Connect with us

Published

on

At least in theory, 92% of the committee’s job should already be done.

It appears to be a given that Oregon, Penn State, Ohio State, Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Notre Dame and (probably) SMU and Indiana are in.

The winners of the Big 12 and Mountain West championship games are also in.

So, unless Clemson wins the ACC and closes out the field, that leaves one spot remaining with a host of teams offering compelling cases for inclusion.

But let’s start with something that should be obvious: The 12th team to make the field will be flawed. This isn’t a new phenomenon based on weak schedules or shocking losses. The No. 12 team in the ranking every year has its share of warts. That’s why it’s No. 12. We’re just used to arguing over a top four, not No. 12, so wrapping our heads around a playoff team with a loss to — oh, let’s say Vanderbilt — seems entirely wrong. When it comes to picking 12 teams, there will always be reasons to argue someone doesn’t belong or has done something so inexcusably awful they should be excluded without further debate.

But, of course, if that were true, Notre Dame would already be packing its bags for the Music City Bowl.

Instead, we should be viewing the process of picking the No. 12 team through an optimist’s lens. What have these teams done to earn their way in? Why should we believe they’re capable of — well, maybe not winning it all, but at least putting on a good show in the opening round? What’s the sales pitch for inclusion?

And when we view the decision through that lens, there are at least three reasonable, logical paths to follow.

But this is about a meeting of the College Football Playoff selection committee, where hotel security at the Gaylord Texan Hotel has explicit orders to keep reason and logic from stepping foot on the premises, and so, of course, the one team that isn’t left standing at the end of those logical pathways is exactly the team it has tabbed as the leader in the clubhouse: Alabama.

And that, friends, means a lot of programs have ample reason to be angry.

So, let’s walk down those logical pathways as a means of underscoring just how ridiculous the committee’s take on these rankings looks, bringing us to this week’s Anger Index.

There’s an Occam’s razor aspect to this conundrum that the committee should’ve considered: The simplest, most elegant solution is usually the right one.

This was the committee’s solution back in the first year of the playoff. In 2014, the committee was left to decide between 11-1 TCU and 11-1 Baylor. In the regular season, Baylor had beaten TCU head to head by 3 points, but the Bears also had a rather ugly 41-27 loss to West Virginia. The Big 12, at that time, didn’t have a conference championship game, leaving it to the committee to parse out who was more deserving of the No. 4 spot in the playoff.

The committee’s answer? Ohio State!

Baylor won its regular-season finale over No. 9 Kansas State by 11. TCU won its finale against Iowa State by 55-3. And yet the committee moved up 11-1 Ohio State to No. 4, bypassing both Big 12 schools. It was beautiful in its simplicity. Why make an impossible choice between Door No. 1 and Door No. 2 when Door No. 3 is already wide open?

This isn’t necessarily Miami’s best case for the final playoff slot, of course, but the fact that the Hurricanes are 10-2 and those SEC schools vying for the space are all 9-3 is the perfect opportunity for the committee to simply say, “This team has more wins,” the same way it said “Ohio State has a conference championship” as a completely reasonable justification for avoiding a tough call.

And it’s not as if Miami would be a bad choice. The Canes demolished Florida, a team that beat Ole Miss. The Canes demolished USF, a team that took Alabama into the fourth quarter in Tuscaloosa. The Canes have two road losses by a combined nine points against two pretty good teams — No. 22 Syracuse and a 7-5 Georgia Tech team that just took Georgia to eight overtimes (and probably should’ve won if the officials had been watching the game). QB Cam Ward is extraordinary, the offense is fun, the Canes can play with pretty much anyone, and none of their losses are bad. Isn’t that effectively South Carolina’s pitch?

So, yeah, giving the 12th playoff spot to Miami would’ve been an easy win for the committee. Instead, it chose pain.

Indeed, it docked Miami more spots for a road loss to the No. 22 team in the country than it did for Ohio State losing to 7-5 Michigan.


If the committee didn’t want to prioritize the simplest solution by going with the team with the best record, then certainly you’d think the argument came down to this: Not all wins are equal, and therefore we should choose the team that had proven the most on the field.

Well, folks, the answer to that question is absolutely Ole Miss.

Ole Miss and Alabama both beat South Carolina head to head, but the Rebels dominated their game, while the Tide snuck by with a two-point win.

Ole Miss and Alabama have the same best win, against No. 5 Georgia. But Alabama came within minutes of one of the most epic collapses in college football history, narrowly escaping with a seven-point win. Ole Miss, on the other hand, beat Georgia by 18 in a game that was never particularly close. In fact, do you know the last team to beat Georgia by more points than Ole Miss did this year? That would be the 2019 LSU Tigers, arguably the best college football team ever assembled.

Ole Miss is ranked higher in SP+, too. The Rebels are an analytics dream team, with one of the top offenses and defenses in the country statistically. SP+ has the Rebels at No. 3 — ahead of Texas! — while Alabama checks in at No. 5, Miami at No. 10 and South Carolina at No. 13.

OK, but what about strength of schedule? Doesn’t that favor Alabama? It does, but that metric isn’t exactly what it seems. According to ESPN, the Tide played the 17th-toughest schedule in the country, while Ole Miss played the 31st. That seems like a big difference, right? But when we look at the hard numbers rather than the ranking, the difference is only about 1% (Bama at 98.97 and Ole Miss at 97.66). That’s basically the difference between Alabama playing Western Kentucky and Ole Miss playing MTSU. Oh, and if strength of schedule really matters that much, South Carolina ranks ahead of both of them.

And let’s talk about that schedule, because it wasn’t the “strength” that proved to be Alabama’s undoing. The Tide lost to a pair of 6-6 teams. It was the mediocrity on their slate that killed them.

OK, yes, Ole Miss lost to a couple pretty average teams, too — 7-5 Florida and 4-8 Kentucky. But again, if the records were all that mattered to the committee, Miami would be in the playoff. So let’s compare SP+ rankings for those losses.

Alabama lost to SP+ Nos. 8, 31 and 58 for an average of 32.3.

Ole Miss lost to SP+ Nos. 17, 22 and 48 for an average of 29.0.

So, on average, the Rebels’ losses weren’t as bad as Alabama’s. Their wins were markedly better than Alabama’s. Their underlying stats are better than Alabama’s. Their schedule strength was effectively equal to Alabama’s.

So explain to us again why Ole Miss isn’t in the No. 11 slot, because we’re at a complete loss to understand it.


To be sure, there is not a logical argument in South Carolina’s favor. The Gamecocks have the same record as Alabama and Ole Miss and lost to both of them head to head. That, on its face, should eliminate South Carolina.

But, perhaps there’s a more emotional take here; an “eye test,” if you will.

Watch South Carolina over the past six games — all wins, including against Texas A&M, Missouri and Clemson (not to mention a dominant performance against an Oklahoma team that whipped Alabama) — and it’s pretty easy to suggest the Gamecocks are playing as well as any team in the country.

Now, back in the four-team playoff era, this wouldn’t have mattered at all. Go back and look at 2015 Stanford with Christian McCaffrey, which lost its opener to Northwestern before going on a roll and winning 11 of its next 12, or 2016 USC that started 1-3 and reeled off eight straight wins with a new QB. Those teams could’ve genuinely won it all if they had been given a ticket to the dance, but in those days, there was no room for the hottest team. Just the most deserving.

But no one truly deserving is left out if we include South Carolina now. Miami and Alabama and Ole Miss (and others) all have their arguments in favor of inclusion, but as we noted at the top, all have enough warts to miss out, too.

So why not take the team playing the best? How many times in the NFL playoffs have we seen a team that finished strong go on a run and win the Super Bowl? Are they any less a champion, because they lost a couple games in September?

South Carolina’s inclusion would be a boon for all the teams that grow as the season progresses, get better through coaching, hard work and perseverance, that overcome adversity and rise to meet the moment. In short, South Carolina is a feel-good story in a sport that should embrace that type of team.

Instead, the committee is embracing Darth Vader because the Empire holds a lot of sway over the galaxy.


Here’s a fun blind comparison.

Team A: 10-2, No. 12 strength of record, losses to SP+ Nos. 39 and 51 with best win against SP+ No. 12

Team B: 10-2, No. 14 strength of record, losses to SP+ Nos. 50 and 59 with best win against SP+ No. 18

Neither of these teams will play in their conference championship games.

If you had to pick one for the playoff, which would you take?

Well, the records are the same, but Team A seems to have the edge everywhere else, right?

OK, Team A is BYU.

Team B? That’s Miami.

We’re not arguing against Miami, but Miami checks in as the first team out. BYU checks in behind three-loss Clemson!

Perhaps the Cougars’ losses (to Arizona State and Kansas) are reason enough for exclusion (though by that logic, we should be waving goodbye to Alabama and Ole Miss, too), but the fact that BYU isn’t even in the conversation is ridiculous.


play

1:10

Booger: Committee on ‘slippery slope’ choosing Alabama over Miami

Booger McFarland and Joey Galloway discuss whether the CFP selection committee is making the right decision favoring Alabama over Miami.

We’ve laid out perfectly reasonable arguments for Miami, Ole Miss, South Carolina and BYU.

What’s the argument for Alabama?

Strength of schedule? South Carolina’s is better.

A big win vs. Georgia? Ole Miss beat the Dawgs by more.

Strength of record? That’s just a function of strength of schedule, and frankly any record that includes losses to Oklahoma and Vanderbilt — including one blowout — isn’t very “strong.”

Better stats? Ole Miss is rated higher in SP+, Miami’s offense is far more compelling, and South Carolina’s defense is, too.

So what exactly is the case for Alabama?

Committee chair Warde Manuel’s best attempt at an explanation: Alabama is 3-1 vs. the current top 25. That, of course, ignores that Miami has wins vs. the Nos. 1 and 3 teams in the AP’s others receiving votes list, and ranking 25 teams is an entirely arbitrary cutoff. And more importantly, it ignores that Alabama is also 6-2 vs. teams not in the current top 25.

No, the real case for Alabama is the same one the committee made last year, that it believes — in spite of any hard evidence — that Alabama is just better. It believes Alabama would win a future hypothetical matchup. It is prioritizing a gut feeling.

We can criticize the committee for a lot of things, but most of it is hair-splitting, and the folks on the committee have a particularly tough job. We’re sympathetic. But when this group continually — year after year (yes, we’re talking to you, Florida State) — ignores what happens in the actual games on the actual field of play in favor of its own projections, that threatens to undermine the entire sport, and that’s a shame.

Is Alabama a good football team? Sure. If the Tide get in, could they win a game or two or the whole darn thing? Absolutely. But if that’s the criteria, then there was no need for Alabama’s players to suit up 12 times this year and go to battle, and that’s an insult to them — even if it means handing them a gift in the process.


We’ve argued a bunch over the No. 12 team, but there’s another debate rolling in the college football world, and that involves conference championships.

The debate has largely centered on SMU and whether the Mustangs, if they lose the ACC title to Clemson, should be reevaluated if they’re 11-2 (particularly if Clemson is stealing a playoff bid).

It’s a reasonable discussion. On one hand, there is precedent. Just two years ago, USC entered conference championship week ranked No. 4, only to lose in a blowout to Utah. The committee dropped the Trojans to No. 10 and rewarded Ohio State — a team that was sitting at home and watching championship weekend — with a playoff berth. At the time, virtually no one even mentioned this. It made logical sense.

But in the 12-team era, when there should ostensibly be a larger margin for error, it seems entirely wrong to suggest a team that won the right to play an extra game should then have that extra data point held against it to the point that it falls out of the playoff field. (And, oh, how ironic would it be if Lane Kiffin complained about this very possibility, suggesting it was better to miss the SEC title game, only to have Kiffin’s team get in as a result of missing the SEC championship and SMU losing the ACC championship.)

But the big point being missed here is that the discussion shouldn’t stop with SMU. What about Boise State?

The Broncos are currently one of the four teams set to get first-round byes because of an 11-1 record, a head-to-head win over UNLV and a largely dominant season. But if they lose a rematch to UNLV — a team it has already beaten once — then the Broncos would be out of the playoff entirely.

Is that fair?

Well, here’s another comparison.

Team A: 11-1, No. 13 strength of record, loss to a top-10 team by 3, four wins vs. bowl-eligible opponents and one win vs. a currently ranked foe.

Team B: 11-1, No. 8 strength of record, loss to a top-10 team by 23, three wins vs. bowl-eligible opponents and no wins vs. currently ranked foes.

It should be noted here that the schedule strength difference between the two is about an 8% margin — notable, but not significant.

Who would you say was more deserving of a playoff bid?

Team A, as you might’ve guessed, is Boise State.

Team B is ranked one spot ahead of the Broncos. It’s Indiana, a team that won’t play another game and is considered safely in.

So, why exactly is Boise State not also safely in right now?

It’s a question the committee should be asking.

Also angry this week: Duke Blue Devils (9-3, unranked), Missouri Tigers (9-3, No. 19), Illinois Fighting Illini (9-3, No. 21), Georgia Bulldogs (who were docked far worse for losses against Ole Miss and Alabama than Ohio State was for losing to 7-5 Michigan), Tennessee Volunteers (10-2, No. 7 and should have the first-round home game being handed to Ohio State) and Ryan Day, because life is really unfair sometimes.

Continue Reading

Sports

23XI, Front Row turn to courts to keep ’25 status

Published

on

By

23XI, Front Row turn to courts to keep '25 status

The two race teams suing NASCAR over antitrust allegations filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction Monday to be recognized as chartered organizations for the remainder of 2025.

23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports are locked in a lengthy legal battle over the charter system, which is the equivalent of the franchise model in other sports. 23XI, owned by retired NBA great Michael Jordan and three-time Daytona 500 winner Denny Hamlin, and Front Row, owned by entrepreneur Bob Jenkins, last September rejected NASCAR’s final proposal on extensions and instead filed an antitrust suit.

The case is winding its way through the court system but now with urgency: The teams are set to lose their charters Wednesday and in the latest filing, they allege NASCAR has indicated it will immediately begin the process of selling the six tags that guarantee entry into every race as well as monetary rewards and other benefits.

Should the teams have their six combined charters revoked, the drivers would have to qualify on speed to make each week’s race and would receive a smaller percentage of the purse. They might also have to refund money paid out through the first 20 races of the year.

NASCAR accused 23XI and Front Row of filing “a third motion for another unnecessary and inappropriate preliminary injunction” and noted it has made multiple requests to the teams “to present a proposal to resolve this litigation.

“We have yet to receive a proposal from 23XI or Front Row, as they have instead preferred to continue their damaging and distracting lawsuit,” NASCAR said in a statement. “We will defend NASCAR’s integrity from this baseless lawsuit forced upon the sport that threatens to divide the stakeholders committed to serving race fans everywhere.

“We remain focused on collaborating with the 13 race teams that signed the 2025 charter agreements and share our mutual goal of delivering the best racing in the world each week, including this weekend in Dover.”

Later Monday, Rick Ware Racing and Legacy Motor Club had a scheduled court date in North Carolina over their fight for a charter. Legacy, owned by seven-time NASCAR champion Jimmie Johnson, contends it had an agreement with RWR to lease one of its two charters in 2026.

RWR contends the agreement was for 2027, and it already has a contract with RFK Racing to lease that team a charter next season.

Continue Reading

Sports

New rules for EBUGs? 84 games? What to know about the NHL’s new CBA

Published

on

By

New rules for EBUGs? 84 games? What to know about the NHL's new CBA

The NHL’s board of governors and the NHLPA’s membership have ratified a new collective bargaining agreement. The current CBA runs through the end of the 2025-26 season, with the new one carrying through the end of the 2029-30 season.

While the continuation of labor peace is the most important development for a league that has endured multiple work stoppages this millennium, there are a number of wrinkles that are noteworthy to fans.

ESPN reporters Ryan S. Clark, Kristen Shilton and Greg Wyshynski break it all down for you here:

Draft recap: All 224 picks
Grades for all 32 teams
Winners and losers

When does this new CBA take effect?

The new NHL CBA is set to begin on Sept. 16, 2026 and runs through Sept. 15, 2030. Including the coming season, that gives the NHL five years of labor peace, and would make the fastest both sides have reached an extension in Gary Bettman’s tenure as NHL commissioner.

It’s also the first major negotiation for NHLPA head Marty Walsh, who stepped into the executive director role in 2023 — Shilton

What are the big differences in the new CBA compared to the current one?

There are a few major headlines from the new CBA.

First are the schedule changes: the league will move to an 84-game regular season, with a shortened preseason (a maximum of four games), so each team is still able to play every opponent while divisional rivals have four games against one another every other season.

There will also be alterations to contract lengths, going to a maximum seven-year deal instead of the current eight-year mark; right now, a player can re-sign for eight years with his own team or seven with another in free agency, while the new CBA stipulates it’ll be seven or six years, respectively.

Deferred salaries will also be on the way out. And there will be a new position established for a team’s full-time emergency backup goaltender — or EBUG — where that player can practice and travel with the team.

The CBA also contains updated language on long-term injured reserve and how it can be used, particularly when it comes to adding players from LTIR to the roster for the postseason — Shilton

What’s the motivation for an 84-game season?

The new CBA expands the regular season to 84 games and reduces the exhibition season to four games per team. Players with 100 games played in their NHL careers can play in a maximum of two exhibition games. Players who competed in at least 50 games in the previous season will have a maximum of 13 days of training camp.

The NHL had an 84-game season from 1992 to 1994, when the league and NHLPA agreed to add two neutral-site games to every team’s schedule. But since 1995-96, every full NHL regular season has been 82 games.

For at least the past four years, the league has had internal discussions about adding two games to the schedule while decreasing the preseason. The current CBA restricted teams from playing more than 82 games, so expansion of the regular season required collective bargaining.

There was a functional motivation behind the increase in games: Currently, each team plays either three or four games against divisional opponents, for a total of 26 games; they play three games against non-divisional teams within their own conference, for a total of 24 games; and they play two games, home and away, against opponents from the other conference for a total of 32 games. Adding two games would allow teams to even out their divisional schedule, while swapping in two regular-season games — with regular-season crowd sizes and prices — for two exhibition games.

The reduction of the preseason would also give the NHL the chance to start the regular season earlier, perhaps in the last week of September. Obviously, given the grind of the current regular season and the playoffs, there’s concern about wear and tear on the players with two additional games. But the reduction of training camp and the exhibition season was appealing to players, and they signed off on the 84-game season in the new CBA. — Wyshynski

play

1:49

Why Mitch Marner is a great fit for Vegas

Greg Wyshynski reports on Mitch Marner getting traded from the Maple Leafs to the Golden Knights.

How do the new long-term injured reserve rules work?

The practice of teams using long-term injured reserve (LTIR) to create late-season salary cap space — only to have the injured player return for the first game of the playoffs after sitting out game No. 82 of the regular season — tracks back to 2015. That’s when the Chicago Blackhawks used an injured Patrick Kane‘s salary cap space to add players at the trade deadline. Kane returned for the start of the first round, and eventually won the Conn Smythe as playoff MVP in their Stanley Cup win.

Since then, the NHL has seen teams such as the Tampa Bay Lightning (Nikita Kucherov 2020-21), Vegas Golden Knights (Mark Stone, 2023), Florida Panthers (Matthew Tkachuk, 2024) also use LTIR to their advantage en route to Stanley Cup wins.

The NHL has investigated each occurrence of teams using LTIR and then having players return for the playoffs, finding nothing actionable — although the league is currently investigating the Edmonton Oilers use of LTIR for Evander Kane, who sat out the regular season and returned in the first round of the most recent postseason.

Last year, NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said that if “the majority” of general managers wanted a change to this practice, the NHL would consider it. Some players weren’t happy about the salary cap loophole.

Ron Hainsey, NHLPA assistant executive director, said during the Stanley Cup Final that players have expressed concern at different times “either public or privately” about misuse of long-term injured reserve. He said that the NHL made closing that loophole “a priority for them” in labor talks.

Under the new CBA, the total salary and bonuses for “a player or players” that have replaced a player on LTIR may not exceed the amount of total salary and bonuses of the player they are replacing. For example: In 2024, the Golden Knights put winger Stone and his $9.5 million salary on LTIR, given that he was out because of a lacerated spleen. The Golden Knights added $10.8 million in salary to their cap before the trade deadline in defenseman Noah Hanifin and forwards Tomas Hertl and Anthony Mantha.

But the bigger tweak to the LTIR rule states that “the average amounts of such replacement player(s) may not exceed the prior season’s average league salary.” According to PuckPedia, the average player salary last season was $3,817,293, for example.

The CBA does allow an exception to these LTIR rules, with NHL and NHLPA approval, based on how much time the injured player is likely to miss. Teams can exceed these “average amounts,” but the injured player would be ineligible to return that season or in the postseason.

But the NHL and NHLPA doubled-down on discouraging teams from abusing LTIR to go over the salary cap in the Stanley Cup playoffs by establishing “playoff cap counting” for the first time. — Wyshynski

What is ‘playoff cap counting’ and how will it affect the postseason?

In 2021, the Carolina Hurricanes lost to Tampa Bay in the Eastern Conference playoffs. That’s when defenseman Dougie Hamilton famously lamented that his team fell to a Lightning squad “that’s $18 million over the cap or whatever they are,” as Tampa Bay used Kucherov’s LTIR space in the regular season before he returned for the playoffs.

Even more famously, Kucherov wore a T-shirt that read “$18M OVER THE CAP” during their Stanley Cup championship celebration.

The NHL and NHLPA have attempted to put an end to this creative accounting — in combination with the new LTIR rules in the regular season — through a new CBA provision called “playoff cap counting.”

By 3 p.m. local time or five hours before a playoff game — whatever is earlier — teams will submit a roster of 18 players and two goaltenders to NHL Central Registry. There will be a “playoff playing roster averaged club salary” calculated for that roster that must be under the “upper limit” of the salary cap for that team. The “averaged club salary” is the sum of the face value averaged amounts of the player salary and bonuses for that season for each player on the roster, and all amounts charged to the team’s salary cap.

Teams can make changes to their rosters after that day’s deadline, provided they’ve cleared it with NHL Central Registry.

play

1:54

How Aaron Ekblad, Panthers benefit from staying together

Greg Wyshynski reports on Aaron Ekblad signing a new deal that keeps him with the Panthers for eight more years.

The “upper limit” for an individual team is the leaguewide salary cap ceiling minus any cap penalties for contract buyouts; 35-plus players or players with one-way contracts demoted to the minor leagues; retained salary in trades; cap recapture penalties; or contract grievance settlements.

The cap compliance is only for the players participating in a given postseason game. As one NHL player agent told ESPN: “You can have $130 million in salaries on your total roster once the playoffs start, but the 18 players and two goalies that are on the ice must be cap-compliant.”

These rules will be in effect for the first two seasons of the new CBA (2026-28). After that, either the NHL or the NHLPA can reopen this section of the CBA for “good faith discussions about the concerns that led to the election to reopen and whether these rules could be modified in a manner that would effectively address such concerns.”

If there’s no resolution of those concerns, the “playoff cap counting” will remain in place for the 2028-29 season. — Wyshynski

Did the NHL CBA make neck guards mandatory?

Professional leagues around the world have adjusted their player equipment protection standards since Adam Johnson’s death in October 2023. Johnson, 29, was playing for the Nottingham Panthers of England’s Elite Ice Hockey League when he suffered a neck laceration from an opponent’s skate blade.

The AHL mandated cut-resistant neck protection for players and officials for the 2024-25 season. The IIHF did the same for international tournaments, while USA Hockey required all players under the age of 18 to wear them.

Now, the NHL and NHLPA have adjusted their standards for neck protection in the new CBA.

Beginning with the 2026-27 season, players who have zero games of NHL experience will be required to wear “cut-resistant protection on the neck area with a minimum cut level protection score of A5.” The ANSI/ISEA 105-2016 Standard rates neck guards on a scale from A1 to A9, and players are encouraged to seek out neck protection that’s better than the minimal requirement.

Players with NHL experience prior to the 2026-27 season will not be required to wear neck protection. — Wyshynski

What’s the new player dress code?

The NHL and NHLPA agreed that teams will no longer be permitted “to propose any rules concerning player dress code.”

Under the previous CBA, the NHL was the only North American major men’s pro sports league with a dress code specified through collective bargaining. Exhibit 14, Rule 5 read: “Players are required to wear jackets, ties and dress pants to all Club games and while traveling to and from such games unless otherwise specified by the Head Coach or General Manager.”

That rule was deleted in the new CBA.

The only requirement now for players is that they “dress in a manner that is consistent with contemporary fashion norms.”

Sorry, boys: No toga parties on game days. — Wyshynski

Does the new CBA cover the Olympics beyond 2026?

Yes. The NHL and NHLPA have committed to participate in the 2030 Winter Olympics, scheduled to be held in the French Alps. As usual, the commitment is ” subject to negotiation of terms acceptable to each of the NHL, NHLPA, IIHF and/or IOC.”

And as we saw with the 2022 Beijing Games, having a commitment in the CBA doesn’t guarantee NHL players on Olympic ice. — Wyshynski

Did the NHL end three-team salary retention trades?

It has become an NHL trade deadline tradition. One team retains salary on a player so he can fit under another team’s salary cap. But to make the trade happen, those teams invite a third team to the table to retain even more of that salary to make it work.

Like when the Lightning acquired old friend Yanni Gourde from the Seattle Kraken last season. Gourde made $5,166,667 against the cap. Seattle traded him to Detroit for defenseman Kyle Aucoin, and the Kraken retained $2,583,334 in salary. The Red Wings then retained $1,291,667 of Gourde’s salary in sending him to Tampa Bay for a fourth-round pick, allowing the Lightning to fit him under their cap.

Though the NHL will still allow retained salary transactions, there’s now a mandatory waiting period until that player’s salary can be retained in a second transaction. A second retained salary transaction may not occur within 75 regular-season days of the first retained salary transaction.

Days outside of the regular-season schedule do not count toward the required 75 regular-season days, and therefore the restriction might span multiple seasons, according to the CBA. — Wyshynski

Can players now endorse alcoholic beverages?

Yes. The previous CBA banned players from any endorsement or sponsorship of alcoholic beverages. That has been taken out of the new CBA. If only Bob Beers were still playing …

While players remain prohibited from any endorsement or sponsorship of tobacco products, a carryover from the previous CBA, they’re also banned from endorsement or sponsorship of “cannabis (including CBD) products.” — Wyshynski

What are the new parameters for Emergency Goaltender Replacement?

The NHL is making things official with the emergency backup goaltender (EBUG) position.

In the past, that third goalie spot went to someone hanging out in the arena during a game, ready to jump in for either team if both of their own goaltenders were injured or fell ill during the course of play. Basically, it was a guy in street clothes holding onto the dream of holding down an NHL crease.

Now, the league has given permanent status to the EBUG role. That player will travel with and practice for only one club. But there are rules involved in their employment.

This CBA designates that to serve as a team’s emergency goaltender replacement, the individual cannot have played an NHL game under an NHL contract, appeared in more than 80 professional hockey games, have been in professional hockey within the previous three seasons, have a contractual obligation that would prevent them from fulfilling their role as the EBUG or be on the reserve or restricted free agent list of an NHL club.

Teams must submit one designated EBUG 48 hours before the NHL regular season starts. During the season, teams can declare that player 24 hours before a game. — Shilton

What’s the deal with eliminating deferred salaries?

The new CBA will prohibit teams from brokering deferred salary arrangements, meaning players will be paid in full during the contract term lengths. This is meant to save players from financial uncertainty and makes for simplified contract structures with the club.

There are examples of players who had enormous signing bonuses paid up front or had structured their deals to include significant payouts when they ended. Both tactics could serve to lower an individual’s cap hit over the life of a deal. Now that won’t be an option for teams or players to use in negotiations. — Shilton

What’s different about contract lengths?

Starting under the new CBA, the maximum length of a player contract will go from eight years to seven years if he’s re-signing with the same club, and down to just six years (from the current seven) if he signs with a new team.

So, for example, a player coming off his three-year, entry-level contract could re-sign only with that same team for up to seven years, and he’ll become an unrestricted free agent sooner than the current agreement would allow.

This could benefit teams that have signed players to long-term contracts that didn’t age well (for whatever reason) as they won’t be tied as long to that decision. And for players, it can help preserve some of their prime years if they want to move on following a potential 10 (rather than 11) maximum seasons with one club. — Shilton

What does the new league minimum salary look like? How does it compare to the other men’s professional leagues?

Under the new CBA, the minimum salary for an NHL player will rise from $775,000 to $1 million by the end of the four-year agreement. Although gradual, it is a significant rise for a league in which the salary cap presents more challenges compared to its counterparts.

For example, the NHL will see its salary cap rise to $95.5 million in 2025-26, compared to that of the NFL in which Dallas Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott’s highest three-year average is $61.6 million.

So how does the new NHL minimum salary upon the CBA’s completion compare to its counterparts in the Big 4?

The NBA league minimum for the 2025-26 season is $1.4 million for a rookie, while players with more than 10 years can earn beyond $3.997 million in a league that has a maximum of 15 roster spots

The NFL, which has a 53-player roster, has a league minimum of $840,000 for rookies in 2025, while a veteran with more than seven years will earn $1.255 million.

MLB’s CBA, which expires after the 2026 season, has the minimum salary for the 2025 season set at $760,000, and that figure increases to $780,000 next season. — Clark

Is this Gary Bettman’s final CBA as commissioner?

Possibly. The Athletic reported in January that the board of governors had begun planning for Bettman’s eventual retirement “in a couple of years,” while starting the process to find his successor.

Bettman became the NHL’s first commissioner in 1993, and has the distinction of being the longest-serving commissioner among the four major men’s professional leagues in North America. He is also the oldest. Bettman turned 73 in June, while contemporaries Roger Goodell, Rob Manfred and Adam Silver are all in their early- to mid-60s.

That’s not to suggest he couldn’t remain in place. There is a precedent of commissioners across those leagues who remained in those respective roles into their 70s. Ford Frick, who served as the third commissioner of MLB, was 71 when he stepped down in 1965. There are more recent examples than Frick, as former NBA commissioner David Stern stepping down in 2014 when he was 71, and former MLB commissioner Bud Selig stepped down in 2015 at age 80. — Clark

Continue Reading

Sports

QB Retzlaff announces his withdrawal from BYU

Published

on

By

QB Retzlaff announces his withdrawal from BYU

Jake Retzlaff announced on Friday that he’s withdrawing from BYU, formally initiating his transfer process from the school.

Retzlaff, BYU’s starting quarterback last year, said in an Instagram post that he made the “difficult decision” to withdraw and that he plans to “step away” from the BYU program. The post makes public what had been expected, as Retzlaff began informing his teammates and coaches in late June of his intent to transfer.

According to ESPN sources, Retzlaff’s path to transfer to a new school is not expected to come from the NCAA transfer portal. With Retzlaff just short of graduating, which would make the transfer process more traditional, he plans to simply leave BYU and then enroll at a new school.

That path is not a common one, but there’s precedent. That includes former Wisconsin defensive back Xavier Lucas leaving school this winter and enrolling at the University of Miami.

Retzlaff expressed his gratitude for his time at BYU, saying “it has meant more to me than just football.” He added that he’s “excited to turn the page and embrace the next chapter.”

BYU officials generally avoided the topic of Retzlaff at Big 12 media days this week, deferring to him to make a statement on his next move.

In a statement on Friday, BYU athletics said: “We are grateful for the time Jake Retzlaff has spent at BYU. As he moves forward, BYU Athletics understands and respects Jake’s decision to withdraw from BYU, and we wish him all the best as he enters the next phase of his career.”

Retzlaff’s departure comes in the wake of BYU’s planned seven-game suspension of him for violating the school’s honor code.

That suspension arose after he was accused in a lawsuit of raping a woman in 2023. The lawsuit ended up being dismissed on June 30, with the parties jointly agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, but Retzlaff’s response included an admission of premarital sex, which is a violation of the BYU honor code.

Retzlaff went 11-2 as BYU’s starting quarterback in 2024, throwing for 2,947 yards and 20 touchdowns. His departure leaves BYU with a three-way quarterback race this summer to replace him, with no clear favorite.

Continue Reading

Trending