‘You’re doing nothing illegal’: How coaches find and use rule loopholes
-
Adam Rittenberg, ESPN Senior Writer
During every walk-through before Oregon games, coach Dan Lanning and Ducks players review an important and specific set of plays, broadly and innocuously labeled: “College football situations.” Some plays stay the same and some are added.
Oregon staff members collect examples from around the football universe and watch the film of how the plays unfold. Then, Ducks players and coaches rehearse, hoping preparation will pay off but mindful that the right time might never come.
“The amount of different situations you work week to week that never really show up, whether it’s intentionally taking a safety or whatever that might be, you spend an ungodly amount of time on it,” Lanning told ESPN three days after the Ohio State game. “Then, you hope that you recognize it in the moment where you can have a chance to execute things.”
The recognition came in one of the most important moments of Oregon’s 32-31 win over Ohio State on Oct. 12. Ohio State had driven the ball to Oregon’s 43-yard line with 10 seconds left, but faced third-and-25. Realistically, the Buckeyes had time for two or maybe three plays. After an Oregon timeout, the Ducks came out with 12 defenders.
Despite Ohio State coach Ryan Day and others on the sideline pointing out the extra defender, the Buckeyes threw a pass to Jeremiah Smith that Oregon’s Jabbar Muhammad swatted away. Oregon was flagged for illegal substitution, but four seconds had elapsed. On the ensuing play, Ohio State quarterback Will Howard was forced to scramble and slid too late as the clock expired, giving Oregon a massive win.
“This is one obviously something we had worked on, so you can see the result.” @oregonfootball‘s Dan Lanning confirms that the Duck’s 12 men penalty vs Ohio State was on purpose 🧠 pic.twitter.com/Vs4mDtWs7S
— FOX College Football (@CFBONFOX) October 15, 2024
A Power 4 assistant who saw the play texted Lanning: Be honest, did you do that on purpose?
“He sent me back a wink emoji,” the assistant said.
The Lanning loophole sparked national reaction and, four days later, was closed by a new NCAA rules interpretation on how to handle 12-man penalties at the end of each half. Under the new policy, Ohio State would have had the option to take the penalty and have the clock reset to the time of the snap. But the outcome of the game didn’t change.
The Oregon 12-man situation wasn’t the first time — nor will it be the last — when a team capitalized on a vulnerable part of the rule book. Coaches are always seeking situations where they can gain the upper hand at critical moments in games. Officials also must be on alert for intentional actions that can impact games.
“We all have stuff like that,” a Power 4 coach said. “You’re doing nothing illegal. You’re just taking the rule and saying, ‘OK, if we ever get put in that situation …’ You’ve got to be smart enough to do it. You have to have enough clarity to call it and do it and believe the guys are actually going to get it executed, and know that the referees are going to get it right. It’s the rule’s fault; it’s not the coach’s fault.
“If you tell me the speed limit’s 65 [miles an hour] and you’re not going to ticket me until 65, then I’m going to drive 64.”
Steve Shaw’s phone wouldn’t stop ringing in the hours after Oregon’s win over Ohio State. Everyone wanted to talk to Shaw, the national coordinator of football officials, about the Ducks’ 12-man penalty.
“What seemed apparent by Monday morning, there was a buzz going on in coaching circles,” Shaw told ESPN. “My guess is people were going to say, ‘Hey, great technique. Let’s put it in our arsenal.'”
Shaw had “no qualms” with the way the play was officiated on the field. Illegal substitution penalties happen somewhat regularly and are often a product of sideline chaos. If Oregon had sent out 12 defenders on consecutive plays, Shaw and other officiating sources who spoke to ESPN said an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty would have been called for an “unfair act.” A 15-yard penalty would have put Ohio State comfortably in field goal range.
The concern, one Shaw often hears in his role on the NCAA football rules committee, is that a penalty should never provide an advantage for the offending team. So there was urgency to step in and prevent the loophole from being exploited again.
“People say, ‘Y’all changed the rules,’ and we really didn’t,” Shaw said. “We really are basing it in the rules that we have today, but using it as an interpretation.”
The NCAA also had a precedent with a similar time-killing objective, but a different scheme. In a 2017 game featuring Cal and North Carolina, Cal led 35-24 with 17 seconds left and UNC at the Bears’ 12-yard line. As the Tar Heels looked to the end zone, Cal defenders intentionally pulled down UNC wide receivers after the snap. Penalty flags flew, but six seconds went off the clock.
On the ensuing snap, the Bears’ defenders did the same thing and five more seconds ticked away. UNC ended up scoring but no time remained and Cal had a 35-30 win.
“They didn’t put any more time on the clock, so we eventually ran out of time,” Larry Fedora, North Carolina’s coach at the time, told ESPN. “It was within the rules, because that’s the way the rules were set up at that time.”
Fedora, who had been involved with the football rules committee, immediately began communicating with officials about the sequence. Days later, the NCAA announced a rules interpretation that would allow officials to assess unsportsmanlike conduct penalties and reset the game clock following “intentional fouls.”
“You’re fouling purposely and you’re getting a big advantage,” Shaw said. “And because that’s an observable act, those were blatant holds, then we converted to unsportsmanlike conduct. In this [Oregon-Ohio State] situation, many times, teams put 12 on the field totally by accident. They don’t want to do it, but personnel gets goofed up or whatever. In season, it would be very difficult to create a new rule, but we’re really leveraging off that other [Cal-North Carolina] play, where the defense is creating a foul to give them a clock advantage.”
When Fedora watched the end of the Oregon-Ohio State game, his mind immediately went back to the 2017 game against Cal.
“They played within the rules,” Fedora said of Oregon. “They just took advantage of a loophole that not a lot of people would have been aware of. Some of the opportunities never come up, but when it does, are you going to be prepared? You’ve got to give Dan Lanning and his staff credit.”
As Bowling Green prepared to face Minnesota in the 2023 Quick Lane Bowl, Falcons coach Scot Loeffler heard from a coach at another school about a special teams play that would capitalize on a “legit loophole.”
The play called for the offense to switch from a traditional formation into a scrimmage-kick set — in this case, a punt formation. Rules prohibit defenses from placing a down lineman within the frame of the long snapper, to protect the snapper, who has his head down. A foul would result in a 5-yard penalty.
“This is brilliant,” Loeffler said to himself.
He checked with several “high-end [game] officials,” primarily to ensure that he could legally execute the play.
“They said it’s absolutely legal and the minute that you do it, if it’s executed, we’ll have to make a rule change,” Loeffler told ESPN. “Just listening to the voices of the people that I talked to, they wanted it to occur so they could change the rule, because it’s a loophole.”
Loeffler also informed the game officials, from the American Athletic Conference, of what he planned to do if the situation arose.
“It was dead silent,” Loeffler recalled. “They go, ‘We’ve got to call our supervisor.'”
The AAC officials came back and said if they saw the formation change, they would make a verbal command to Minnesota’s nose guard. Down 30-17 with 5:24 left and facing fourth-and-2 at its own 46-yard line, Bowling Green called a timeout.
The Falcons lined up for a tush-push quarterback sneak, but then shifted quarterback Camden Orth to the side and moved tight end Harold Fannin Jr. back to the punter position. Any snap would have triggered a penalty and a first down. Minnesota nose guard Kyler Baugh would never anticipate a punt formation because it made no sense for Bowling Green, given the game situation. But the official not only shouted toward Baugh but tapped him on the side, as did Gophers linebacker Cody Lindenberg. Only then did Baugh move, averting the penalty and forcing another Bowling Green timeout.
“They physically moved the nose guard into a 3-technique position after a verbal command, which is absolutely preposterous,” Loeffler said. “It’s the only time in college football or pro football that I’ve ever seen an official literally put his hands on the guy. Why are you lining up for a punt on a two-minute situation when you need to score? Why did you burn a timeout? Well, we should have had a free 5 [yards] with no time being used off the clock. It was the right [play] call, and they were just afraid to make the call, plain and simple.”
Despite his frustration, and a loophole that’s still open, Loeffler hopes teams are eventually prevented from shifting into punt formations.
“It’s a bad rule,” he said. “They need to clean that piece up.”
Special teams can provide the platform for loophole-seeking opportunities, as well as key changes. As a first-year head coach at Wisconsin in 2006, Bret Bielema found one, much to the ire of his Penn State counterpart Joe Paterno. Wisconsin scored a touchdown to go ahead 10-3 with 23 seconds left in the first half.
On the ensuing kickoff, Wisconsin intentionally had players run offside, easily thwarting Penn State’s chances for a return. Although the Badgers were penalized, nine seconds ticked off because of a new rule just introduced — and designed to shorten games — that started the clock when a ball is kicked, rather than when it’s touched in the field of play. Penn State accepted the penalty and, rather than taking over deep in its own end, had Wisconsin rekick. But the Badgers once again intentionally ran offside.
By the time Wisconsin lined up for a third kickoff, only four seconds remained. The Badgers executed a squib kick and the clock expired.
“Coach Paterno was beyond furious,” said Bielema, now the coach at Illinois. “I had a kickoff [coverage specialist], James Kamoku ask me, ‘Coach, how far offsides can I be?’ I said, ‘James, I don’t care if you catch the kick.’ So he took off, he was about 20 yards in front of the kick.”
Paterno laid into the officials and was so upset that he refused to do an on-air halftime interview. Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez, the longtime Badgers coach whom Bielema replaced, told ESPN at the time that Bielema capitalized on a “bad rule.”
“If Joe Paterno does that, everyone says, ‘It’s genius,'” Alvarez said. “There are rules. Good coaches take advantage of them.”
When the rules committee met after the season, it reinstated the kickoff timing policy for the clock to start after the kick is touched.
“They didn’t have a choice,” Bielema said.
The NCAA sends out rule interpretation bulletins somewhat regularly, Shaw said, but rarely do they receive widespread attention like after the Oregon-Ohio State game. Early in the 2021 ACC championship game, Pitt quarterback Kenny Pickett had college football buzzing when he faked a slide, only to freeze Wake Forest defenders, and then sprinted for a 58-yard touchdown.
Days later, a rules memo stated that any play where a ball carrier “begins, simulates, or fakes a feet-first slide” should be immediately whistled dead. Wake Forest coach Dave Clawson thought Pickett genuinely noticed Demon Deacons defenders easing up on the play and ended his slide, while the Oregon 12-man penalty seemingly had more intent behind it.
KENNY PICKETT FAKED THE SLIDE AND RAN 58 YARDS FOR THE TD 😱 pic.twitter.com/EypNNJZYHE
— SportsCenter (@SportsCenter) December 5, 2021
“The one is a kid reacting in the moment, the other is a head coach making a strategic move to help his team win,” Clawson said. “But I’m glad they closed the loophole, and they closed the loophole on the fake slide. Any time the defense commits a penalty with the intention of making time go off the clock to hurt the offense, I think they have to look at all those fouls.”
Clawson and others highlighted a distinction between plays that are simply unusual and ones designed to target rule loopholes. When coaches meet with officials before every game, they often alert the crew to specific trick plays or exotic formations and shifts.
“You make sure that they’re going to view that as a legal strategic maneuver before you do it,” Clawson said.
Oregon didn’t have the same incentive to tip off the Big Ten crew before the Ohio State game, as its intent would have been revealed. Coaches who watched the play noted that Oregon players were pointing to the sideline and had a player run off and back on, to simulate confusion. Bielema thought the play likely would only be executed correctly after a timeout.
There also was some inherent risk for Oregon to absorb the penalty, which moved the ball inside its 40-yard line.
“There’s a real fine line there with an ability for a kicker to go out and make that kick,” Vanderbilt coach Clark Lea said.
Behind the scenes, teams will keep practicing nuanced situations, hoping for the right time to call them. A coach said his team regularly practices a field goal timing scenario that capitalizes on the time it takes for officials to position themselves, but has only used the play twice in a decade.
Vanderbilt has “teach the game” portions of its Friday practices where it reviews situations like Oregon-Ohio State and others to do with penalties, timing, substitution patterns and end of halves. Bielema said he’s “always looking for little things.”
“Sometimes they come up, sometimes they don’t,” Lea said, “but you always want to be prepared, because that’s hopefully the difference in the game.”
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