vancouver that it could've been considered "West" had it been chosen.)

Us fans along the I-95 corridor will be a little spoiled, too.  It's only a five-hour drive from Boston to Philadelphia and a 90-minute flight from New York to Toronto.  So, if so inclined and the schedule is set up in a way that makes it work, you could conceivably go to World Cup games in four different cities without once having to stay overnight.

Of course, that's still an incredibly far distance compared to this year's World Cup, where every stadium is located within about a half hour of each other in and around Doha.  They'll be going from one of the most compact World Cups ever to one of the most spread out (it's 3400 miles from Vancouver to Miami!).  It'll also be the biggest with 48 teams, double what it was the last time the World Cup was in the U.S.

Overall, though, I think they did a good job with their World Cup host city selections.  Yes, some of them were obvious.  And, yes, the lack of games in the Midwest is glaring.  But they covered the major cities and rewarded the strong soccer markets that deserved the opportunity to host (Seattle, Atlanta, Kansas City).

It's also worth noting that the inclusion of Canada and Mexico in the bid limited the number of American cities that could host.  If the U.S. were going it alone, five additional cities could've been chosen.  There would've been plenty of options, too.  Chicago and Washington would be obvious, but who would be the other three?  Denver, Phoenix and Nashville?  Or take one of them out for Las Vegas?

But let's not take anything away from the 16 cities that will host by speculating who "should" instead of them!  Now we know where the games will be.  We just don't know when.  The schedule's the next piece.  It's crazy to think that the 2026 World Cup, which will go back to its traditional June-July timeframe, is less than four years away, though.