Logano seizes fresh chance, clinches spot in finale
LAS VEGAS — Knocked out of the playoffs this time last week, Joey Logano seized on his reversal of fortune to become the first driver locked into NASCAR’s championship finale.
Logano was below the cutline and eliminated from the eight-driver field when he left Charlotte Motor Speedway last Sunday. But when Alex Bowman‘s car failed postrace inspection, Bowman was disqualified and Logano reinstated to the playoff field.
The only two-time Cup champion in the playoff field, Logano passed Daniel Suarez with five laps remaining Sunday for his fourth career victory at Las Vegas Motor Speedway. It is the second win of the playoffs for Logano, and the Team Penske driver makes a Ford the first one locked into the winner-take-all final four at Phoenix Raceway next month.
He needed a massive fuel-saving effort to win.
“Man, we did some fuel mileage stuff, didn’t we?” Logano said. “What an incredible turn of events here the last week. It takes the whole team to do the fuel mileage stuff. Not just the engineers, spotter. It takes all of us to do it. Total team win.”
Logano had to hold off pole sitter Christopher Bell, who led a race-high 156 laps, over the closing two laps. A late pit stop put Bell 30 seconds behind Suarez, and Bell was cruising in his Toyota for Joe Gibbs Racing trying to run down Suarez when Logano got to Suarez first.
Bell didn’t have enough to catch Logano and finished 0.662 seconds back.
“We’re going to the championship four again!” Logano shouted on the frontstretch. He and Kyle Busch are the only two-time active champions, with Logano now in position to win a third Cup title.
Bell, who has made it to the championship race the past two years, was clearly disappointed after such a dominating day.
“I don’t know, I don’t know, and I don’t think I’ve come to terms with this yet,” Bell said. “Just a bummer. I think everyone on this team did everything perfect. Just because I ran second today doesn’t mean I’m going to finish anywhere next week. You’re never safe in this deal, so we needed to win today and unfortunately, we didn’t.”
Suarez, who was eliminated from the playoffs last week, finished third in a Chevrolet for Trackhouse Racing.
“It’s a little heartbreaking. I think we could have won it,” Suarez said.
William Byron of Hendrick Motorsports was fourth as he attempts to qualify for the championship race for a second consecutive year.
“It’s going to take a win, I feel like, so we have to keep working for it and keep running up front,” Byron said. “If we run up front, it will do two things — we’ll be able to compete for a win and score a lot of points. We just have to keep running like this.”
Byron was followed by teammate Bowman in fifth and then Gibbs driver Martin Truex Jr., who was eliminated from the playoffs in the first round in his final season of full-time NASCAR racing.
Gibbs driver Denny Hamlin was eighth in a massive recovery on an underwhelming day and only four playoff drivers finished in the top 10.
“Not a clean day. That certainly sums it up. You’ll have that,” Hamlin said. “We did the best we could to get the best finish.”
Kyle Larson, winner of two straight at Las Vegas as well as last week at Charlotte, came from two laps down to finish 11th. He was the top-seeded driver at the start of Sunday and is now third in the standings behind Logano and Bell.
“It was a messy, messy day. This was a long, hard-fought 11th-place finish,” Larson said. “We got the most we could out of the rest of the day.”
The remaining three playoff drivers had terrible days as reigning Cup champion Ryan Blaney, Chase Elliott and regular-season champion Tyler Reddick were all collected in the same early crash.
Logano is locked into the championship race, while Bell, Larson and Byron are above the cutline. Hamlin, Reddick, Blaney and Elliott are all below the elimination mark with two races remaining in the round.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
In the new 12-team College Football Playoff format, there is an added emphasis on conference championships. The four highest-ranked conference champions receive a first-round bye and a fifth conference champion is guaranteed a spot in the field. Those champions will be determined by conference title games held Dec. 6-7.
But in a college football landscape that has mostly done away with divisions and with some conferences expanding to as many as 18 teams, it can be difficult to figure out who is in line to reach those conference title games.
We’re here to help out. Below are the list of tiebreakers for each league to help determine conference championship game participants.
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams)
4. Combined win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Draw administered by the ACC commissioner
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams.
1. Combined head-to-head win percentage among the tied teams (if all tied teams are common opponents)
2. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams
2a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, and no tied team defeated each of the other tied teams, but a tied team lost to each of the other tied teams, that team is eliminated
3. Win percentage against common opponents
4. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings
5. Combined win percentage of conference opponents
6. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
7. Draw administered by the ACC commissioner
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against the next-highest common opponent in the conference standings; in case of tied teams in standings, use each team’s win percentage against all of those teams
4. Combined win percentage in conference games of conference opponents (strength of conference schedule)
5. Total wins over the 12-game season (only one win against teams from FCS or lower division will be counted)
6. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
7. Coin toss
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams. When reduced to two tied teams, the two-team tiebreakers will be used.
1. Combined head-to-head among tied teams (if all tied teams are common opponents)
1a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams
1b. If all tied teams are not common opponents, and no tied team defeated each of the other tied teams, but a tied team lost to each of the other tied teams, that team is eliminated
2. Win percentage against all common opponents
3. Record against next-highest common opponent in conference standings; in case of tied teams in standings, use each team’s win percentage against all of those teams
4. Combined win percentage in conference games of conference opponents (strength of conference schedule)
5. Total wins over the 12-game season (only one win against teams from FCS or lower division will be counted)
6. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
7. Coin toss
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams)
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Draw administered by the Big Ten commissioner
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams. When reduced to two tied teams, the two-team tiebreakers will be used.
1. Combined head-to-head among tied teams
1a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams
2. Win percentage against all common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams)
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Draw administered by the Big Ten commissioner
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams: if a two-team tiebreaker will not break a tie, combined records against tied common opponents will be used)
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher relative total scoring margin against all conference opponents (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Random draw
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams.
1. Combined head-to-head among tied teams (if all tied teams are common opponents)
1a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams
1b. If all tied teams are not common opponents, and no tied team defeated each of the other tied teams, but a tied team lost to each of the other tied teams, that team is eliminated
2. Record against all common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams; if a two-team tiebreaker will not break a tie, combined records against tied common opponents will be used)
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher relative total scoring margin against all conference opponents (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Random draw
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. If one team is ranked in the latest CFP rankings (and didn’t lose in the final weekend of the regular season)
2a. If one team is ranked in the latest CFP rankings and lost in the final weekend of the regular season, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
2b. If both teams are ranked, the higher-ranked team that didn’t lose in the final weekend of the regular season (if both lose, a composite average of metrics)
2c. If neither team is ranked in the latest CFP rankings, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
3. Win percentage against common conference opponents
4. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) excluding exempt games
5. Coin toss
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams.
1. Combined head-to-head (if all teams played each other)
1a. If one tied team defeated all other tied teams
2. If the highest-ranked team in the latest CFP rankings that didn’t lose in the final weekend of the regular season
2a. If the highest-ranked team loses in final weekend of regular season, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
2b. If multiple ranked teams in the CFP rankings, the highest ranked team(s) that wins in the final weekend of the regular season
2c. If all ranked teams lose on the final weekend, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
2d. If no teams are ranked in the final CFP rankings, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
3. Win percentage against common conference opponents
4. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) excluding exempt games
5. Coin toss
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie and three-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Highest CFP rankings going into the final weekend (if team wins in the final weekend)
3. Highest average ranking of four computer rankings (Connelly SP+, SportSource, ESPN SOR, KPI Rankings)
4. Highest average ranking of two computer rankings (SportSource, KPI Rankings)
5. Highest most recently published multiyear football Academic Progress Rate (if same, most recent year)
6. Draw administered by commissioner’s designee
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents based on MAC finish (breaking ties) from top-to-bottom of conference
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher ranking by Team Rating Score metric (SportSource Analytics)
6. Draw administered by MAC commissioner
Three-team tie:
1. Combined head-to-head (if all teams played each other)
2. If one tied team defeated all other tied teams
3. Win percentage against all common opponents
4. Win percentage against all common opponents based on finish (with ties broken)
5. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
6. Higher ranking by Team Rating Score metric (SportSource Analytics)
7. Draw administered by MAC commissioner
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Highest CFP ranking (if team wins in the final weekend)
2a. If only or both CFP ranked teams loses in the final weekend (or if there is no ranked teams), an average of metrics will be used
3. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference)
4. Record against the next-highest team in the conference standings (tied teams will be lumped together if tied teams played all those teams)
5. Win percentage against common conference opponents
6. Coin toss conducted virtually by the commissioner
Three-plus team tie:
1. Combined head-to-head (if all teams played each other)
2. If one tied team defeated all other tied teams
3. Highest CFP ranking among teams to win in the final weekend
4. Average of selected metrics (if ranked team loses or if no teams ranked)
5. Overall win percentage against all opponents (conference and nonconference); maximum one win against FCS or lower-division team
6. Record against the next-highest team in the conference standings (tied teams will be lumped together if tied teams played all those teams)
7. Win percentage against common conference opponents
8. Drawing conducted virtually by the commissioner
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie
1. Head-to-head
2. Overall win percentage
3. Win percentage against the next-highest team in the division standings (lumping together tied teams)
4. Win percentage against all common nondivisional conference opponents
5. Higher-ranked teams in the CFP rankings (if it wins in the final regular season week); if the highest-ranked team loses, an average of selected computer rankings (Anderson & Hester, Massey, Colley and Wolfe)
6. If no team is ranked in the CFP rankings, an average of selected computer rankings (Anderson & Hester, Massey, Colley and Wolfe)
7. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) against FBS teams
8. Coin toss
Three-plus team tie: (Teams will not revert to two-team tiebreaker once three-plus team tiebreaker is trimmed to two.)
1. Combined head-to-head
2. Divisional win percentage
3. Win percentage against the next-highest team in the division standings (lumping together tied teams)
4. Highest-ranked team in the CFP rankings (if they win in the final weekend of regular season); if that team loses, an average of selected computer rankings
5. If no team is ranked in the CFP rankings, an average of selected computer rankings (Anderson & Hester, Massey, Colley and Wolfe)
6. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) against FBS teams
7. Draw lots (conducted by commissioner)
Check out the ESPN college football hub page for the latest news, analysis, schedules, rankings and more.
-
Jesse Rogers, ESPN Staff Writer
SAN ANTONIO — Juan Soto will take his time surveying the free agent market before signing with a team, according to his agent Scott Boras.
Speaking at the general manager’s meetings Wednesday, Boras indicated that Soto desires a “thorough” vetting before making a decision.
“Due to the volume of interest and Juan’s desire to hear [from teams], I can’t put a timeframe on it, but it’s going to be a very thorough process for him,” Boras said. “He wants to meet people personally. He wants to talk with them. He wants to hear from them.”
That includes ownership, even for the New York Yankees, for whom he played in 2024 and hit 41 home runs with a league-leading 128 runs scored. Soto helped New York to a World Series appearance, but that doesn’t necessarily give the Yankees a leg up on the competition to sign him.
“He wants ownership that’s going to support that they are going win annually,” Boras said. “Owners want to meet with Juan and sit down and talk with him about what they’re going to provide for their franchise short term and long term.”
Soto’s overall deal is likely to be at least the second largest in MLB history behind Shohei Ohtani‘s 10-year, $700 million contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers.
Boras refused to compare the two players, but stressed Soto’s age (26) as a distinctive factor in teams’ pursuit of his client. Ohtani was 29 when he hit free agency.
“I don’t think Ohtani has much to do with Juan Soto at all,” Boras said. “It’s not something we discuss or consider. … He’s in an age category that separates him.”
Both New York teams have spoken to Boras already, though there are a handful of other big-market franchises that could be in play for his services, including the San Francisco Giants and Toronto Blue Jays.
Boras was asked how the competitive balance tax on payrolls could impact Soto’s free agency.
“I don’t think tax considerations are the focal point when you’re talking about a business opportunity where you can make literally billions of dollars by acquiring somebody like this,” Boras said.
Boras and Soto are only at the beginning stages of what could be a drawn-out process. One thing going for the player, in Boras’ estimation, is that Soto is “pretty well known” considering he has already been on three teams and played in 43 playoff games, including twice in the World Series.
In his agent’s eyes, every winning team should be interested.
“They’re [team executives] called upon to be championship magicians,” Boras said. “Behind every great magician is the magic Juan.”
-
Jesse Rogers, ESPN Staff Writer
SAN ANTONIO — Free agent pitcher Kyle Hendricks has agreed to a one year, $2.5 million contract with the Los Angeles Angels, sources familiar with the situation told ESPN.
Hendricks, 34, posted a 5.92 ERA for the Chicago Cubs last season but was better in the second half after a stint in the bullpen. His ERA was 4.41 from mid-July to the end of the regular season. He threw 7⅓ shutout innings in his last start as a Cub in late September after spending the first 11 years of his career with Chicago.
The Angels are hoping Hendricks finds more consistency in 2025, similar to what he displayed at times late in 2024. They also have a young pitching staff that needs mentoring. Hendricks can help in that department as well.
Hendricks won the ERA title in 2016, helping the Cubs to a World Series title. He was the last member of that team still playing for the Cubs until he became a free agent after the 2024 season. Overall, he’s 97-81 with a 3.68 ERA.
Hendricks is from the Los Angeles area, having gone to Capistrano Valley High School in Mission Viejo, California. He was originally drafted by the Angels in the 39th round in 2008 before attending Dartmouth. Additionally, his dad worked in the Angels’ ticket office for six years when Hendricks was a teenager.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports7 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Environment1 year agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
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