France Vs England

James: “England lost a crucial game to Scotland last week and it might have hurt their chances at winning the tournament. They will face France this week and are likely to win, but what they will need to do is win big against the French. Winner: England.”

Ireland Vs Scotland

James: “Ireland won convincingly against Wales and Scotland had a great victory against England. This clash will very likely decide who wins the tournament though Ireland is ahead by a good margin in the points side of things. Winner: Ireland.”

Aaron: “CALCUTTA CUP WINNERS! Holy smokes! I did not see that coming. Scotland took it right to the English defense. Huw Jones with a brace of tries and playing some amazing rugby. The Scottish offense has found their stride and are becoming very threatening. But now they face an undefeated Irish team. Ireland’s offense looked every bit as lethal as it has all year, but their defense looked vulnerable. Jonny Sexton also missed a few kicks that could’ve sealed the deal against Wales earlier in the match. Despite all that, Ireland took the victory over Wales. For the first time this competition I’m going with the upset. A surging Scotland might surprise the Irish. Advantage: Scotland”

Wales Vs Italy

James: “Wales had a good game against Ireland, but the Irish proved to be too much for them. However, they are going up against the worst squad in the tournament in Italy, who lost by 17 to France and should be able to rebound. Winner: Wales.”

Aaron: “There is no doubt in my mind that Wales will win this match by at least 3 tries. The Italian defense has been terrible all competition continuously giving up try after try. Wales played and incredible game against Ireland and almost took the match. A late try by Ireland sealed their fate; the score did not reflect how close this game was. Wales are a much better team than Italy and have also been able to score consistently. Leigh Halfpenny should have a good game from the boot as well. The Italians will try to prevent themselves from going winless, but I don’t think its gonna happen this year. Advantage: Wales”

I have lived in Cincinnati for the past two years and I’ll tell you what, it’s sneakily a very passionate and sports crazed city. When it’s the Crosstown Shootout (a college basketball rivalry between University of Cincinnati and Xavier), the city shuts down. When it’s gameday for the Bengals, all of the Skyline Chilis are filled and the riverfront bars are packed with a gameday concert going on outside. And of course the Reds which makes Opening Day look like a holiday with a parade, a concert, and having a big ol’ party right outside the stadium. People love their sports here. But there is something else here that is big and it’s taking the whole city by storm. What that might be is a second division soccer team called FC Cincinnati.

What people don’t know about this city is that soccer has always been huge here. There had been a few professional teams that have tried here, but it never amounted to anything. Then comes in a former Bengals front office executive and former City Council member, Jeff Berding, to be president of a new soccer club with a mission to not only make a successful soccer team here in the city, but to also bring Major League Soccer here. What has happened here the first two seasons has been remarkable. The crowds have been absolutely nuts as I have been to two games and each time I enjoyed it because of the atmosphere. Some players who are in the MLS and once played in Europe like Bastian Schweinsteiger said some some of the crowd experiences were comparable to games in Europe. That’s attractive for any MLS team and for MLS. In fact, some of the crowd numbers the team has is better than even some in England and they out draw more than all, but six clubs in the MLS.

The quality of play has been no slouch either as the team continually manages to find solid players. The fact they have found players like Sean Okoli, Austin Berry (who has since retired), and Djiby Fall, it also attracts fans because of how well you’re playing. They have made it to the playoffs two years in a row which brings in even more fans.

Don Garber, the MLS commissioner, saw first hand how crazed the city was with the team and the sport when FC Cincinnati made a magical run in Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup beating the likes of MLS teams Chicago Fire and Columbus Crew. He saw how much soccer was loved here in the city. It should be a slam dunk of a decision to put an MLS team here.

Also, since MLS is trying to help grow the sport here in the country, Cincinnati is a perfect melting pot of what soccer could be like in our culture here in the United States. Soccer will never be bigger than baseball, basketball, football or even hockey, but it could become engrained in the culture. Just go to one game this upcoming season at Nippert Stadium and you will see what I mean. Just look how rowdy the fans get in their section called The Bailey which is where the most passionate fans sit each game.

One of the prerogatives for getting a team in the MLS is building a new stadium. The dilemma for the franchise is where will they put a team in the city. There are two spots in the city that are being looked at and it’s the West End neighborhood and Oakley neighborhood. If they were to pick a spot in the city, it should be Oakley, but the problem would be costs. There is one other spot which is not technically in the city, but basically is, and in my opinion would be the best for the franchise. That place would be Newport, Kentucky. A small town in Northern Kentucky that is on the other side of the bridge from Cincinnati (it literally is as I can see into Newport from my apartment). That area has an area called Newport on the Levee which has restaurants, movie theater, bars, and an aquarium. But fans can also hang out on the riverfront on the Cincinnati side of the bridge where there are plenty of restaurants and bars for them and then lead a march across the bridge to the stadium for the games. I honestly think that would be really cool and makes the most sense. Some people don’t like the fact that it’s not technically in the city limits (or Ohio for that matter) and they want it to feel more authentic. I think that’s just a ridiculous thing to get upset over, but I get their gripe. However, in my opinion, this is the best option. And with FC Cincinnati saying it will privately finance their building of a stadium, Newport should jump all over it.

Now I have heard from two different people (one randomly from sitting next to them on a plane who claimed that they knew about this while going to the city on business) that Cincinnati will get the next spot in the MLS, though it is not 100 percent set in stone so it could easily go to either Sacramento or Detroit, which were the other finalists. It seems Garber has seen what I’ve seen and that’s great. If Cincinnati was to get the next franchise, don’t be surprised. The fact that I’ve heard the same story from two different people, who don’t even know one another, leads me to believe that it is true. And hopefully it is as this city deserves another professional sports team here.

*Here’s a video that will give you an idea of what the FC Cincinnati craze is like.

I am a big fan of the sport without a doubt. I can remember the last of the Michael Jordan years with the Chicago Bulls thinking how great the sport was. I was a huge fan of basketball even to the point where I actually was more into it than football (which many will think is ludicrous considering my love of football now). I was a fan of the Bulls, Sacramento Kings (yeah, that was a fun phase), and the Washington Wizards in my days of an NBA fan. Then something happened, high school basketball happened.

I played high school basketball and honestly I enjoyed playing it, but my coach was very disciplinary and I felt like I learned how basketball should be played from him. I learned the fundamentals, how important defense was, and how being flashy was not going to win you games despite how cool it was. It was how basketball should be played. However, he told my team that he used plays that were designed by coaches from Duke and University of North Carolina. As the years went on playing the game I learned something, the NBA is not great. Call me bias all you want, but it is not.

While in my time of playing high school basketball, I became a lot more appreciative of college basketball. I had already loved college basketball and was riding high after the whole George Mason cinderella run to the Final Four, but high school basketball made me love the college level even more. While college is not perfect, it’s the way the sport was meant to be played. The NBA to me is just a show. They seem to care more about being flashy, let offense run everything, never play hard nosed defense or play the fundamentals, and there is absolutely no parity in the league. We all know who makes the NBA Finals every year. It’s too predictable. In college, any team can win on any given night despite who is the most talented. Players try hard to grab a rebound, take a charge, position themselves well to defend, power their way to the basket for a hook shot, and ambitiously try to swipe the ball for a steal, while also passing the ball enough to create a great opportunity to shoot. College basketball is about the fundamentals, the NBA is about the entertainment. If you’re a true basketball fan, college is for you.

That being said, the NBA could be better. The league has the best players in the world and that’s not even debatable. They are the most athletic and the most skillful, so clearly they are the best basketball players in the world. If the NBA wants to be fun to watch, they should go back to the basics: play hard nosed defense, create opportunities by passing the ball more or trying to go down inside, taking a charge, and aggressively go after a ball off the boards, basically needing to play the fundamentals to make the league even better. If you have the best players in the world in your league, take advantage of that by having them play the sport the way it should be played.

I was watching some highlights of the NBA All-Star Game recently and when LeBron James’ team played fundamental basketball to win the game, I saw what could of possibly been the best possible basketball I’ve ever seen. Stephen Curry took the last shot and missed badly, but LeBron’s team played such great defense that they made the shot impossible to make and honestly, Curry’s team had no chance of penetrating that defense or creating an opportunity at scoring. I saw what could be the best for the league if players actually played every aspect of the game. The NBA was great up until the mid-2000s, but in the last decade, they chose to go more of a flashy route. Another prime example of how great the NBA could be was Game Seven of the 2016 NBA Finals where the Cleveland Cavaliers, led by LeBron, won a tight battle against the Golden State Warriors to win the first championship in 52 years. I believe the stakes were so high, that’s why both teams played the best possible basketball they could play. I wasn’t even an NBA fan and I loved that game. LeBron’s block on Andre Iguodola late in the game just went to show how great the NBA could be if the players actually played defense. I firmly believe if the NBA went back to basics, there would be more exciting and close games.

I truly believe the NBA could be great again if playing the sport the way it should be played. These players are the best in the world and if the league wants to make basketball bigger globally, maybe if they went back to the basics to show exciting a close game could be, it would help. But it also would help bring back those fans whom they’ve lost including myself. I truly think the league could be better if they became as fundamentally sound as college ball is.

*Here is an article talking about how the NBA has lost it’s way

So hear me out about this, what I am suggesting may be a crazy, but really interesting idea for a change to the NFL. This will drastically restructure the league and the playoffs, but it should help in terms of fairness. While one might think this would not go over well, just hear me out and think about it before you rush to conclusions. So what am I suggesting? Well this is what I want to change about the sport:

Get rid of divisions

Yes, you read that right: divisions would be a thing of the past. So you’re probably thinking how would that work. Easy, you play everyone once in your conference. That’s 15 games, but what about the 16th game? You play your closest rival from the opposite conference (or you could alternate every year with another team from the opposite conference). If that 16th game came to play your closest rival in the opposite conference, you would have to alternate who hosts every season (and if it was playing any team from the opposite conference it would be the same deal). In terms of where the games will be played, well you would have to alternate every year who hosts so like for an example in the games that are played between Green Bay and Dallas: in 2017 the Packers would host and then in 2018 Dallas would host and so on and so forth. But with this format, it would bring more fairness in the standings which leads to my next point.

Playoffs

In the 16 team conferences, the top six teams on each side advance to the playoffs. So essentially the playoffs will stay the same except there will be no division winners or wild card teams. However, the top two seeds will continue to get byes and will matchup with lowest possible seeds left in the postseason. I don’t think too much should change there.

Scheduling

How the scheduling should be done should be simple. To avoid any complications, once the season gets to the mid-point, every team will get a bye. Yes, all 32 teams will get byes in the same point of the season. As for when the AFC-NFC matchups happen, they should either be the first game, mid-point, or last game of the season. Pretty simple, right?

No more ties

I hate ties. They really hurt the sport and I think they are too freaking confusing when it comes to playoff scenarios. So we need to get rid of them. How would that work? Well, the first overtime should remain the same with what the rules are now, but there will be another overtime that would be College Football overtime rules style. However, the teams should start at the 50 yard line instead of the 25 yard line like how College Football does. That could create more interesting games and more intrigue.

That’s what I have right now, but thats what I would like to see happen in the NFL. Really different, right? Yeah, it’s a pretty radical proposal.

I’d be happy to answer any questions with my proposal and would appreciate some feedback.

The NCAA recently came to the conclusion that enforces Notre Dame to vacate wins from the 2012 and 2013 seasons after their appeal against sanctions about academic misconduct was denied. Notre Dame had made the 2012 College Football Championship game and also won 21 games in those two seasons. It was revealed that a trainer who was also a student at the time was completing coursework for a couple of players and according to Sports Illustrated was also to have “provided impermissible academic benefits to another six.” Five players were suspended before the 2014 season for “academic improprieties,” which brought the attention to the public of what was happening on the football team. During this time, Everett Golson, the school’s quarterback during this period, was suspended from the school for the 2013 season because of academic reasons. A school which prided itself for it’s football and academics, was caught. Also here was an interesting part of the Sports Illustrated article about what else happened with this:

“The NCAA initially ordered the wins vacated in 2016 but the school filed an appeal, which was denied Tuesday. (Other sanctions included a year of probation, a $5,000 fine and a show-cause order against the trainer accused of facilitating the academic fraud.)”

Notre Dame got what it deserved. This was the right thing to do by the NCAA. But as you may ask “Well why did you say it was not fair?” Well, let’s take a look at the University of North Carolina academic scandal.

Many may remember in October 2017, UNC was awaiting on a ruling about possible sanctions against their school for possible academic violations (both “possibles” in this sentence are key words). The NCAA could not conclude as to whether there were any violations when the evidence was clearly against the school. Essentially, UNC created a sham course that players took to help with their academics. How they got around possibly getting sanctions was that the school allowed non-athlete students to take the class. It was a clever way of getting around possible sanctions, but ethically this was absurd. The school should be ashamed of themselves for doing what they did. It may not have been academic fraud on a technicality, but that’s what it really was. It may not have been a course designed to benefit student-athletes, but that’s what it really was.

While it may not have been an academic scandal, the recent sanctions handed down from the NCAA to Louisville from something that was out of the school’s hands, was harder than what may have been warranted. UNC got lucky. Notre Dame got slighted.

Now to the topic about whether it was fair. If UNC got off scot free, then yes, it was unfair to Notre Dame. It was the right ruling, but it was not fair. What happened with the players who allowed this was something that may not have been preventable by the school. However, I do not know whether or not they knew and we will probably never know the full story, but it sounds like something that Notre Dame may not have been able to detect and prevent. As to what UNC did, it’s clear they knew what they were doing and that it is wrong. The fact that they allowed the class to be available to anyone is literally the only reason why the school did not get in trouble and that’s a load of crock. Same thing as with the Notre Dame scandal, we may or may not ever know what happened, but I cannot stress any more as to how unfair this is. That does not mean Notre Dame shouldn’t be punished, they absolutely should be, but I think the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. As for the case of UNC, while technically there may not be enough evidence to warrant serious punishment, there needed to be something.

If the NCAA cannot figure out how to distinguish or how to properly punish schools for infractions committed like how Notre Dame and UNC did, they need either better leadership or a better legal department and better investigators. If it comes down to the general public making better judgments, then shame on the NCAA. And if situations like this keep happening, then NCAA may fear a loss in not only finances, but also respect as it could turn away a lot of fans. Let’s hope the NCAA can do better especially on the eve of the Larry Nassar Trial and how poorly that was handled. The NCAA needs to learn how to become more competent and how to see things the right way instead of turning the other cheek. If I were the NCAA, doing the right thing would be highly suggested when it comes to ethics.

*The link to the Sports Illustrated article.

*A link to an article about the UNC academic scandal

Some of us were sleeping during this event. Some of us watched most of it until we decided to go to bed. And there were some of us who decided to stay up late for an epic game between two rivals. No it wasn’t Red Sox-Yankees, UNC-Duke, Alabama-Auburn, or even Canadiens-Bruins, but latter of the sports was the same as it was USA vs Canada in the Olympics this year. And no, it wasn’t the men either, it was the women. Coming on the 38th year of the “Miracle on Ice” the United States women’s team beat their arch-rival in a shootout to win the gold medal for first gold medal for the country in 20 years. They also stopped Canada’s run of four straight gold medals. While on the ice it may be bitter, there is a mutual respect between both countries in both sports and politically especially with the fact that Canada’s economy essentially relies on USA’s.

Last night’s game, like the 1980 game, was a grueling game, but it came down to the absolute wire going into the shootout. Once Jocelyne Lamoureux-Davidson scored the game-winner for the U.S., it finally ended one of the best games in hockey history. No, I really mean it, it was that good of a game. However, the heroics didn’t come just from Lamoureux-Davidson, there was also Maddie Rooney, a 20-year old goalie, making a crucial save in overtime, and Monique Lamoureux-Morando’s game-tying goal in the third period.

Just like the 1980 men’s team, the women’s team was not favored as Canada was looked as the probable winner. However, they were not heavily favored as U.S. women’s team is looked at as a very good team, so to call this another “Miracle on Ice” is a bit of a stretch, but it most certainly was not expected and it still was remarkable. Plus, it makes all the better that the women won gold as the U.S. has struggled in these Olympics to win all that many. What else is great about this is that it will help in the rise of interest in women’s sports. Sure, it helped when the women’s national team in soccer on the World Cup in 2015, but it puts female sports further a long in interest and investment. However, in my opinion, the most important thing about this gold medal for the women is patriotism. Considering the political climate the last year, it almost felt like everyone in the United States were able to come together, get away from all the hatred and bickering, and cheer on the women to victory. It honestly felt like a collective sigh for the entire country as politics took a backseat for the day. And on the same day, on the 38th anniversary of the “Miracle on Ice, the women winning gold both brought us pride and made us realize what makes this country great.

38 years ago today was one of the most incredible sports feats in the history of mankind as the United States, an underdog squad, defeated the heavily favored and winner of four straight gold medals, Soviet Union, in the 1980 Olympics in the hockey semi-finals. What was remarkable was that most of the players on the U.S. squad were college players/amateurs. While technically the Soviet players were also amateurs, they also played in the Soviet Championship League which was supposedly on par with the NHL. Pulling off a feat like this was a tall order for the Americans and when they won, it was dubbed the “Miracle on Ice.”

Another thing about this matchup that made things all the more interesting is this was during the Cold War. While technically was never a full-fledged war, the United States and it’s Western allies had an ideological war with the Soviet Union beginning from the end of World War II till the collapse of the USSR in 1991. The world seemed to be on it’s collective end as war between the two countries looked to be inevitable even coming dangerously close with the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. It was essentially communism versus democracy (even though technically the U.S. is a republic), but most importantly it was the fear that nuclear war would break out. There had been some actual wars fought during this time (Korean War and Vietnam War), but never directly between the two main countries.

So during this time, any sporting event that featured both the U.S. and the USSR was looked at with close eyes. Yes, even the Cold War went as far as sporting events. That’s what makes this particular event even more incredible.

The Americans were led by then little known coach Herb Brooks. What helped his squad play so well was his style of play where he consistently kept switching out his lines keeping his team’s endurance, but they were also very physical. The U.S. surprised many in their group play, but they also played convincingly. The Soviets on the other hand absolutely dominated their play even winning some games with double digit amount of goals. When it came to the point the two nations were about to face one another in the medal round, it seemed inevitable that the Soviet Union would win easily as one writer said it would take a miracle for the Americans to win.

That would not be the case. Herb Brooks probably knew his team had a chance at winning.

If you are a hockey fan, this would probably be one of the best games one could watch. It was hard fought and back-and-forth affair. I have watched the replay and it really was fun to watch. The U.S. took a 4-3 lead in the third period with 10 minutes left, but there was plenty of hockey left to play. However, that turned out to be the difference maker in the game. The last 10 minutes, both sides grinded it out in such a grueling game already and that made the game even more exciting. When it came down to the final seconds, broadcaster Al Michaels uttered the famous line: “11 seconds, you’ve got 10 seconds, the countdown going on right now! Morrow, up to Silk. Five seconds left in the game. Do you believe in miracles? YES!”

The U.S. won 4-3 signifying one of the more improbable sporting events a fanatic will ever see. The fact that it is still talked about to this day shows incredible it was. But also it has brought inspiration for the current Olympians at these 2018 Olympics as while most of us were sleeping, the U.S. women’s hockey team defeated Canada for gold in another grueling game that went into a shootout. Yes, the circumstances were a little bit different for the 1980 version (as that wasn’t even the gold medal game and it was also during the time of the Cold War), but the similarities are there. The fact that it came on the same day is remarkable and that they defeated a nation that also had won four straight gold medals. Canada was favored, but this U.S. hockey team also was a very good squad. It might not quite seem like a miracle, but it sure feels like it. “Miracle on Ice” part 2?

The NHL playoffs are one of the most fun and exciting postseasons to watch. I’m not kidding as even a casual fan or someone just casually browsing through channels to watch a sporting event would love it. Every game is intense, heart pounding, gut wrenching, and nerve racking as it can get. They epitomize the best in sports as every game is fun to watch. However, there is one thing that those watchers know: the system is unfair.

A few years ago, the league had to deal with realignment due to Winnipeg getting a team. There were some tough choices like moving the Detroit Red Wings to the Eastern Conference, but it almost seemed fair as to where each team had to play (and honestly, in terms of logistics not tradition, which I will get into later, it was fair). However, there was one problem: how the playoffs were set up.

Each conference has two divisions and the top three teams in terms of points of each division clinch playoff spots and the next best two teams from the conference in overall position clinch the wild card spots. So theoretically, five teams from one division could go to the playoffs. When the playoffs begin, it becomes a bracket of division playoffs then on to the conference championship (then whoever wins that is obviously conference champions before going to the Stanley Cup Finals). Sounds confusing right? Well, it is. Honestly, I don’t even know how they work things out in terms of seeding, where the wild card teams go, and what the seeding is in terms of divisions. Even me trying to describe the playoffs is confusing.

To give you an idea of how it works, lets use the Eastern Conference as an example. On one side of that bracket, the one seed from the Metropolitan division takes on one of the wild cards, while the two and three seeds from the Metropolitan division face each other. The winner of those matchups meet in the next round. On the other side of that bracket, it’s the same deal as the one seed from the Atlantic division plays one of the wild cards and the two and three seeds of the Atlantic division face each other. So, the winner of Metropolitan division side plays the winner of the Atlantic division side for the conference championship. There are more complications than that, but essentially as you can see, it’s flawed.

Flawed? Yeah, it’s flawed and flawed to the point that it’s unfair. Prime example of this unfairness is the Pittsburgh Penguins. I am not a fan of the Penguins as I actually despise them, but even in my dislike for the team, they were slighted in the playoffs. While they proved how good of a team they were last year as they won the Stanley Cup, they did not deserve to have the matchups they had in the first two rounds of the playoffs than they had in the conference finals. The Penguins had to face the Columbus Blue Jackets in the first round and the Washington Capitals in round two (Capitals being not only the best team in the division, but in the league and conference and the Blue Jackets having the three seed, but were also the third best team in the conference). The Penguins should be facing the Blue Jackets in the second round and the Capitals in the conference finals if we are talking about fairness. And if we are talking about fairness, the Blue Jackets and Capitals should not be eliminated in the first and second rounds respectively due to their matchup with the Penguins in the playoffs.

So, how should it be changed? If they are going to keep divisions, they should seed the teams by points earned. The Penguins would have been the two seed in last year’s playoffs. However, if I were commissioner, I would change everything as I would even change the regular season. I would eliminate divisions, had 16 teams per conference, have each team play each other in the conference five times (with each team alternating who has home ice advantage every season) and have the final seven games played against seven selected opponents in the opposite conference. So when playing in the playoffs, the one through eight seeds will be ordered correctly.

What we have now is an unfair playoff system despite how interesting it is. What happened the last two seasons, including last year is utterly ridiculous and unfair. The New York Rangers were the fourth best team in the Eastern Conference, but yet they got what was essentially the seven seed. Plus, how the seeding works in the playoffs is confusing as all get out. Simplifying makes it easier and two of the propositions I suggested makes it simple for seeding. If Gary Bettman, NHL commissioner, can make these changes, the sport would be better. Heck, before realignment, the playoffs were fair as all get out. But now, they need to make the sport better again. Dare I say “Make Hockey Great Again?”

It’s no secret that the commissioner of Major League Baseball, Rob Manfred, wants to change a lot to baseball (some good ideas and some bad), but the one that stands out the most is expansion. The last expansion came twenty years ago when the Arizona Diamondbacks and Tampa Bay Rays (Devil Rays at the time) came into the league. I’m not necessarily saying there should be expansion and that it needs to come now, but it would be interesting if that was the case. And if it is, where should they put teams? One thing to consider if they are expanding is putting one team in each league to balance things out (or moving one team from the National League into American League and putting two teams into the NL or vice versa). That being said, lets look at the candidates for expansion:

Montreal

This city has been the most talked about considering the history of the Expos, how big the area is, and the fact they lost their team to Washington D.C. Lots of fans of the Expos were genuinely upset that the team left, but it was having trouble drawing fans especially after the 1994 Player’s Strike.

Mexico City

It’s no question MLB wants to draw more interest internationally and a perfect place for that would be Mexico City as that means your sport now is played in three countries in North America showing how international the sport can be. Mexico also plays baseball passionately and that would make the sport more popular internationally. However, considering the state of the country financially, socially, and security wise, this might seem like a long shot.

Nashville

Tennessee deserves a baseball team as the state loves the sport despite its affinity for football. However, is the city big enough to support a third major sports team (it will get soccer in the future for sure)? I have been to the city twice, once even for the Winter Meetings, and it’s a great town. I just worry it’s not big enough to support an MLB team.

Memphis

Another Tennessee city here and it’s basically the same situation, is it big enough? There is minor league baseball there, but the question as to whether it can support a team is questionable. Yes there is the NBA, but more than one major professional sports team there? That’s just questionable at best.

Charlotte

North Carolina needs baseball as they are stuck between D.C. and Atlanta for baseball fandom (Atlanta more so because they have been there longer and their fandom is the arguably the biggest in terms how far it stretches in the league). D.C. and Atlanta are five hours away driving wise from North Carolina and baseball fans in the state are basically relegated to sitting at home to watch on their televisions and if they want to see them in person, they have to drive far. Baseball is better in person than on T.V. and that’s why baseball is struggling in the state (though admittedly, basketball is king there). Charlotte makes the most sense where a team should be in the state as it’s the biggest metropolitan area and it’s rapidly becoming a hot spot for people to move to. While there is minor league baseball there, in the near future I could see both Minor League and Major League there.

Portland

This city deserves another professional sports team. All they have is the NBA and MLS and they need more than that (yes, even football needs to come there). The Pacific Northwest needs more baseball as all they have is Seattle. Plus the Mariners’ city is the furthest place to visit for teams, so it would make it easier for the Mariners to travel some where close. However, Portland has proven to be a hot spot for baseball when Minor League Baseball was there.

Vancouver

Continuing with our Pacific Northwest trend, Vancouver is a great spot too and it’s in Canada as well. Canada needs more than one team in the country and Vancouver is a great spot. It’s big enough to hold a team there and it has proven to be passionate with sports with hockey and soccer there. So, why not try there?

Austin

A Texas city that is growing and growing. Plus it’s totally different from the rest of the state, which makes it an attractive spot for the league. Plus baseball is getting big in Texas with the recent success of the Texas Rangers and Houston Astros. It could add more intrigue and more monetary opportunities for MLB.

San Antonio

Continuing the Texas theme, basically use the same logic for Austin, but instead having a more of a Texas feel here. San Antonio is a really cool town, but it feels like an authentic Texas experience. It’s a big enough city to support another team as well.

Oklahoma City

Let’s stay in the Southwest part of the country and look at Oklahoma City. Here is a city that is big enough to hold another sport here as evidenced by being as successful with a major professional sports team with the NBA in town. The Southwest needs more baseball there if they want the sport to become as big as it should be.

Salt Lake City

Might be a long shot here, but here’s a big city that needs more major professional sports teams. Whether baseball will work out there is a big question, but there needs to be more teams in the “Rockies” part of the country. Plus I’m sure the Colorado Rockies would be willing to bring on a close and natural rival here.

Las Vegas

The most controversial of all the possibilities here. In terms of economics and possible support, no question baseball would thrive here. The question is whether it would be ethical to put a team here. Las Vegas is known for it’s gambling in it’s casinos and also how prostitution is legal (though regulated), and we all know how the MLB feels about those especially with gambling as evidenced with the Pete Rose and 1919 White Sox scandals.

San Juan

Probably the longest shot now considering what happened to the country after the hurricane that ravaged the island, but it was the longest shot for a while. Economically it would have been hard for there to be a team there, but MLB wants another team in Latin America.

Indianapolis

Here is a city that could use another major professional sports team with the NBA and NFL there and it being a big enough city in the Midwest. However, the problem is that it’s between Chicago and Cincinnati and that it could budge into the Reds and White Sox/Cubs fan bases.

Louisville

So far, it has shown that it can support an Minor League Baseball team, but it really doesn’t have a major professional sports team. Sure the city is crazed for the University of Louisville and they love the Louisville Bats, but could it support a team from a major league sport? Plus it might affect the fan base for the Cincinnati Reds.

Albuquerque

The Southwest needs more baseball, but is this city a great place to have at least Minor League Baseball? I’m not sure if it could support it or not, but if it is, they should put a team here for sure.

Des Moines

I don’t think the MLB would ever go for this place as it infringes in fan bases for both Chicago teams and it’s too close to St. Louis and Kansas City. It just would never work out there.

Omaha

The College World Series is played here so it only makes sense to put a team here, right? Not necessarily as it’s really close to Kansas City (which the Royals proudly claim and have a minor league affiliation with). It would get in the way of the Royals and possibly Cardinals fan base.

New Orleans

Now to the Southeast parts of the country, this would be a perfect spot for the MLB. However, the city is still recovering from Hurricane Katrina and economically they are still not in good shape. While it’s wishful thinking, I just can’t see the sport working out here until financially and logistically they get back on track.

Havana

We will wait and see what President Trump does with how we look at our relations with Cuba, but if we want to expand into Latin America, then Havana is a perfect place. Yes there are a lot of problems with human rights and economics in the country under the Castro regime, but if things could work out, it’s not a bad option.

Yes it’s a while off before we actually decide on where they will put two more franchises because of financial reasons, but if we were to put two more teams in the league, then you would have to put one in Charlotte for sure. It just makes sense logistically and financially. While I don’t see the league expanding for a while, this make so much sense. If a team was to expand there, it has to be an American League squad. And lastly, Portland should get the last spot. Portland would help so much logistically and financially for the league and teams in the league as the Mariners will finally be able to travel somewhere somewhat close. This will be controversial to most because people feel like Montreal deserves a team. I do not. The city had it’s shot and it proved to me that it does not deserve a baseball team. I talked to former Expos broadcaster Dave Van Horne in 2016 about baseball in Montreal and he told me that you could tell baseball was on it’s way down in the city even before the strike happened and that the strike was a nail on the coffin. That right there lead me to believe baseball will never work there ever again. If it was on a downward spiral 30-40 years ago, why would it work out now? Back then would have proven whether or not baseball could succeed there. From what I heard and seen, it’s proven it can’t. Why Manfred would seriously consider it is beyond my comprehension, but I hope he makes the right choice and does not bring baseball there. Hopefully someone from Montreal can prove me wrong though as there needs to be another team in Canada.

As many know, Las Vegas was able to have a major professional sports franchise in their city when the NHL announced they were expanding to the metropolis. The Vegas Golden Knights are in the midst of their first season and are proving all the critics wrong as they have been very successful so far this season. Will their winning continue? Time will tell. Even if they finally come back to earth, this was a successful season nonetheless. That being said, there is one problem: there are 31 teams. That’s an uneven amount. So that means there has to be one more expansion team. How realignment will work is a different story, but we need to find a 32nd home for the NHL and that will be a difficult task. So let’s look at the candidates:

Quebec City

The Quebec Nordiques were in town for the longest time until they moved to Denver to be the Colorado Avalanche. So it could either be that the NHL wanted to move the team to Denver because they wanted to make sport more popular and would later put a team in Quebec City or Quebec City simply could not support a team. I hope it’s not the latter, but this city certainly breathes hockey and it would be great to have another Canadian city with a hockey team.

Hamilton

Continuing with Canada, Hamilton seems to be another ideal place for hockey. It’s not a particularly big city, but all it needs is hockey and it can succeed. There had always been talks about putting a team in Hamilton, but it never amounted to anything and I think hockey should be in this city.

Saskatoon

Yes, still staying with the Canada theme, but why not? Hockey is a big sport in the country so putting it in another Canadian city would just be fine. There almost was an NHL team there when possibly the St. Louis Blues were supposed to go until the last moment. So there is definitely some interest there, but whether anything will amount to having a team there remains a question.

Kansas City

This city has been talked about having a team for a while, but the problem has been all talk and no action. Hockey is played there and is a great spot for the NHL to look into, but there hasn’t been any serious action. The NHL was once there, but whether they want it there is a big question.

Hartford

This city is a great place to play hockey as the Hartford Whalers were once there before they moved to Raleigh to become the Carolina Hurricanes. I think the city deserves another chance at having a hockey team as New England has proven to be a hockey hot bed.

Houston

Houston is the only city to not have all four major professional sports leagues. So why not give it a chance? I know the league wants to make the sport more popular, especially in Texas, and that’s why they gave Dallas a hockey team. Houston could be a sneaky good option for a 32nd team considering how big of a city it is.

Seattle

The only serious contender so far as there has been an actual filing of an application with the league for a potential expansion team. There has been lots of talk of an NHL team in Seattle as it seems hockey is popular enough there. It also would help having another team in the Pacific Northwest.

Atlanta

The Thrashers were once here until they took off for Winnipeg to become the Jets. If the city could not hold on to them, should they be taken serious for an NHL team?

Oakland/San Francisco

Oakland once had the Oakland Seals in town, but I almost feel like there should be a team in the Bay Area.

Cleveland

There is an AHL team in Cleveland so clearly the interest in a hockey team is there, but with Columbus Blue Jackets in Ohio, it seems like they are Ohio’s team.

Milwaukee

I firmly believe there should be hockey in Wisconsin and Milwaukee is a perfect city for that. It’s a big enough city to have an NHL team, so it should be seriously considered.

Cincinnati

The city is most likely to get a MLS team and they are sports crazed, plus they have US Bank Arena which could host games. Whether people want hockey here is a different question.

Baltimore

Probably would never happen due to the Capitals being a 45 minute drive South, but baseball and football happen in both cities so never say never.

While there could even be 34 teams, I am going to go with the belief that there will only be 32. With that being said, I think the best option is Seattle. It seems like that will be the most likely place anyways, I think it’s also the best option right now.