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.

 

As you may know by this point that the XFL will try again and start up in 2020. Now that the announcement is here, Vince McMahon needs to work quickly to working out all the logistics. First and foremost, where will teams play? There are lots of opportunities as there are tons of cities without a professional football team there. That’s where McMahon should target for his league. But where are they you may ask? Well, considering there are eight teams that will be the first to play when the new incarnation of the league begins, places that the NFL abandoned would be great options. I have come up with eight best places the XFL should land their new brand and hope it can become something big.

St. Louis

While I never thought the city could ever hold an NFL franchise (as evidenced by two teams moving out) as it’s mostly baseball and hockey crazed, I think it could work. However, there are still football fans there and putting an XFL team there will be perfect and it will likely thrive.

San Diego

For the citizens of the city, they still feel slighted about the Chargers moving to Los Angeles without supposedly getting any support from the team to get a new stadium. Football is big in the city and lots the citizens would probably feel great finally sticking it to Dean Spanos and the Chargers.

Columbus

With the possibility of losing the Major League Soccer franchise Columbus Crew, the city will probably want another professional franchise. The state loves football and a city like Columbus would be a perfect spot for an XFL team.

San Antonio

A city that deserves an NFL team and in a state that is football crazed year round (and that isn’t even a joke), San Antonio is a perfect spot for an XFL team. It could thrive there and also could help make XFL look really good if they put a team there.

Orlando

The city is big enough to support football and it would also be around Disney World which would help draw a lot of fans. If they made the fan experience family friendly, they could really strike gold here.

Memphis

Now this is a place that I feel like the XFL could do well in, but the city really hasn’t proven that it could hold a football team. However, it also hasn’t proven that it can’t either. This would be more of an experiment, but Tennessee likes it’s football and Memphis is a big enough city in my opinion where it could hold a team.

Salt Lake City

Why hasn’t anyone given this city a chance? Salt Lake City is a big enough city to hold a couple of major professional teams (as evidenced with MLS and NBA being there). Football might be a perfect opportunity to make the city even more attractive.

Birmingham

Nabbing the eighth and final spot is Birmingham. This I could see working out really well as football is a religion in Alabama especially with the Alabama-Auburn college football rivalry being as big as it is there. XFL might thrive in this city because of how football is seen there. Especially when the college football season ends, people might want to see some more football.

Missing the cut:

Oklahoma City

Portland

Norfolk

Hartford

Sacramento

Louisville

These cities are also deserving, but would have to wait until the next round of expansion because if the XFL wants to continue to thrive, they have to expand the product. And these places absolutely need to have teams for the next wave expansion anyways.

 

Notre Dame has been an independent school in college football since the program started in 1887, so to say that not playing in a conference has become a tradition. Notre Dame has been one of the most successful college football programs as they have won 11 national championships (though the NCAA recognizes them to have 13). So things have been great for the school, but once the NCAA introduced the College Football Playoffs in 2014, every thing changed.

That leads me to what I will be talking about in this article. There seemingly was a change in narrative as to whether Notre Dame should stay independent and join a conference. The conference that seems the most ideal for the school to join is the Big Ten. The team already has some rivalries with schools like University of Michigan so it would only seem natural to put them in there. But is it actually a good idea to have Notre Dame join the Big Ten? Lets take a look at the pros and cons if they do move:

Pros

Makes the Big Ten considerably better

Notre Dame has a long tradition of winning and also was ranked 11th in the final rankings of the season. It would make the Big Ten stronger. If they were to join, the best division to join would be the West division as it makes sense geographically and the division was also not that strong compared to the East as it was won easily by Wisconsin. The West division would get stronger too, and by a lot.

Fixes the playoff issue

With not being in a conference, it makes it considerably harder to decide if you should be in the playoffs. With joining the Big Ten, one of the power five conferences, they have an easier and more fair opportunity to show that they deserve to play in the playoffs with a chance to possibly win the Big Ten championship. Otherwise they would have to play 13 games as an independent to prove their worth.

Develop rivalries with other schools

The really great thing about joining the Big Ten would be joining a conference rich of history and with very strong programs like Ohio State, Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Michigan in it. If they were joining the conference, they could develop rivalries with these other schools, which could help bolster the conference’s image too. Fans love rivalries and that would bring more money for the conference.

More and more money for the conference

Like I had mentioned in my last pro point is that rivalries brings in more money. But Notre Dame itself is a brand that could bring money even without the rivalries. Notre Dame not only is one of the most successful schools in college football history, it’s also one of the most popular. It has a fanbase that is national basically touching from coast to coast. That would bring in a lot more money for the Big Ten.

Cons

The NBC Television Contract

Notre Dame has a special relationship with NBC to televise their games, which in terms gives the school lots of money. If they were to move to the Big Ten, they would likely lose that and in result lose lots of potential money. The Big Ten has their own network and having Notre Dame move over would be a cluster of problems.

Scheduling flexibility

What’s great about Notre Dame being an independent is scheduling anyone they want. And because of that, it allows them to schedule as strong of one as possible. Plus they also have traditional games like against Stanford or against Navy and that would be a problem too if they were to move to the Big Ten.

It would regionalize the school

As mentioned earlier was that it would bring in more fans which reach from coast to coast (I would know as my aunt is a fan and she lives in San Diego). That’s great, but if there was a move to the Big Ten, it would slowly erode at the fan base. It may take a while for it to finally erode a lot, but making it a regional team essentially would hurt the team (as people all around the country can just tune into NBC to watch them play).

So you’re probably thinking that the pros here outweighs the cons, but that would not be the case as it might be more so that it’s either pretty even or the cons actually outweigh the pros. I personally would love to see Notre Dame in the Big Ten, but that’s a fan’s perspective and not from a businessman’s perspective. From a business point of view, it could hurt a lot. So purely from a monetary standpoint, they need to stay as an independent. Eventually I see the school joining a conference, but not in the near future and probably not the Big Ten.

To say that this past season’s picks for the college football playoffs was controversial is an understatement. People criticized the selection committee for favoritism and I personally think there might be some truth to it. That being said, the committee got this right. Before I get to what was debated, the committee absolutely picked the four most deserving teams for the playoffs. You can make a case that Ohio State was more deserving than Alabama because their strength of schedule was greater and had more Top 25 victories, but their 31 point loss to Iowa is what ultimately hurt them. Then there is also the argument that University of Central Florida, who went undefeated for the season, should have had a chance to go at it in the playoffs even after they beat an Auburn squad in the Peach Bowl who beat both teams who played in the Championship Game (Alabama and University of Georgia). There were a few other arguments made, but as one can tell, there was a lot of controversy surrounding the decision. Every year there is controversy, but there seems to be more around this past one’s edition. That being said, there is only one solution to this problem, expand the playoffs.

That playoffs are already great right now, but to bring more excitement, money, and fairness, the playoffs need four more teams. Honestly, it would be totally beneficial to the NCAA if they expanded the playoffs and this is a no brainer.

How the NCAA will go about those logistics? That’s ultimately up to them, but here is something I propose to accommodate their season’s length. I am not too much of a fan of non-conference games, but I recognize some are needed. I say get rid of one of those scheduled weeks for non-conference games in order to keep the same amount of possible games played for a school in the season. If fifteen possible games is what the NCAA, schools, TV, and fans want, then scrap the shortening of the regular season idea. Alabama played a possible 14 games this year including the playoffs, which is a lot, and playing more might have caused some problems.

Now lets look into what the field would have looked like with the final Top 25 rankings had the eight-team playoff been in effect:

1. Alabama

2. Georgia

3. Oklahoma

4. Clemson

5. Ohio State

6. UCF

7. Wisconsin

8. Penn State

Missing out:

9. TCU

10. Auburn

The only qualm I have with this is having Auburn not considered in the top eight. They had beaten both Alabama and Georgia and had a good loss to a Clemson squad. The LSU loss hurt them (even though they finished 18th) a lot as LSU had lost to Troy earlier in the season and even Mississippi State when they were unranked though Mississippi State finished 19th. But four losses looks bad for Auburn and three would have been hard to argue if there was an eight team playoff. Otherwise, this looks fair. I would have put Auburn in the seven seed, shifted Wisconsin down to eight, and had Penn State miss out (though they deservedly should have been there too). Another notable team to miss out was Notre Dame who finished 11th in the rankings as they had a great season. This past college football calendar year was one of the most exciting ones in recent seasons so this would have been a tough field to pick out had the eight team playoff been in effect.

Ultimately, I think they need to expand the playoffs to avoid controversies like some I had mentioned earlier. Not only would it help expel that, it could also generate more revenue for the NCAA and more interest. In my other article about the XFL, I mentioned some of the things that could hurt College Football if the XFL does indeed start playing. That would mean the NCAA would have to find ways to compete and adapt with the XFL and this should be one of their starting points. But even without the XFL factoring in, the College Football Playoffs not only should expand, it’s necessary for them. Besides, just imagine all the classic games it could provide. I know I would tune in more.

Just recently Vince McMahon, entrepreneur and owner of World Wrestling Entertainment, announced the reincarnation of the XFL for 2020. Back in 2001, there was lots of promise for the league except there was one problem, itself. There wasn’t much talent being played to make things exciting and other bad business deals which led it to end after just one season.

McMahon did not market it as well as he could have and it ended up as a bust. But with this renewal of the league, could it work? Why yes, and more successfully than you think. One thing is opportunity. The XFL could be used as a feeder league into the NFL as it is a requirement for players to enter the NFL draft three years after high school and that is one way to use your career in the XFL and another benefit is that you could get paid. Many may remember the whole Maurice Clarett story where he tried to challenge that rule as he made the case that he was of age where he should be able make the money he wants to make (he ultimately lost the case, but he started a big debate about that rule). When you are 18 in the United States, you are declared as a legal adult and you have the right to enter the work force with no restrictions. College is technically a higher education and not necessarily a necessity in this country (even though it seems to be the status quo after you graduate from high school to go to college in this day of age in the United States), but for the most part college is a requirement in order to play football at the highest level. Is that necessarily fair? I don’t think so, but my opinion about the matter is best saved for later.

So alright, you have opportunity as a reason, what might else be a reason why it could be successful? Opportunity again, but more so of attracting fans than anything else. What I mean by this is that you can attract the fans who have been so put off by the NFL and by going to cities who can’t say they proudly root for a football team in their home town. Places like that are Portland, Oklahoma City, Birmingham, and even San Antonio and you could even try to rival the NFL markets in cities like Chicago or Washington, D.C.

Another way it could be successful is if the league made the rules simple (making the catch rule more clear would be simple, right?) The XFL had some great ideas in its first incarnation like the jump ball rule instead of a coin flip (sure players got hurt on those, but honestly, it beats some of stuff NFL players have to go through).

If anything, the NFL should embrace the XFL as their feeder league as players could be more ready for the NFL when eligible and the players would have more money. The NCAA should worry as that means their talent could be poached and their quality of play would dramatically decrease meaning that would be less money for them as fans and media contracts would be more obligated to watch the product on an XFL field.

McMahon has also said that they will start this in 2020, that is not enough time. So many logistics will be needed if they want to do something like this and two years is not enough. If they want this done in two years, holy heck they will have to do it quickly, and thats why I am not optimistic. Four years is more realistic.

So I was a watcher of the league back when it was on and I loved it even though I didn’t particularly realize the quality of play was lacking, but I know it can succeed this time around. There were talks that it should be played during the NFL season as well, but I couldn’t disagree more as I feel like it should start right after the Super Bowl ends. Lot’s of people crave football, myself included, and having a league like the XFL around would be great once the NFL season is over. Football is a great sport, why should it end in February? Football year round would make things great especially for sports fans who want to watch a prime time game before baseball season starts as the NHL and NBA certainly don’t play those type of prime time games people crave, and MLB even doesn’t even offer that as well. That could lead to some TV contracts that could make a lot of money for the league.

And lastly, something to consider, and I know McMahon has alluded to it, is safety. Football is a rough sport as there is a lot of brutality. The whole CTE situation has certainly hurt the sport and it’s something the NFL is trying to figure out. Concussions are more serious than once thought and some of the hits to the brain from the NFL can lead to serious situations. If McMahon can figure that out, this league could even possibly rival the NFL.

Do I think the NFL has anything to worry about? No, for now and for a long considerable amount of time, but far in the distance it could be a worry. The only place that should have a worry is the NCAA and rightfully so. If the XFL actually proves to be successful, the NCAA will make lots of changes.

What will happen in the future is unclear as the XFL has yet to start, but that being said I really truly think the XFL not only could be successful, but could be embraced fully by the NFL. If that’s the case, the sport of football will get considerably better.