Connect with us

Published

on

After nearly a month of conversations, the ACC presidents and chancellors voted Friday morning to add Stanford, Cal and SMU, giving the league 18 schools — 17 in football — starting with the 2024-25 season. The protracted conversations gained steam over the past week, as financial models that projected more of a windfall for existing members were enough to garner 12 votes to pass the additions.

The ACC now expands literally from coast to coast, and though there has been pushback on adding teams from several league members — including a pointed statement from the North Carolina board of trustees — the vast majority of presidents ultimately decided this was in the best interest of the ACC, as the SEC, Big Ten and Big 12 have expanded over the past two years. This is, quite frankly, a matter of survival.

So why did this happen and what’s next? ESPN reporters Andrea Adelson, Kyle Bonagura, Heather Dinich, David Hale and Dave Wilson answer those questions and more.

Jump to:
How does this affect FSU, Clemson?
What now for Wazzu and Oregon State?
College Football Playoff impact


Why is the ACC doing this now?

There are two primary reasons for expanding. The first is money. The second is security.

On the financial front, Stanford, Cal and SMU have all agreed to forgo a sizable portion of TV revenue the ACC generates by adding teams. Sources indicated that SMU is expected to take no television money for nine years, while Cal and Stanford are expected to initially join at approximately 30% shares.

That would create a pool of between $50 million and $60 million annually to divide among ACC schools. Some of that would be distributed to all members, and the rest would be put into a pool for success initiatives. Those initiatives, which were passed in May and would begin next season, are based on performance in revenue-generating postseason competition — more specifically, the College Football Playoff and NCAA men’s and women’s basketball tournaments. A larger share of that revenue will go to the teams participating rather than getting divided equally among all members.

This money can alleviate some of the financial stress that has been a dark cloud hanging over the ACC since the SEC and Big Ten inked lucrative new TV deals over the past few years. It’s not a long-term solution, and it certainly doesn’t instantly put ACC teams on par with schools in those other two leagues, but it’s a needed Band-Aid at a time when some programs were making a lot of noise about revenue concerns.

Having said that, Florida State has been pushing for a change in the revenue distribution model when it comes to the current television payouts for existing members. Currently, that money is divided equally among league members. But Florida State athletic director Michael Alford has pushed for that money to be distributed based on each school’s value to the television deal — including ratings, brand and marketability. ACC presidents have not been willing to consider this plan, but that does not mean Florida State will give up the fight to keep pushing for it.

But the fallout for the Pac-12 also offered its own lesson to the rest of the ACC. As one league administrator said, “no one wants to end up like Oregon State and Washington State.” Jim Phillips routinely touted the ACC’s standing as a clear No. 3 in the conference pecking order, but the Big 12 made waves by adding Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah, and that league also has a chance to negotiate another new TV deal six years before the ACC will. That at least left the door open to a Plan B for schools unlikely to get an offer from the Big Ten or SEC, meaning an all-out collapse of the ACC wasn’t entirely impossible. On the heels of seeing it happen to the Pac-12, a number of ACC presidents wanted assurances against dissolution. Adding three new teams changes the math enough as to make that all but impossible. “It’s strength in numbers,” one AD said and “essentially a math problem,” another added. Even if the big brands ultimately go elsewhere, Stanford, Cal and SMU provide enough of a cushion to keep the league afloat. — David Hale and Andrea Adelson


How does this affect the short- and long-term plans of FSU and Clemson?

The immediate future for Florida State and Clemson was always going to be murky, and this probably doesn’t change that much. But a decision to challenge the ACC’s grant of rights — which gives the league rights to each school’s media packages through 2036 — comes with some serious legal and financial peril. To challenge the document in court isn’t anyone’s idea of an easy exit strategy. It still might be the only long-term option for the biggest brands, but this move could at least delay the process. Each year FSU or Clemson can wait to leave, the cost of doing so gets a little smaller, so if added revenue through expansion helps bridge the short-term gap, the definition of long term gets a little more manageable. As one ACC administrator put it, a lot can change in five years. It’s entirely possible the whole collegiate system looks entirely different by then. Buying time via expansion has real value in allowing schools contemplating departure to get more information about what the future holds before making a final decision. — Hale


How will the ACC address travel and logistical issues?

The ACC has run a number of models looking at ways to reduce travel and limit the impact on its athletes, but the reality is impossible to ignore: Stanford’s campus is 3,100 miles from Miami’s, and nothing the ACC does can shrink that distance. In the end, one administrator said, it’s a trade-off that had to be made. Other conferences are moving to become more national, and the ACC is simply following suit. No one likes the logistical component of cross-country travel, but the extra revenue can at least help make it an easier pill to swallow. — Hale


What’s next for Washington State and Oregon State?

The easiest, most obvious option is probably what will happen: go to the Mountain West as a package deal. Culturally, geographically and — what is shockingly rare in realignment — logically, it just makes sense. The more complicated possibility is for the Beavers and Cougars to forge ahead as the two “refounding” members of the Pac-whatever. The thought with this route is that it could possibly allow the schools to claim whatever the conference still has, plus additional units yet to be distributed. The question then becomes who can they get to join? None of the MWC schools could justify leaving on their own and the possibility that nine would vote to dissolve the conference to join WSU and OSU for branding purposes doesn’t make sense. It’s hard to imagine either as an independent in football, either. — Kyle Bonagura


What does no TV revenue mean for SMU?

SMU has been stewing since the Southwest Conference played its last football game in December 1995, when Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and — most galling to the Mustangs — Baylor, a similarly sized private school, ventured north to merge with the Big Eight and form the Big 12. Since then, they’ve seen Gary Patterson win big at TCU and get enough financial backing to storm back into the Big 12. They’ve seen Houston do the same. Only the Mustangs and Rice remain from the SWC’s left-behinds. So they’re taking drastic measures, offering to forgo any television revenue for nine years, and are in the midst of a $250 million athletics makeover, including a $100 million expansion of Gerald J. Ford Stadium, sparked by a $50 million donation by the Garry Weber Foundation, the biggest gift in SMU athletics history. The Mustangs’ 1980s financial flex is now a strength in the modern era of college football, and they’re banking on boosters — who have expressed their willingness to help boost SMU back to the Power 5 — becoming reenergized by a return to big-time football and covering the lack of television revenue they’ll be forgoing by leaving the guaranteed AAC money behind and not getting any in return from the ACC. — Dave Wilson


What comes next for the College Football Playoff?

The CFP’s management committee, which is composed of the 10 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick, will revisit the format of the 12-team playoff, which begins next season. The current model includes the six highest-ranked conference champions, plus the next six highest-ranked teams, which would typically reward five Power 5 champions, plus a Group of 5 winner. Without the Pac-12, though, they have discussed a 5+7 model, which would include the five highest-ranked conference champions and seven at-large teams. While the idea of 12 at-large teams has been discussed, there doesn’t seem to be much traction for it, though the commissioners didn’t have an in-depth discussion about it yet.

At their most recent in-person meeting in late August, Mid-American Conference commissioner Jon Steinbrecher said moving forward, the principle of honoring conference champions should remain important. “I think that’s a bedrock principle of what we are doing and what we’ve built into this,” he said. “I think it’s important that that is continued as we move forward. Depending on number of conferences we have, I think you can have a legitimate conversation about the number of champions that are set here, as well as the number of at-larges, but to me you start with the bedrock principle and I think it’s important we keep that in there. I felt good coming out of that conversation. Didn’t take any sort of hands, I just felt good about that conversation.”

While the commissioners are expected to have monthly meetings until all of the details to implement the 12-team format are done, their next in-person meeting is later this month at the Big Ten headquarters in Rosemont, Illinois. The ACC’s expansion will also trigger more discussions about how playoff revenue will be distributed. The CFP and ESPN, which is the sole media rightsholder through the duration of the 12-year contract, have to determine if ESPN will remain the lone broadcast partner for the additional games until the contract expires after the 2025 season. — Heather Dinich

Continue Reading

Sports

Granlund nets 3 for Stars, but ‘job is not done’

Published

on

By

Granlund nets 3 for Stars, but 'job is not done'

The Dallas Stars3-1 win in Game 4 against the Winnipeg Jets on Tuesday night was a contrast in offensive efficiency. The Jets converted just once on 72 shot attempts. Dallas center Mikael Granlund, meanwhile, needed only three shot attempts in the game to score three goals. His hat trick was all the offense the Stars needed to take a commanding 3-1 series lead, moving one win away from their third straight trip to the Western Conference finals.

“Obviously, the job is not done. We’ve got a lot of work to do. [But] that was a good win,” Granlund said.

It was the first career hat trick for Granlund, a 13-year veteran whom the Stars acquired from the San Jose Sharks in a trade back in February. Three goals on three shots, all of them sailing past Jets goalie Connor Hellebuyck, who remained winless on the road in the 2025 postseason.

Granlund’s first goal came at 8:36 on the power play, as he skated in on three Jets defensemen and fired a snap shot past Hellebuyck from the top of the slot.

“I was just shooting it somewhere and it went in,” Granlund said.

“I got a clean enough look. It was just a damn perfect shot, just above my pad and below my glove,” Hellebuyck lamented.

“Obviously, he probably wants the first one back, the wrister,” Jets coach Scott Arniel said of Hellebuyck. “At the end of the day, we’ve got to get him some run support. Get him a lead.”

Granlund’s second shot and second goal came on a play started by Mikko Rantanen, whose league-leading point total now stands at 19 for the playoffs. His outlet pass found Granlund in the neutral zone, sparking a 2-on-1 with Roope Hintz. Granlund kept the puck and roofed it to give Dallas a 2-1 lead after Nik Ehlers had tied the game for Winnipeg earlier in the second period.

“When you pass all the time, you can surprise the goalie sometimes when you shoot the puck. It’s good to shoot once in a while,” said Granlund, who had twice as many assists (44) as goals (22) in the regular season.

Granlund’s third and final shot attempt of the game was on another Dallas power play in the third period, following a double-minor penalty to defenseman Haydn Fleury for high-sticking Hintz.

Defenseman Miro Heiskanen, in the lineup for the first time since Jan. 28 after missing the last 32 regular-season games and first 10 playoff games because of a knee injury, collected the puck after Matt Duchene rang it off the post. Heiskanen slid it over to Granlund for a one-timer that brought him to his knees on the ice. After the shot beat Hellebuyck at 7:23 of the third period, waves of hats hit the ice in celebration of Granlund’s three-goal night.

It was fitting that Rantanen and Heiskanen had points on Granlund’s hat trick. This was the first game that the Stars’ so-called “Finnish Mafia” played together, as Heiskanen was injured before Granlund and Rantanen joined the team. Those three skaters joined countrymen Hintz and defenseman Esa Lindell in helping Dallas to victory.

“It was fun for sure. Fun to finally be on the ice with them,” Heiskanen said.

Goaltender Jake Oettinger did the rest with 31 saves, many of them on dangerous Winnipeg chances. But in the end, all the Stars needed were three shot attempts, while the Jets’ voluminous offensive night produced only one goal.

“Oettinger made some big stops. But we had 70 shot attempts. We have to get more than one goal,” Arniel said. “If we can’t find more than one goal, we’re not going to win hockey games, especially [against] this team.”

Dallas will attempt to close out the series on Thursday night in Winnipeg.

Continue Reading

Sports

What to know about MLB lifting ban on Pete Rose, ‘Shoeless’ Joe Jackson

Published

on

By

What to know about MLB lifting ban on Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson

Pete Rose, Joe Jackson, seven other members of the 1919 Chicago “Black Sox”, six other former players, one coach and one former owner are now eligible to be voted on for the Hall of Fame after commissioner Rob Manfred removed them from Major League Baseball’s permanently ineligible list.

Hall of Fame chairwoman Jane Forbes Clark said in a statement: “The National Baseball Hall of Fame has always maintained that anyone removed from Baseball’s permanently ineligible list will become eligible for Hall of Fame consideration. Major League Baseball’s decision to remove deceased individuals from the permanently ineligible list will allow for the Hall of Fame candidacy of such individuals to now be considered.”

Due to Hall of Fame voting procedures, Rose and Jackson won’t be eligible to be voted on until the Classic Era Baseball committee, which votes on individuals who made their biggest impact prior to 1980, meets in December of 2027.

Let’s dig into what all this means.


Why were these players banned?

All individuals on the banned list who were reinstated had been permanently ineligible due to accusations related to gambling related to baseball — either throwing games, accepting bribes, or like Rose, betting on baseball games.

Most of the banned players, including Jackson and his seven Chicago White Sox teammates who threw the 1919 World Series, played in the 1910s, when gambling in baseball was widespread. As historian Bill James once wrote, “Few simplifications of memory are as bizarre as the notion that the Black Sox scandal hit baseball out of the blue. … In fact, of course, the Black Sox scandal was merely the largest wart of a disease that had infested baseball at least a dozen years earlier and had grown, unchecked, to ravage the features of a generation.”

The most famous player, of course, was Jackson, one of baseball’s biggest stars alongside Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker in the 1910s. While many have tried to exonerate Jackson through the years, pointing out that he hit .375 in the 1919 World Series, baseball historians agree that Jackson was a willing participant in throwing the World Series and accepted money from the gambling ring that paid off the White Sox players.

While the White Sox players were acquitted in a criminal trial in 1921, commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis banned the eight players in a statement that began with the words “Regardless of the verdict of juries …”

If there was an innocent member in the group, it was third baseman Buck Weaver, not Jackson. Weaver had participated in meetings where the fixing of the World Series was discussed, and Landis banned him for life for guilty knowledge.

As for Rose, he was banned in 1989 by commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti for betting on games while he was manager of the Cincinnati Reds, including those involving his own team. While Rose denied the accusations for years, he eventually confessed. He died last September at age 83.


Who else is impacted?

Phillies owner William Cox was banned in 1943 and forced to sell the team for betting on games. Cox had just purchased the team earlier that season. None of the other non-White Sox players are of major significance, although Benny Kauff was the big star of the Federal League in 1914-15, winning the batting title both seasons. The Federal League was a breakoff league that attempted to challenge the National and American leagues.


When is the soonest Rose and Jackson could go into the Hall of Fame?

The Hall of Fame voting process for players not considered by the Baseball Writers’ Association of America — such as Rose and Jackson, who never appeared on the ballot due to their banned status — includes two eras: the Contemporary Baseball Era (1980 to present) and the Classic Baseball Era (pre-1980). The voting periods are already set:

December 2025: Player ballot for the Contemporary Era.

December 2026: Contemporary Era ballot for managers, executives and umpires.

December 2027: Classic Era ballot for players, managers, executives and umpires.

Each committee has an initial screening to place eight candidates on the ballot, so Rose and Jackson will first have to make the ballot. While it’s unclear how a future screening committee will proceed, it’s possible that both will make the ballot. While comparisons to players with PED allegations aren’t exactly apples to apples — since they were never placed on the ineligible list — it’s worth noting that Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Rafael Palmeiro were included on the eight-player Contemporary Era ballot in 2023.

Once the ballot is determined — a 16-person committee consisting of Hall of Fame players, longtime executives and media members or historians — convenes and votes. A candidate must receive 12 votes to get selected. In the most recent election in December, Dave Parker and Dick Allen were on the Classic Era ballot.


Which players have the best HOF cases?

Obviously, Rose would have been a slam-dunk Hall of Famer had he never bet on baseball and had he appeared on the BBWAA ballot after his career ended. The all-time MLB leader with 4,256 hits, Rose won three batting titles and was the 1973 NL MVP. And while he’s overrated in a sense — his 79.6 career WAR is more in line with the likes of Jeff Bagwell, Brooks Robinson and Robin Yount than all-time elite superstars — and hung on well past his prime to break Ty Cobb’s hits record, his popularity and fame would have made him an inner-circle Hall of Famer.

Whether he’ll get support now is complicated. Bonds and Clemens both received fewer than four votes in 2023. The committee usually consists of eight former players, and they may not support Rose given the one hard and fast rule that every player knows: You can’t bet on the game.

Jackson, meanwhile, was a star of the deadball era, hitting .408 in 1911 and .356 in his career, an average that ranks fourth all time behind only Cobb, Negro Leagues star Oscar Charleston and Rogers Hornsby. He finished with 62.2 WAR and 1,772 hits in a career that ended at age 32 due to the ban. Those figures would be low for a Hall of Fame selection, although the era committees did recently elect Allen and Tony Oliva, both of whom finished with fewer than 2,000 hits. And again, it is hard to say how the committee will view Jackson’s connection to gambling on the sport.

The only other reinstated player with a semblance of a chance to get on a ballot is pitcher Eddie Cicotte, who won 209 games and finished with 59.7 WAR. While his final season came at 36, the knuckleballer was still going strong, having won 29 games for the White Sox in 1919 and 21 in 1920 before Landis banned him.

For what it’s worth, the top position players in career WAR who made their mark prior to 1980 and aren’t in the Hall of Fame are Rose, Bill Dahlen (75.3), Bobby Grich (71.0), Graig Nettles (67.6), Reggie Smith (64.6), Ken Boyer (62.8), Jackson and Sal Bando (61.5).

Pitching candidates would include Luis Tiant (65.7), Tommy John (61.6) and Wes Ferrell (60.1). John was on the recent ballot and received seven votes. Others on that ballot included Steve Garvey, Boyer, Negro Leagues pitcher John Donaldson, Negro Leagues manager Vic Harris and Tiant.

Other potential pre-1980 candidates could include Thurman Munson, Bert Campaneris, Dave Concepcion and Stan Hack.

Continue Reading

Sports

Who has won the Preakness Stakes? All-time winners list

Published

on

By

Who has won the Preakness Stakes? All-time winners list

Since its inception in 1873, the Preakness Stakes has become one of the most prestigious horse races in the world. Following the Kentucky Derby and preceding the Belmont Stakes each year, the Preakness Stakes take place on the third Saturday in May at Pimlico Race Course in Baltimore, Maryland.

Check out the all-time winning horses and jockeys in Preakness Stakes history.

  • 2024: Seize The Grey, Jaime Torres

  • 2023: National Treasure, John Velazquez

  • 2022: Early Voting, Jose Ortiz

  • 2021: Rombauer, Flavien Prat

  • 2020: Swiss Skydiver, Robby Albarado

  • 2019: War of Will, Tyler Gaffalione

  • 2018: Justify, Mike Smith

  • 2017: Cloud Computing, Javier Castellano

  • 2016: Exaggerator, Kent Desormeaux

  • 2015: American Pharoah, Victor Espinoza

  • 2014: California Chrome, Victor Espinoza

  • 2013: Oxbow, Gary Stevens

  • 2012: I’ll Have Another, Mario Gutierrez

  • 2011: Shackleford, Jesus Castenon

  • 2010: Lookin at Lucky, Martin Garcia

  • 2009: Rachel Alexandra, Calvin Borel

  • 2008: Big Brown, Kent Desormeaux

  • 2007: Curlin, Robby Albarado

  • 2006: Bernadini, Tom Albertrani

  • 2005: Afleet Alex, Jeremy Rose

  • 2004: Smarty Jones, Stewart Elliott

  • 2003: Funny Cide, José Santos

  • 2002: War Emblem, Victor Espinoza

  • 2001: Point Given, Gary Stevens

  • 2000: Red Bullet, Jerry Bailey

  • 1999: Charismatic, Chris Antley

  • 1998: Real Quiet, Kent Desormeaux

  • 1997: Silver Charm, Gary Stevens

  • 1996: Louis Quatorze, Pat Day

  • 1995: Timber Country, Pat Day

  • 1994: Tabasco Cat, Pat Day

  • 1993: Prairie Bayou, Matt Smith

  • 1992: Pine Bluff, Chris McCarron

  • 1991: Hansel, Jerry Bailey

  • 1990: Summer Squall, Pat Day

  • 1989: Sunday Silence, Pat Valenzuela

  • 1988: Risen Star, Eddie Delahoussaye

  • 1987: Alysheba, Chris McCarron

  • 1986: Snow Chief, Alex Solis

  • 1985: Tank’s Prospect, Pat Day

  • 1984: Gate Dancer, Angel Cordero Jr.

  • 1983: Deputed Testamony, Donald Miller Jr.

  • 1982: Aloma’s Ruler, Jack Kaenel

  • 1981: Pleasant Colony, Jorge Velásquez

  • 1980: Codex, Angel Cordero Jr.

  • 1979: Spectacular Bid, Ron Franklin

  • 1978: Affirmed, Steve Cauthen

  • 1977: Seattle Slew, Jean Cruguet

  • 1976: Elocutionist, John Lively

  • 1975: Master Derby, Darrell McHargue

  • 1974: Little Current, Miguel Rivera

  • 1973: Secretariat, Ron Turcotte

  • 1972: Bee Bee Bee, Eldon Nelson

  • 1971: Canonero II, Gustavo Avila

  • 1970: Personality, Eddie Belmonte

  • 1969: Majestic Prince, Bill Hartack

  • 1968: Forward Pass, Ismael Valenzuela

  • 1967: Damascus, Bill Shoemaker

  • 1966: Kauai King, Don Brumfield

  • 1965: Tom Rolfe, Bill Shoemaker

  • 1964: Northern Dancer, Bill Hartack

  • 1963: Candy Spots, Bill Shoemaker

  • 1962: Greek Money, John Rotz

  • 1961: Carry Back, John Sellers

  • 1960: Bally Ache, Bob Ussery

  • 1959: Royal Orbit, William Harmatz

  • 1958: Tim Tam, Ismael Valenzuela

  • 1957: Bold Ruler, Eddie Arcaro

  • 1956: Fabius, Bill Hartack

  • 1955: Nashua, Eddie Arcaro

  • 1954: Hasty Road, John Adams

  • 1953: Native Dancer, Eric Guerin

  • 1952: Blue Man, Conn McCreary

  • 1951: Bold, Eddie Arcaro

  • 1950: Hill Prince, Eddie Arcaro

  • 1949: Capot, Ted Atkinson

  • 1948: Citation, Eddie Arcaro

  • 1947: Faultless, Doug Dodson

  • 1946: Assault, Warren Mehrtens

  • 1945: Polynesian, W.D. Wright

  • 1944: Pensive, Conn McCreary

  • 1943: Count Fleet, Johnny Longden

  • 1942: Alsab, Basil James

  • 1941: Whirlaway, Eddie Arcaro

  • 1940: Bimelech, F.A. Smith

  • 1939: Challedon, George Seabo

  • 1938: Dauber, Maurice Peters

  • 1937: War Admiral, Charley Kurtsinger

  • 1936: Bold Venture, George Woolf

  • 1935: Omaha, Willie Saunders

  • 1934: High Quest, Robert Jones

  • 1933: Head Play, Charley Kurtsinger

  • 1932: Burgoo King, Eugene James

  • 1931: Mate, George Ellis

  • 1930: Gallant Fox, Earl Sande

  • 1929: Dr. Freeland, Louis Schaefer

  • 1928: Victorian, Sonny Workman

  • 1927: Bostonian, Whitey Abel

  • 1926: Display, John Maiben

  • 1925: Coventry, Clarence Kummer

  • 1924: Nellie Morse, John Merimee

  • 1923: Vigil, Benny Marinelli

  • 1922: Pillory, L. Morris

  • 1921: Broomspun, Frank Coltiletti

  • 1920: Man o’ War, Clarence Kummer

  • 1919: Sir Barton, Johnny Loftus

  • 1918: Jack Hare Jr., Charles Peak; War Cloud, Johnny Loftus

  • 1917: Kalitan, E. Haynes

  • 1916: Damrosch, Linus McAtee

  • 1915: Rhine Maiden, Douglas Hoffman

  • 1914: Holiday, Andy Shuttinger

  • 1913: Buskin, James Butwell

  • 1912: Colonel Holloway, Clarence Turner

  • 1911: Watervale, Eddie Dugan

  • 1910: Layminster, Roy Estep

  • 1909: Effendi, Willie Doyle

  • 1908: Royal Tourist, Eddie Dugan

  • 1907: Don Enrique, G. Mountain

  • 1906: Whimsical, Walter Miller

  • 1905: Cairngorm, W. Davis

  • 1904: Bryn Mawr, E. Hildebrand

  • 1903: Flocarline, W. Gannon

  • 1902: Old England, L. Jackson

  • 1901: The Parader, F. Landry

  • 1900: Hindus, H. Spencer

  • 1899: Half time, R. Clawson

  • 1898: Sly Fox, Willie Simms

  • 1897: Paul Kauvar, T. Thorpe

  • 1896: Margrave, Henry Griffin

  • 1895: Belmar, Fred Taral

  • 1894: Assignee, Fred Taral

  • 1893: No race

  • 1892: No race

  • 1891: No race

  • 1890: Montague, W. Martin

  • 1889: Buddhist, George B. Anderson

  • 1888: Refund, Fred Littlefield

  • 1887: Dunboyne, William Donohue

  • 1886: The Bard, S. Fisher

  • 1885: Tecumseh, Jim McLaughlin

  • 1884: Knight of Ellerslie, S. Fisher

  • 1883: Jacobus, George Barbee

  • 1882: Vanguard, T. Costello

  • 1881: Saunterer, T. Costello

  • 1880: Grenada, Lloyd Hughes

  • 1879: Harold, Lloyd Hughes

  • 1878: Duke of Magenta, C. Holloway

  • 1877: Cloverbrook, C. Holloway

  • 1876: Shirley, George Barbee

  • 1875: Tom Ochiltree, Lloyd Hughes

  • 1874: Culpepper, William Donohue

  • 1873: Survivor, George Barbee

  • Continue Reading

    Trending