What a possible multibillion-dollar NCAA antitrust settlement means for college sports
-
Dan Murphy
Close
Dan Murphy
ESPN Staff Writer
- Covers the Big Ten
- Joined ESPN.com in 2014
- Graduate of the University of Notre Dame
-
Pete Thamel
The NCAA and its schools are considering a proposed solution to one of the largest looming obstacles remaining for a landmark settlement of the association’s antitrust cases, which could shape the future of major collegiate sports in America.
With the college sports industry aiming to avoid future antitrust lawsuits, the terms of a settlement would establish an annual process giving new players a chance to opt in or object to revenue-sharing terms currently being negotiated as part of the emerging framework for the future business model of the NCAA’s top schools.
The NCAA and its most powerful conferences are in the thick of working toward settling the House v. NCAA case this month, with sources saying leagues are planning to vote on a proposed deal by May 23. ESPN spoke to more than a dozen legal and industry experts in college sports this week to better understand the ongoing negotiations.
The tentative terms of the settlement include the NCAA paying more than $2.7 billion in past damages as well as setting up a system for its most powerful conferences to share a portion of their revenue with athletes moving forward. One major obstacle to reaching a settlement has been finding a way for the NCAA and its schools to protect themselves from future lawsuits, including potential claims they would be colluding to cap player compensation without using a collective bargaining agreement.
Steve Berman, the co-lead counsel representing athletes in the House case, told ESPN he and his team have proposed a solution that would extend the class-action settlement on an annual basis. In this scenario, athletes would receive a notice each year providing them with the opportunity to object to the terms of the revenue-share agreement. Berman said those athletes would then have the chance to attend a hearing and persuade the judge that the revenue-share arrangement was unfair in order to push for a change.
“Each year we would have a hearing where any new athlete who wasn’t previously bound [by the settlement] can come and object,” Berman said. “They would have to come and say, ‘I don’t think this is fair.’ That would be a hard burden to prove.”
An NCAA spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. Some athlete organizers say they are skeptical a rolling annual opt-in mechanism would be enough to dissuade future players from filing lawsuits to push for a bigger share of money in future years.
Sources say revenue sharing with athletes would begin, at the earliest, in the summer of 2025. The settlement would also serve to resolve three other active antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA.
The details of a settlement and their implications on how schools spend their money remain in flux. But with leagues expected to vote within the next two weeks, details are growing more clear as leaders in the industry weigh their options and sort through several remaining questions about how a future business model will work.
Why would an annual hearing be necessary?
In professional sports, the amount of revenue a league shares with its players is typically negotiated through a collective bargaining agreement between the league and a players’ union. Collective bargaining agreements completed with a certified union are exempt from antitrust challenges in court. That legal protection would not apply, however, in college sports if athletes are not deemed to be employees when schools start sharing their revenue.
The NCAA and its schools have been firmly opposed to a model where athletes are viewed as employees.
There are multiple pending cases in front of the National Labor Relations Board where athletes and their advocates are arguing that players should be employees and have the right to unionize, but those cases could take years to reach a conclusion. Others such as the College Football Players Association — one of several groups seeking to organize college athletes — have proposed asking Congress to create a special status for college athletes that would allow them to collectively bargain without being employees. But again, Congress has been slow to reach consensus on any federal legislation that could help chart a course forward for college sports despite several years of requested help from the NCAA.
The current House case is a class-action lawsuit that applies to all current Division I college athletes. That means future college athletes would not be bound by the terms of a settlement reached this year. Berman and his colleagues are hoping that giving each incoming group of new players an option to join the class will provide the schools with enough confidence that their agreement will be hard to challenge with future litigation.
What are the chances of a settlement happening?
There are so many moving parts that nothing is definitive, but sources from both sides of the case appear to be optimistic they are making substantial progress toward a settlement.
The NCAA has worked furiously toward settling, including agreeing to pick up the more than $2.7 billion in past damages over the next 10 years. If the case goes to trial and a judge rules against the NCAA, the association and its schools could be on the hook for more than $4 billion in damages.
Sources told ESPN that NCAA president Charlie Baker was in Washington, D.C., on Thursday meeting with more than a half-dozen Senators, a previously scheduled trip where he’s staying engaged with current Senate leaders about potential future legislation.
The belief in the industry is that all the power conferences have the majority votes to settle, which will be up to their schools’ top administrators. There are a few individual schools that are skeptical of settling — some of those overlap with the schools that supported the idea of forming a new “super league” that would radically reshape the entire structure of college athletics. While some believe a more complete overhaul is needed, sources told ESPN there’s essentially zero chance of a super league emerging in the near future.
To the majority, the idea of a league deciding to battle Berman and fellow lead attorney Jeffrey Kessler in court and face billions in damages isn’t too appetizing — especially with the NCAA paying the back damages.
Here’s the breakdown of the landscape, according to multiple industry sources: The Big Ten is generally on board with settling. The SEC has some detractors of settling but is trending to a majority. The Big 12 is expected to follow along. There’s some dissension in the ACC, which has amplified why Florida State and Clemson are suing to leave the league, but sources say it’s unlikely the ACC will end up voting against it.
It’s also important to note here that a vote for settling doesn’t mean all of the key details will have been ironed out. The notion of capping the size of a team’s roster as part of this new business model, for example, has generated buzz in athletic director and coaching circles. But details like what a football roster would be capped at — and the fate of walk-ons — are not expected to be decided until after the vote, per sources.
“It’s so early in that conversation, it’s hard to speculate,” a source said. “There’s a lot more work there. You want to build consensus across multiple conferences.”
Also, any potential help from Congress that Baker is courting wouldn’t come until well after the settlement.
“It gives us a better hand to play with Congress,” an industry source said. “They were looking for something from us. This injects a lot in that conversation. This is a good start.”
How much money will schools be spending on future payments to athletes?
Sources told ESPN that while terms could change, the current proposal would create a spending cap for each power-conference school based on 22% of the average media rights, ticket sales and sponsorship revenue of each power-conference school. Sources say they expect that cap number to be nearly $20 million per school. Schools would not be required to spend that much money on their athletes but would have the option to share up to that $20 million figure with them.
The cap number could change every few years to reflect changes in the overall revenue of schools. It’s not clear whether some money the schools already provide to their athletes — such as an academic reward of roughly $6,000 commonly referred to as Alston payments — would count toward that cap. Multiple sources did tell ESPN that donations from boosters are not included in the revenue formula.
How will they divide that money among their athletes?
There are no specific provisions in the proposed settlement that spell out how schools should distribute money to athletes, according to sources. Each individual school would be responsible for deciding which athletes to pay and sorting through the uncertainty around how that money would apply to Title IX regulations, per multiple sources.
Title IX requires colleges to provide equal opportunities for men and women to compete in varsity sports and provide equitable benefits to those athletes. The law, written long before athletes were earning money beyond their scholarships, does not clearly state how the federal government views direct payments to athletes. Does equitable treatment require a school to give the same dollar amount to men and women athletes in the new revenue-share model? Or would the payments be viewed more as a benefit that could be proportional to the money generated by each sport? Would scholarship dollars and additional revenue-share dollars be considered in the same financial category when balancing the Title IX ledgers?
“The truth is, no one knows,” a source told ESPN on Friday.
While the Department of Education or Congress could provide answers proactively, neither has demonstrated any urgency to do so at this point. Specific interpretations of Title IX often come through litigation, and in this instance, a group of athletes might need to file a lawsuit about how their school is handling these direct payments to establish clarity.
Until then, the most conservative approach for schools to ensure Title IX compliance would mean evenly splitting the new revenue-share dollars between men and women athletes. Sources say some schools might try to balance the overall spending by increasing scholarship opportunities on their women’s teams, but it remains unclear whether that would satisfy Title IX regulations. Others might seek a competitive advantage in football recruiting, for example, by arguing that equitable treatment for athletes in the case of revenue sharing should be based on the revenue their sports generate.
Sources also said the settlement won’t require schools to share money with all athletes or share it evenly among athletes — leaving those decisions up to individual athletic departments as well.
What happens to collectives and NIL payments?
According to a source, the settlement does not include any provision that would put an end to the booster collectives that currently serve as the main vehicle for paying athletes. School officials hope a settlement will create a way to strengthen the NCAA’s ability to enforce its rules, including its rule that requires NIL payments to be for a player’s market value as opposed to the current system, which frequently serves as a workaround for “pay-for-play” arrangements. However, drawing a distinction between those two types of payments would remain a difficult, nebulous task. Any attempt to completely eliminate the NIL collective market would take a substantial change in federal law provided by Congress.
The NCAA has created new rules this spring that allow schools to be more directly involved in finding NIL deals for their athletes. New state laws are also opening doors for the schools to use their own money to pay for an athlete’s NIL rights as opposed to those funds coming from a third party. The extent to which each school continues to be involved in finding NIL opportunities for its athletes in a future with revenue sharing could vary significantly.
“The feeling in the industry is that collectives are going to be forced to stay outside the universities, and it will become more of a discrepancy of the haves and have-nots,” said an industry source. “If you bring collectives in, any money raised would count toward the cap. But schools can hit the cap and still have collectives as third parties. That’s the fear, and why there needs to be regulation.”
What does this mean for major college basketball and leagues outside power conferences?
It’s still relatively uncertain how this would impact major college basketball schools outside of the power conferences.
Schools in the Big East, which is the most prominent basketball-forward league in the country, haven’t been given any formal guidance on how a settlement would trickle down to their level.
The prevailing sentiment is that leagues outside the power conferences named in the lawsuit, including basketball-forward leagues, will have the opportunity to opt into the same 22% revenue-share formula, which would be applied to their specific revenue.
The most expensive men’s college basketball rosters heading into next season are commanding $5 million to $7 million in NIL payments, per sources. It’s too early to determine whether leagues outside the power football conferences will be able to pay that much through revenue sharing.
The uncertainty about how the power conferences will settle the antitrust claims is leaving many administrators outside those leagues in what they describe as a difficult situation.
“All of the Group of 5 is in a wait-and-see mode, which is a precarious situation,” one source told ESPN. “It is extremely tough to lead athletic departments, universities and conferences and plan for the future — whether that be facilities, NIL, etc. — when you have no seat at the table to make the rules that will impact you.”
-
Alden Gonzalez
The Los Angeles Dodgers aren’t just a baseball team these days. They are a symbol. For fans of the other 29 major league clubs, they are a source of either indignation or longing. For rival owners — and the commissioner who answers to them — they exemplify a widening payroll disparity that must be addressed. For players, and the union that represents them, they are a beacon, embodying all the traits of successful organizations: astute at player development, invested in behind-the-scenes components that make a difference and, most prominently, eager to pump their outsized revenues back into the roster.
The Dodgers employ seven players on nine-figure contracts, with five of those deals reached over the past 15 months. They also have the strongest farm system in the sport, according to ESPN’s Kiley McDaniel. Their lineup is loaded and their rotation is decorated, but also their future looks bright and their resources seem limitless. And yet their chief architect, Andrew Friedman, isn’t ready for a victory lap.
“It just doesn’t really land with me in that way,” Friedman, entering his 11th year as the Dodgers’ president of baseball operations, said in a recent phone conversation. “I think once I get fired, once there’s like real distance between being mired in the day-to-day and when I’m not, I will be able to look back at those things. But for us right now, it all feels very precarious.
“We’ve seen a lot of really successful organizations that fall off a cliff and take a while to build back. We don’t take any of it for granted.”
Nothing lasts forever. Every empire has fallen, every dynasty has faded. But what the Dodgers have built feels uniquely sustainable. A glaring reminder came last month, when Major League Baseball’s commissioner, Rob Manfred, was asked whether outrage over the Dodgers’ spending reminded him of how fans felt about the star-laden New York Yankees teams of the early 2000s, commonly referred to as “The Evil Empire.”
The current Dodgers, Manfred said, “are probably more profitable on a percentage basis than the old Yankees were, meaning it could be more sustainable, so it is more of a problem.”
The word “problem” depends on one’s perspective. Dodgers fans certainly wouldn’t describe it as such. As the team prepares to begin its season on Tuesday against the Chicago Cubs in Japan — a country in which they are revered, in a series sponsored by their ownership group — it’s worth understanding how the Dodgers got here.
It was the result of their process, but it also required several monumental steps over the past dozen years.
Below is a look at their biggest leaps.
Jan. 28, 2013: They signed a media megadeal
At the start of 2013, the Dodgers, less than a year into Guggenheim’s ownership, landed a massive local-media deal spanning 25 years and valued at $8.35 billion, or $334 million annually on average. But for the rest of that decade, it qualified as a massive headache. A stalemate between AT&T and Charter Communications meant more than half the Southern California market was unable to access the team’s channel, SportsNet LA, from 2014 to 2020.
As the impasse continued and tensions escalated, the Dodgers’ media deal came to symbolize a growing clash between sports channels that demand higher fees and content distributors wary of making customers pay for content they do not consume. Now — five years after the two sides finally struck a deal, airing Dodgers games on AT&T video platforms and nearly doubling the number of households to more than 3 million — it exemplifies a growing disparity that is rattling the industry.
The Dodgers’ local-media deal runs longer than most and is more expensive than any other, but here’s the kicker, according to a source familiar with the deal: While most regional sports networks are set up as subsidiaries underneath a corporate entity, leaving them in the lurch when they fall into hard times — like Diamond Sports Group, a former Sinclair subsidiary that was forced into bankruptcy when debt mounted and subscribers fell off — the Dodgers have complete corporate backing from Charter, a massive media conglomerate.
So not only do the Dodgers generate far more in local media than any of their competitors, but at a time when the linear-cable model is drying up and teams face increasing uncertainty with RSN contracts that represent about 20% of revenues, their deal is relatively iron-clad. That is especially valuable considering they’re in a division where three teams — the San Diego Padres, Arizona Diamondbacks and Colorado Rockies — have lost their local media deals.
Dec. 21, 2018: They swung a trade that streamlined their payroll
Four days before Christmas in 2018, the Dodgers executed a rare salary dump. Matt Kemp, Yasiel Puig, Alex Wood, Kyle Farmer and cash were sent to the Cincinnati Reds for Homer Bailey, who was promptly released, and two young players who would later help trigger blockbuster acquisitions, Jeter Downs and Josiah Gray. The prospect component was secondary; the real benefit was the money saved, which gave the Dodgers additional wiggle room under the luxury-tax threshold and helped them remain debt-service compliant the following year.
In a bigger sense, it was the culmination of a multi-year effort by the front office to rid the Dodgers of bloated contracts and streamline a payroll that ultimately became burdened by massive deals for players like Kemp, Andre Ethier, Carl Crawford and Adrián González. The Dodgers’ luxury-tax payroll dropped by about $50 million from 2017 to 2019, by which point only two players — A.J. Pollock and Kenta Maeda — were signed beyond the next two years. In Friedman’s mind, the Dodgers were now free to be aggressive.
“For our first four to five years, it was as much about trying to be as competitive as we could be while getting our future payroll outlook in a better spot,” he said. “At the end of the 2019 season was the first time we had reached that point and were in position to be more aggressive at the top of the free-agent class.”
Gerrit Cole and Anthony Rendon headlined that offseason’s free-agent class. The Dodgers didn’t come away with either of them.
They would soon make up for it.
Feb. 10, 2020: Mookie Betts became available — and they pounced
The Dodgers engaged in initial trade conversations around Betts leading up to the trade deadline in 2019, but then the Boston Red Sox won five of seven against the Tampa Bay Rays and the New York Yankees near the end of July, and suddenly Betts was unavailable. A tone was set nonetheless.
“We knew, with him going into his last year of control, that there was a chance they would look to trade him going into that offseason,” Friedman recalled. “There was a switch in their baseball-operations department, and Chaim Bloom was hired, who I have a good relationship with. I spent a lot of time talking to him in the beginning. For him, it was about getting his feet on the ground and understanding the organizational direction of what they were doing. And it wasn’t until January where he opened the door to engage.”
Friedman, who gave Bloom his first front-office job in Tampa, ultimately landed Betts and David Price for Alex Verdugo, Downs and another position-player prospect in Connor Wong on Feb. 10, 2020. Friedman had long coveted Betts not just for his supreme talent, but for his work ethic and competitive edge and how those qualities seemed to elevate those around him. Within five months, Betts agreed to a 12-year, $365 million extension, eschewing free agency.
March 17, 2022: Freddie Freeman became a surprise free agent addition
When Freeman hit free agency after winning the 2021 World Series with the Braves, Friedman assumed he would simply return to Atlanta. So did everyone else — Freeman included. He was a homegrown star poised to someday get his number retired and have a statue outside Truist Park. But initial conversations barely progressed, and the Dodgers saw an opening.
On the afternoon of Dec. 1, moments before the sport would shut down in the midst of a bitter labor fight, Dodgers players, coaches and executives gathered for Betts’ wedding in L.A. Friedman, Dodgers manager Dave Roberts and then-third baseman Justin Turner briefly stepped away to call Freeman. They wanted to leave a lasting impression before an owner-imposed lockout would prohibit communication between teams and players. They wanted to be the last club he heard from.
The message, essentially: Don’t forget about us.
Friedman said he “got off the call feeling like it was incredibly unlikely” that the Dodgers would land Freeman. But when the lockout ended on March 10, the Braves and Freeman’s then-agent, Casey Close, still couldn’t bridge the gap, either on length or value. Four days later, the Braves traded for another star first baseman in Matt Olson, leaving Freeman stunned. Three days after that, he pivoted to the Dodgers, coming to terms on a six-year, $162 million contract.
2022-23 offseason: They sat out the shortstop market
When Corey Seager became a free agent at the end of the 2021 season, the Dodgers had a ready-made replacement in Trea Turner, who had been acquired with Max Scherzer the previous summer in a deal that sent Gray and three other minor leaguers to the Washington Nationals. But when Turner himself became a free agent a year later, the Dodgers did nothing to shore up one of the sport’s most important positions.
Turner became part of a historic class of free-agent shortstops, along with Carlos Correa, Xander Bogaerts and Dansby Swanson. The Dodgers didn’t pursue any of them, even though they didn’t have a clear replacement. The Dodgers could have avoided years of uncertainty at this position by locking in a proven star, but doing so was hardly entertained.
The reason is now obvious.
“With where we were commitment-wise,” Friedman said, “and with Shohei [Ohtani] coming up the next offseason, it was just a higher bar to clear for us to do something that would have any negative ability for us to pursue Shohei.”
Dec. 11, 2023: Ohtani chose them
By the time Ohtani became a free agent in November of 2023, the Dodgers’ roster was loaded but their payroll was manageable, with only Betts and Freeman guaranteed beyond the next two seasons. The Dodgers could boast a contending team — with two franchise pillars and a wealth of young talent — but also pitch Ohtani on the promise of adding other impact players around him, regardless of his monstrous contract. It worked.
Now, Dec. 11, 2023, stands as one of the most monumental dates in Dodgers history. Ohtani not only joined the Dodgers that day, but he agreed to defer more than 97% of his 10-year, $700 million contract. The Dodgers have become infamous for their propensity to defer money, a mechanism to provide players with a higher guarantee but, given the ability to invest deferred commitments, is mostly beneficial to the Dodgers (though perhaps not as much as one might think).
Ohtani’s deal was followed by the addition of two frontline starters — Yoshinobu Yamamoto, who landed a contract worth $325 million, and Tyler Glasnow, who was acquired via trade and subsequently signed a five-year extension worth close to $140 million. Ohtani didn’t pitch in 2024, but he put together one of the greatest offensive seasons in baseball history, starting the 50/50 club and becoming the first full-time designated hitter to win an MVP.
Just as important, from the Dodgers’ perspective: He generated massive amounts of revenue.
Ohtani had MLB’s top-selling jersey by a wide margin. With him on the roster, the Dodgers struck sponsorship agreements with 11 different Japanese companies during the 2024 season. Two Ohtani bobblehead giveaways prompted fans to line up outside Dodger Stadium up to 10 hours before the first pitch. Japanese guided tours through the ballpark — a twice-a-day, four-day-a-week addition — never relented. The gift shops frequently had lines out the door.
The Dodgers won’t disclose how much additional revenue they generated from Ohtani last year, but team president Stan Kasten has repeatedly said it blew away even their most optimistic projections.
Oct. 9, 2024: They survived Game 4 of the NLDS
It’s amazing, given the space the Dodgers currently occupy, that five months ago they carried a reputation as, well, chokers. Their championship at the end of the COVID-19-shortened 2020 season had been thoroughly dismissed for its unconventionality. More prevalent in the general public’s mind was 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023, seasons that ended with talented teams getting eliminated early by inferior opponents.
The 2024 season was quickly headed in that direction. On Oct. 9, the Dodgers trailed a Padres club that was widely considered more well-rounded two-games-to-one in the best-of-five National League Division Series. Their depleted rotation had run out of starters. They would stage a bullpen game with their season on the line. And they would survive. The Dodgers shut out the Padres in Game 4, shut them out again in Game 5, then cruised past the New York Mets and Yankees to capture their first full-season championship since 1988.
What followed was a second straight offseason in which the Dodgers added practically every player they wanted. That included a frontline starter (Blake Snell), two corner outfielders (Teoscar Hernandez and Michael Conforto), three premium bullpen pieces (Tanner Scott, Kirby Yates and Blake Treinen), two fan favorites (Clayton Kershaw and Kiké Hernández) and one of the most alluring pitching prospects in a generation (Roki Sasaki). A key utility player (Tommy Edman) was also extended. The cost: another $466.5 million in guaranteed money, immediately after an offseason in which they guaranteed close to $1.4 billion in signings and extensions.
Roberts, fresh off a record-setting extension, has talked about how he might have been fired had he not navigated his Dodgers past the Padres last fall. Friedman acknowledged that the Dodgers probably don’t spend as much if they don’t win the World Series and generate the extra revenue that comes from it, though he called that “a lazy guess.”
Still, when asked how often he has thought about how life would be different if the Dodgers hadn’t won Game 4 of the 2024 NLDS, Friedman said: “Zero minutes.”
“We have been on the good side of those games and on the bad side of those games,” he added, “and I’ve spent zero minutes thinking about what the world would look like if the outcome had been different.”
All that matters now is a reality that exhilarates their fans and infuriates everyone else: The Dodgers look about as insurmountable as a franchise can be in this sport.
The Boston Bruins‘ approach to the trade deadline indicated that perhaps management thought this wasn’t their year, and they would add some future assets for a quick reload this offseason.
But as the chips fall on Monday, the Bruins still have a chance to make the playoffs.
That all begins with a game against the lottery-bound Buffalo Sabres Monday night (7 p.m., ESPN+). A win in that one closes the gap between Boston and the current first wild card, the New York Rangers. The Rangers have 72 points and 30 regulation wins through 68 games, while Boston is at 68 and 23 through 68.
After Buffalo, it’s a road trip through Nevada and California (Golden Knights on Thursday, Sharks on Saturday, Kings on Sunday and Ducks on Wednesday, March 26). All told, the Bruins will play teams currently in playoff position in six of the final 13 games after the matchup with the Sabres; the final five, in particular, could be a spot to make up ground, with two against the injury-struck Devils along with single games against the Sabres, Blackhawks and Penguins.
To be clear, this would be a long shot; in addition to going on a hot streak, the Bruins will need to jump ahead of four teams (which would all need to get cold, in this hypothetical). Stathletes isn’t so sure all of that will fall into place, giving the Bruins a 2.4% chance of making the postseason. But stranger things have happened in recent seasons!
There is a lot of runway left until April 17, the final day of the regular season, and we’ll help you track it all with the NHL playoff watch. As we traverse the final stretch, we’ll provide details on all the playoff races, along with the teams jockeying for position in the 2025 NHL draft lottery.
Note: Playoff chances are via Stathletes.
Jump ahead:
Current playoff matchups
Today’s schedule
Yesterday’s scores
Expanded standings
Race for No. 1 pick
Current playoff matchups
Eastern Conference
A1 Florida Panthers vs. WC1 Ottawa Senators
A2 Tampa Bay Lightning vs. A3 Toronto Maple Leafs
M1 Washington Capitals vs. WC2 New York Rangers
M2 Carolina Hurricanes vs. M3 New Jersey Devils
Western Conference
C1 Winnipeg Jets vs. WC2 Vancouver Canucks
C2 Dallas Stars vs. C3 Colorado Avalanche
P1 Vegas Golden Knights vs. WC1 Minnesota Wild
P2 Edmonton Oilers vs. P3 Los Angeles Kings
Monday’s games
Note: All times ET. All games not on TNT or NHL Network are available to stream on ESPN+ (local blackout restrictions apply).
Buffalo Sabres at Boston Bruins, 7 p.m.
Philadelphia Flyers at Tampa Bay Lightning, 7 p.m.
New Jersey Devils at Columbus Blue Jackets, 7 p.m.
Calgary Flames at Toronto Maple Leafs, 7:30 p.m.
Los Angeles Kings at Minnesota Wild, 8 p.m.
Sunday’s scoreboard
Detroit Red Wings 3, Vegas Golden Knights 0
Colorado Avalanche 4, Dallas Stars 3 (OT)
Edmonton Oilers 3, New York Rangers 1
New York Islanders 4, Florida Panthers 2
St. Louis Blues 7, Anaheim Ducks 2
Utah Hockey Club 3, Vancouver Canucks 1
Winnipeg Jets 3, Seattle Kraken 2 (OT)
Expanded standings
Atlantic Division
Points: 85
Regulation wins: 35
Playoff position: A1
Games left: 14
Points pace: 102.5
Next game: @ CBJ (Thursday)
Playoff chances: 99.9%
Tragic number: N/A
Points: 81
Regulation wins: 33
Playoff position: A2
Games left: 16
Points pace: 100.6
Next game: vs. PHI (Monday)
Playoff chances: 99.9%
Tragic number: N/A
Points: 81
Regulation wins: 31
Playoff position: A3
Games left: 16
Points pace: 100.6
Next game: vs. CGY (Monday)
Playoff chances: 99.9%
Tragic number: N/A
Points: 77
Regulation wins: 27
Playoff position: WC1
Games left: 16
Points pace: 95.7
Next game: @ MTL (Tuesday)
Playoff chances: 98.8%
Tragic number: N/A
Points: 71
Regulation wins: 23
Playoff position: N/A
Games left: 16
Points pace: 88.2
Next game: vs. OTT (Tuesday)
Playoff chances: 20.2%
Tragic number: 32
Points: 70
Regulation wins: 24
Playoff position: N/A
Games left: 15
Points pace: 85.7
Next game: @ WSH (Tuesday)
Playoff chances: 5.3%
Tragic number: 29
Points: 68
Regulation wins: 23
Playoff position: N/A
Games left: 14
Points pace: 82.0
Next game: vs. BUF (Monday)
Playoff chances: 2.4%
Tragic number: 25
Points: 58
Regulation wins: 21
Playoff position: N/A
Games left: 17
Points pace: 73.2
Next game: @ BOS (Monday)
Playoff chances: ~0%
Tragic number: 21
Metro Division
Points: 96
Regulation wins: 37
Playoff position: M1
Games left: 15
Points pace: 117.5
Next game: vs. DET (Tuesday)
Playoff chances: 99.9%
Tragic number: N/A
Points: 86
Regulation wins: 36
Playoff position: M2
Games left: 15
Points pace: 105.3
Next game: @ SJ (Thursday)
Playoff chances: 99.9%
Tragic number: N/A
Points: 78
Regulation wins: 32
Playoff position: M3
Games left: 14
Points pace: 94.1
Next game: @ CBJ (Monday)
Playoff chances: 95.7%
Tragic number: N/A
Points: 72
Regulation wins: 30
Playoff position: WC2
Games left: 14
Points pace: 86.8
Next game: vs. CGY (Tuesday)
Playoff chances: 53.2%
Tragic number: N/A
Points: 70
Regulation wins: 23
Playoff position: N/A
Games left: 16
Points pace: 87.0
Next game: vs. NJ (Monday)
Playoff chances: 16.7%
Tragic number: 31
Points: 68
Regulation wins: 24
Playoff position: N/A
Games left: 16
Points pace: 84.5
Next game: @ PIT (Tuesday)
Playoff chances: 6.4%
Tragic number: 29
Points: 66
Regulation wins: 19
Playoff position: N/A
Games left: 13
Points pace: 78.4
Next game: vs. NYI (Tuesday)
Playoff chances: 0.8%
Tragic number: 21
Points: 64
Regulation wins: 17
Playoff position: N/A
Games left: 14
Points pace: 77.2
Next game: @ TB (Monday)
Playoff chances: 0.5%
Tragic number: 21
Central Division
Points: 98
Regulation wins: 38
Playoff position: C1
Games left: 14
Points pace: 118.2
Next game: @ VAN (Tuesday)
Playoff chances: 99.9%
Tragic number: N/A
Points: 87
Regulation wins: 35
Playoff position: C2
Games left: 16
Points pace: 108.1
Next game: vs. ANA (Tuesday)
Playoff chances: 99.9%
Tragic number: N/A
Points: 85
Regulation wins: 35
Playoff position: C3
Games left: 14
Points pace: 102.5
Next game: @ TOR (Wednesday)
Playoff chances: 99.9%
Tragic number: N/A
Points: 79
Regulation wins: 29
Playoff position: WC1
Games left: 15
Points pace: 96.7
Next game: vs. LA (Monday)
Playoff chances: 91%
Tragic number: N/A
Points: 73
Regulation wins: 24
Playoff position: N/A
Games left: 14
Points pace: 88.0
Next game: @ NSH (Tuesday)
Playoff chances: 32.5%
Tragic number: 29
Points: 71
Regulation wins: 22
Playoff position: N/A
Games left: 15
Points pace: 86.9
Next game: @ EDM (Tuesday)
Playoff chances: 17%
Tragic number: 29
Points: 58
Regulation wins: 21
Playoff position: N/A
Games left: 16
Points pace: 72.1
Next game: vs. STL (Tuesday)
Playoff chances: ~0%
Tragic number: 18
Points: 49
Regulation wins: 17
Playoff position: N/A
Games left: 15
Points pace: 60.0
Next game: vs. SEA (Tuesday)
Playoff chances: ~0%
Tragic number: 7
Pacific Division
Points: 86
Regulation wins: 36
Playoff position: P1
Games left: 15
Points pace: 105.3
Next game: vs. BOS (Thursday)
Playoff chances: 99.9%
Tragic number: N/A
Points: 82
Regulation wins: 28
Playoff position: P2
Games left: 15
Points pace: 100.4
Next game: vs. UTA (Tuesday)
Playoff chances: 99.8%
Tragic number: N/A
Points: 81
Regulation wins: 31
Playoff position: P3
Games left: 17
Points pace: 102.2
Next game: @ MIN (Monday)
Playoff chances: 99.8%
Tragic number: N/A
Points: 73
Regulation wins: 24
Playoff position: WC2
Games left: 15
Points pace: 89.3
Next game: vs. WPG (Tuesday)
Playoff chances: 41.1%
Tragic number: N/A
Points: 71
Regulation wins: 24
Playoff position: N/A
Games left: 17
Points pace: 89.6
Next game: @ TOR (Monday)
Playoff chances: 18.7%
Tragic number: 33
Points: 65
Regulation wins: 21
Playoff position: N/A
Games left: 15
Points pace: 79.6
Next game: @ DAL (Tuesday)
Playoff chances: 0.1%
Tragic number: 23
Points: 63
Regulation wins: 23
Playoff position: N/A
Games left: 14
Points pace: 76.0
Next game: @ CHI (Tuesday)
Playoff chances: ~0%
Tragic number: 19
Points: 45
Regulation wins: 13
Playoff position: N/A
Games left: 14
Points pace: 54.3
Next game: vs. CAR (Thursday)
Playoff chances: ~0%
Tragic number: 1
Race for the No. 1 pick
The NHL uses a draft lottery to determine the order of the first round, so the team that finishes in last place is not guaranteed the No. 1 selection. As of 2021, a team can move up a maximum of 10 spots if it wins the lottery, so only 11 teams are eligible for the No. 1 pick. Full details on the process are here. Matthew Schaefer, a defenseman for the OHL’s Erie Otters, is No. 1 on the draft board.
Points: 45
Regulation wins: 13
Points: 49
Regulation wins: 17
Points: 58
Regulation wins: 21
Points: 58
Regulation wins: 21
Points: 63
Regulation wins: 23
Points: 64
Regulation wins: 17
Points: 65
Regulation wins: 21
Points: 66
Regulation wins: 19
Points: 68
Regulation wins: 23
Points: 68
Regulation wins: 24
Points: 70
Regulation wins: 23
Points: 70
Regulation wins: 24
Points: 71
Regulation wins: 22
Points: 71
Regulation wins: 23
Points: 71
Regulation wins: 24
Points: 73
Regulation wins: 24
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports12 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway