No, the Winnipeg Jets haven’t already won the Stanley Cup, although one can be excused for feeling that way.

The Jets started the season 12-1-0, becoming the sixth team in NHL history to win 12 of their first 13 games of a season. They’ve outscored everyone in front of the player whom many consider the best goaltender in the world in Connor Hellebuyck. Things are certainly trending in their direction.

Some early-season trends in the NHL stick. Others are a distant memory by the end of the season: Please recall the Edmonton Oilers‘ horrific first month that preceded a resurgent run to the final game of the season in the Stanley Cup Final.

Injuries and slumps happen. Fans get their hopes up, only to be let down.

Here are trends for all 32 teams from the 2024-25 season thus far that we’re testing with our patented (OK, patent-pending) “Trend-o-meter” to see how valid they are — from certain to stick (10) to probably just a blip (1).

Jump to a team:
ANA | BOS | BUF | CGY
CAR | CHI | COL | CBJ
DAL | DET | EDM | FLA
LA | MIN | MTL | NSH
NJ | NYI | NYR | OTT
PHI | PIT | SJ | SEA
STL | TB | TOR | UT
VAN | VGK | WSH | WPG

Atlantic Division

Jim Montgomery will keep his job (by any means necessary)

Despite preseason platitudes from his bosses, Bruins coach Jim Montgomery does not have a contract with Boston beyond this season. That led to some “hot seat” speculation when the Bruins stumbled out of the gate, although they were 6-6-1 by the end of October.

It’s a pressure-packed situation in Boston, as the optics have underscored. Bruins fans have seen Montgomery tear into captain Brad Marchand on the bench after a turnover and bench leading scorer David Pastrnak in the third period of a recent game. Boston players, including Marchand himself, treated the situations like nothing out of the ordinary. But it certainly feels as if Montgomery is desperately trying to get the attention of his team early.

And why not? He’s not the reason that Jeremy Swayman is playing as if he didn’t have a training camp or that management felt Joonas Korpisalo could replace Linus Ullmark. He’s the not the reason that a good complementary player like Elias Lindholm was imported to be a No. 1 center or that they didn’t sufficiently replace Jake DeBrusk‘s offense. It’s his job on the line, though. Do as you will, Monty.

Trend-o-meter rating: 10

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.

Atlantic Coast Conference

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

Big 12 Conference

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

Big Ten Conference

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

Southeastern Conference

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

American Athletic Conference

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 USA

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

Mid-American Conference

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

Mountain West Conference

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

Sun Belt Conference

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.

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.”