×
The March Madness expansion that absolutely no one wants is coming in 2027  The seemingly inevitable change that absolutely nobody wants appears to be coming in 2027.According to ESPN’s Pete Thamel, the NCAA has initiated the final steps to expand the men’s and women’s NCAA basketball tournaments to 76 teams. The expansion is on track to be formalized in the upcoming weeks, and the new 76-team tournament formats will begin next year.The news was met with the same reaction we’ve seen every time the idea of tournament expansion has been floated: Near universal disapproval.While not unexpected at this point, messing with the least flawed postseason in all of American sports remains inexplicable and indefensible.Outside of a handful of head coaches, athletic directors and television executives who stand to personally (but not sizably) benefit from this, nobody associated with college basketball wants this to happen.Fans of the sport absolutely despise the idea. Media members who cover the sport mostly feel the same. The NCAA Tournament is already the most popular postseason in American sports. There’s no obvious competitive reason for the change. And in an era where massive change is driven by money and virtually nothing else, the financial implications of expansion would seem to be minimal when put up against the pushback from just about everyone who cares about March Madness.There is simply no logical defense when it comes to messing with one of the few things in sports that just about everyone agrees shouldn’t be messed with it.Side note: The irony of all ironies here is that if you polled every college basketball fan in the world and asked them what they would do to change the NCAA Tournament before the better, the most common response you would undoubtedly get would be to DECREASE the field back to 64 teams like it was from 1985-2001.Despite its best efforts over decades littered with ineptitude and head-scratching decisions, the NCAA has consistently done one thing well: Organize a tournament that captivates the American public like few other things can for three weeks ever March/early April. The event brings in about a billion dollars a year for the NCAA, a total which accounts for right around 90 percent of the entity’s annual revenue.You would think those two sentences would be more than enough reason to leave well enough alone, and yet here we are.The most logical explanation for why, despite everything, expansion seems inevitable revolves around greed. No amount of money is ever enough, which is why college basketball fans are going to be force fed multiple tournament games featuring power conference teams with losing conference records playing ugly basketball in front of small crowds starting in March of 2027.The problem with this argument is that the financial benefits of tournament expansion really aren’t that great.The current television rights agreement between CBS Sports/TNT Sports and the NCAA runs through the 2032 tournament, and the addition of any early round games would have little to no bearing on that deal.“Right now there’s no guarantee there’s any additional revenue,” one commissioner told CBS Sports’ Matt Norlander last fall. “One of the main sticking points is that without more revenue, how do you pay for more games? How do you pay for more travel? How do you pay for more expenses of an expanded tournament? And on the flip side of it, if you expand, you’re devaluing basketball units at that point. Without more revenue it creates more problems.”Adding to the point: The current television ratings for the four “First Four” games that are played in Dayton each year on the Tuesday and Wednesday before the “real” tournament starts are … not great. The numbers belabor the point that the 2001 move from 64 to 65 teams — a move made because power conference officials didn’t want to lose an at-large bid after a handful of teams left the WAC to form the Mountain West Conference — was the original minor sin that is now on the verge of blossoming into a deadly sin.March Madness fanatics are willing to ignore the TruTV contests, and will even fill out brackets on Sunday-Wednesday of tournament week without knowing (or caring) who is going to win the four games in Dayton, but the early round becomes almost impossible to ignore when the number of teams participating jumps from four to 12.And those games? They aren’t going to be pretty.It’s almost too gross to look at.The biggest argument in favor of tournament expansion surrounds the idea of access.There are 365 teams in the sport.Great power conference teams are left out every year.Look at UCLA in 2021 and VCU in 20111.This will get more mid-majors into the field.Why are people so mad about more basketball?Let’s be clear: This has never been about access.No major American sport has greater access to its ultimate postseason than college basketball does. The reason? Conference tournaments.Almost every team in Division-I college basketball automatically qualifies for its conference tournament, which means almost every team in Division-I college basketball has the opportunity at the end of its season to play until it loses.Had an injured star player in the first half of the season who tanked your tournament resume? You can win your conference tournament and make the Big Dance. Had some chemistry issues early on that got fixed in the second half of the season? You can win your conference tournament and make the Big Dance. Played horrible basketball for absolutely no logical reason for the first three months of the season but are now playing splendidly? You can win your conference tournament and make the Big Dance.The power conference head coaches and administrators who seem to be the only ones in favor this will tell you that this is a numbers game. More and more teams keep making the jump to D-I, and because of that, bids are being taken away from some of the best power conference teams in the sport. Oh, and those mid-major Cinderellas you guys love so much? They’re also getting less of a chance to shine.It’s a disingenuous argument on both fronts.Sure, the Division-I level of college basketball has been adding teams on a consistent basis for decades now, but over that time, the stranglehold that power conference teams have had on bids to the Big Dance has only grown stronger.Over the last 10 years, a total of 362 NCAA Tournament at-large bids have been handed out. Out of those 362, 304 of them went to schools in a power conference. That’s 83 percent. If you can’t get your power conference program into the field of 68 over the course of 3-5 years, you probably deserve to have your job performance questioned.Three of the first four teams left out of last year’s NCAA Tournament were power conference squads Indiana, Auburn and Seton Hall. The fourth was the Mountain West’s San Diego State, a team from the best conference outside of the sport’s Power 5.Make no mistake about it, these new early round games will be loaded with power conference teams that have records right around .500 and have spent the previous four months proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are too average to compete for the sport’s biggest prize. We didn’t need to see Indiana versus Auburn last month. We saw more than enough from both teams between November and February to know exactly who they were.No one is claiming that this is a change that’s going to make college basketball diehards or casual March Madness bracket fillers abandon the event entirely. It’s just going to make every aspect of the event a little bit worse. The build-up to March will be a little bit more dull. The two weeks of conference tournament action will be a little less exciting. Filling out a bracket will be a decent bit more tedious. The added games themselves will be overwhelmingly forgettable. And all this will happen for no justifiable reason.For years, college basketball fans have fretted over the powers that be within the NCAA eventually screwing up the one and only thing they consistently get right. We appear to be on the precipice of their latest attempt to do just that.  #March #Madness #expansion #absolutely #coming

The March Madness expansion that absolutely no one wants is coming in 2027

The seemingly inevitable change that absolutely nobody wants appears to be coming in 2027.

According to ESPN’s Pete Thamel, the NCAA has initiated the final steps to expand the men’s and women’s NCAA basketball tournaments to 76 teams. The expansion is on track to be formalized in the upcoming weeks, and the new 76-team tournament formats will begin next year.

The news was met with the same reaction we’ve seen every time the idea of tournament expansion has been floated: Near universal disapproval.

While not unexpected at this point, messing with the least flawed postseason in all of American sports remains inexplicable and indefensible.

Outside of a handful of head coaches, athletic directors and television executives who stand to personally (but not sizably) benefit from this, nobody associated with college basketball wants this to happen.

Fans of the sport absolutely despise the idea. Media members who cover the sport mostly feel the same. The NCAA Tournament is already the most popular postseason in American sports. There’s no obvious competitive reason for the change. And in an era where massive change is driven by money and virtually nothing else, the financial implications of expansion would seem to be minimal when put up against the pushback from just about everyone who cares about March Madness.

There is simply no logical defense when it comes to messing with one of the few things in sports that just about everyone agrees shouldn’t be messed with it.

Side note: The irony of all ironies here is that if you polled every college basketball fan in the world and asked them what they would do to change the NCAA Tournament before the better, the most common response you would undoubtedly get would be to DECREASE the field back to 64 teams like it was from 1985-2001.

Despite its best efforts over decades littered with ineptitude and head-scratching decisions, the NCAA has consistently done one thing well: Organize a tournament that captivates the American public like few other things can for three weeks ever March/early April. The event brings in about a billion dollars a year for the NCAA, a total which accounts for right around 90 percent of the entity’s annual revenue.

You would think those two sentences would be more than enough reason to leave well enough alone, and yet here we are.

The most logical explanation for why, despite everything, expansion seems inevitable revolves around greed. No amount of money is ever enough, which is why college basketball fans are going to be force fed multiple tournament games featuring power conference teams with losing conference records playing ugly basketball in front of small crowds starting in March of 2027.

The problem with this argument is that the financial benefits of tournament expansion really aren’t that great.

The current television rights agreement between CBS Sports/TNT Sports and the NCAA runs through the 2032 tournament, and the addition of any early round games would have little to no bearing on that deal.

“Right now there’s no guarantee there’s any additional revenue,” one commissioner told CBS Sports’ Matt Norlander last fall. “One of the main sticking points is that without more revenue, how do you pay for more games? How do you pay for more travel? How do you pay for more expenses of an expanded tournament? And on the flip side of it, if you expand, you’re devaluing basketball units at that point. Without more revenue it creates more problems.”

Adding to the point: The current television ratings for the four “First Four” games that are played in Dayton each year on the Tuesday and Wednesday before the “real” tournament starts are … not great. The numbers belabor the point that the 2001 move from 64 to 65 teams — a move made because power conference officials didn’t want to lose an at-large bid after a handful of teams left the WAC to form the Mountain West Conference — was the original minor sin that is now on the verge of blossoming into a deadly sin.

March Madness fanatics are willing to ignore the TruTV contests, and will even fill out brackets on Sunday-Wednesday of tournament week without knowing (or caring) who is going to win the four games in Dayton, but the early round becomes almost impossible to ignore when the number of teams participating jumps from four to 12.

And those games? They aren’t going to be pretty.

It’s almost too gross to look at.

The biggest argument in favor of tournament expansion surrounds the idea of access.

There are 365 teams in the sport.

Great power conference teams are left out every year.

Look at UCLA in 2021 and VCU in 20111.

This will get more mid-majors into the field.

Why are people so mad about more basketball?

Let’s be clear: This has never been about access.

No major American sport has greater access to its ultimate postseason than college basketball does. The reason? Conference tournaments.

Almost every team in Division-I college basketball automatically qualifies for its conference tournament, which means almost every team in Division-I college basketball has the opportunity at the end of its season to play until it loses.

Had an injured star player in the first half of the season who tanked your tournament resume? You can win your conference tournament and make the Big Dance. Had some chemistry issues early on that got fixed in the second half of the season? You can win your conference tournament and make the Big Dance. Played horrible basketball for absolutely no logical reason for the first three months of the season but are now playing splendidly? You can win your conference tournament and make the Big Dance.

The power conference head coaches and administrators who seem to be the only ones in favor this will tell you that this is a numbers game. More and more teams keep making the jump to D-I, and because of that, bids are being taken away from some of the best power conference teams in the sport. Oh, and those mid-major Cinderellas you guys love so much? They’re also getting less of a chance to shine.

It’s a disingenuous argument on both fronts.

Sure, the Division-I level of college basketball has been adding teams on a consistent basis for decades now, but over that time, the stranglehold that power conference teams have had on bids to the Big Dance has only grown stronger.

Over the last 10 years, a total of 362 NCAA Tournament at-large bids have been handed out. Out of those 362, 304 of them went to schools in a power conference. That’s 83 percent. If you can’t get your power conference program into the field of 68 over the course of 3-5 years, you probably deserve to have your job performance questioned.

Three of the first four teams left out of last year’s NCAA Tournament were power conference squads Indiana, Auburn and Seton Hall. The fourth was the Mountain West’s San Diego State, a team from the best conference outside of the sport’s Power 5.

Make no mistake about it, these new early round games will be loaded with power conference teams that have records right around .500 and have spent the previous four months proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are too average to compete for the sport’s biggest prize. We didn’t need to see Indiana versus Auburn last month. We saw more than enough from both teams between November and February to know exactly who they were.

No one is claiming that this is a change that’s going to make college basketball diehards or casual March Madness bracket fillers abandon the event entirely. It’s just going to make every aspect of the event a little bit worse. The build-up to March will be a little bit more dull. The two weeks of conference tournament action will be a little less exciting. Filling out a bracket will be a decent bit more tedious. The added games themselves will be overwhelmingly forgettable. And all this will happen for no justifiable reason.

For years, college basketball fans have fretted over the powers that be within the NCAA eventually screwing up the one and only thing they consistently get right. We appear to be on the precipice of their latest attempt to do just that.

#March #Madness #expansion #absolutely #coming

The seemingly inevitable change that absolutely nobody wants appears to be coming in 2027.

According to ESPN’s Pete Thamel, the NCAA has initiated the final steps to expand the men’s and women’s NCAA basketball tournaments to 76 teams. The expansion is on track to be formalized in the upcoming weeks, and the new 76-team tournament formats will begin next year.

The news was met with the same reaction we’ve seen every time the idea of tournament expansion has been floated: Near universal disapproval.

While not unexpected at this point, messing with the least flawed postseason in all of American sports remains inexplicable and indefensible.

Outside of a handful of head coaches, athletic directors and television executives who stand to personally (but not sizably) benefit from this, nobody associated with college basketball wants this to happen.

Fans of the sport absolutely despise the idea. Media members who cover the sport mostly feel the same. The NCAA Tournament is already the most popular postseason in American sports. There’s no obvious competitive reason for the change. And in an era where massive change is driven by money and virtually nothing else, the financial implications of expansion would seem to be minimal when put up against the pushback from just about everyone who cares about March Madness.

There is simply no logical defense when it comes to messing with one of the few things in sports that just about everyone agrees shouldn’t be messed with it.

Side note: The irony of all ironies here is that if you polled every college basketball fan in the world and asked them what they would do to change the NCAA Tournament before the better, the most common response you would undoubtedly get would be to DECREASE the field back to 64 teams like it was from 1985-2001.

Despite its best efforts over decades littered with ineptitude and head-scratching decisions, the NCAA has consistently done one thing well: Organize a tournament that captivates the American public like few other things can for three weeks ever March/early April. The event brings in about a billion dollars a year for the NCAA, a total which accounts for right around 90 percent of the entity’s annual revenue.

You would think those two sentences would be more than enough reason to leave well enough alone, and yet here we are.

The most logical explanation for why, despite everything, expansion seems inevitable revolves around greed. No amount of money is ever enough, which is why college basketball fans are going to be force fed multiple tournament games featuring power conference teams with losing conference records playing ugly basketball in front of small crowds starting in March of 2027.

The problem with this argument is that the financial benefits of tournament expansion really aren’t that great.

The current television rights agreement between CBS Sports/TNT Sports and the NCAA runs through the 2032 tournament, and the addition of any early round games would have little to no bearing on that deal.

“Right now there’s no guarantee there’s any additional revenue,” one commissioner told CBS Sports’ Matt Norlander last fall. “One of the main sticking points is that without more revenue, how do you pay for more games? How do you pay for more travel? How do you pay for more expenses of an expanded tournament? And on the flip side of it, if you expand, you’re devaluing basketball units at that point. Without more revenue it creates more problems.”

Adding to the point: The current television ratings for the four “First Four” games that are played in Dayton each year on the Tuesday and Wednesday before the “real” tournament starts are … not great. The numbers belabor the point that the 2001 move from 64 to 65 teams — a move made because power conference officials didn’t want to lose an at-large bid after a handful of teams left the WAC to form the Mountain West Conference — was the original minor sin that is now on the verge of blossoming into a deadly sin.

March Madness fanatics are willing to ignore the TruTV contests, and will even fill out brackets on Sunday-Wednesday of tournament week without knowing (or caring) who is going to win the four games in Dayton, but the early round becomes almost impossible to ignore when the number of teams participating jumps from four to 12.

And those games? They aren’t going to be pretty.

It’s almost too gross to look at.

The biggest argument in favor of tournament expansion surrounds the idea of access.

There are 365 teams in the sport.

Great power conference teams are left out every year.

Look at UCLA in 2021 and VCU in 20111.

This will get more mid-majors into the field.

Why are people so mad about more basketball?

Let’s be clear: This has never been about access.

No major American sport has greater access to its ultimate postseason than college basketball does. The reason? Conference tournaments.

Almost every team in Division-I college basketball automatically qualifies for its conference tournament, which means almost every team in Division-I college basketball has the opportunity at the end of its season to play until it loses.

Had an injured star player in the first half of the season who tanked your tournament resume? You can win your conference tournament and make the Big Dance. Had some chemistry issues early on that got fixed in the second half of the season? You can win your conference tournament and make the Big Dance. Played horrible basketball for absolutely no logical reason for the first three months of the season but are now playing splendidly? You can win your conference tournament and make the Big Dance.

The power conference head coaches and administrators who seem to be the only ones in favor this will tell you that this is a numbers game. More and more teams keep making the jump to D-I, and because of that, bids are being taken away from some of the best power conference teams in the sport. Oh, and those mid-major Cinderellas you guys love so much? They’re also getting less of a chance to shine.

It’s a disingenuous argument on both fronts.

Sure, the Division-I level of college basketball has been adding teams on a consistent basis for decades now, but over that time, the stranglehold that power conference teams have had on bids to the Big Dance has only grown stronger.

Over the last 10 years, a total of 362 NCAA Tournament at-large bids have been handed out. Out of those 362, 304 of them went to schools in a power conference. That’s 83 percent. If you can’t get your power conference program into the field of 68 over the course of 3-5 years, you probably deserve to have your job performance questioned.

Three of the first four teams left out of last year’s NCAA Tournament were power conference squads Indiana, Auburn and Seton Hall. The fourth was the Mountain West’s San Diego State, a team from the best conference outside of the sport’s Power 5.

Make no mistake about it, these new early round games will be loaded with power conference teams that have records right around .500 and have spent the previous four months proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are too average to compete for the sport’s biggest prize. We didn’t need to see Indiana versus Auburn last month. We saw more than enough from both teams between November and February to know exactly who they were.

No one is claiming that this is a change that’s going to make college basketball diehards or casual March Madness bracket fillers abandon the event entirely. It’s just going to make every aspect of the event a little bit worse. The build-up to March will be a little bit more dull. The two weeks of conference tournament action will be a little less exciting. Filling out a bracket will be a decent bit more tedious. The added games themselves will be overwhelmingly forgettable. And all this will happen for no justifiable reason.

For years, college basketball fans have fretted over the powers that be within the NCAA eventually screwing up the one and only thing they consistently get right. We appear to be on the precipice of their latest attempt to do just that.

Source link
#March #Madness #expansion #absolutely #coming

With the NFL Draft behind us, it’s time to start getting excited about some of the rookies set to hit the league, and a huge part of their success will be based on fit. Time and time again, we’ve seen elite talent fail to reach their ceiling because they landed in a bad situation, while players who flew under the radar in the pre-draft process become superstars due to finding an ideal home for their talents.

In this 2026 draft class there were a handful of early picks that are truly eye-catching when it comes to their potential to be a serious factor as soon as they hit the league.

Arvell Reese, LB, New York Giants — 1st round, 5th overall

It might seem like a copout to throw the top player on our big board on this list, but it really can’t be overstated how perfect a fit Reese will be on the Giants. The best trait Reese brings to the pros is his unbelievable scheme flexibility, which translates to chaos in the NFL. Essentially he’s a player that can be moved all around the formation into basically any position in the front seven and find a way to make an impact.

The only thing that can hamper a player like this is a lack of talent around them. If a chaotic linebacker like this finds himself being the only threat on the field then it becomes easy for a team to bracket them and neutralize that ability. This simply is not possible when it comes to the New York Giants. Opposing offenses have to account for Brian Burns on every down, then worry about a rotation of Abdul Carter and Kayvon Thibodeaux coming off the edge. With two solid pass rushers in on snaps it creates the ultimate canvas for Reese to wreak havoc.

Sprinkle in the fact that you have John Harbaugh running the show, and we could see a new-generation version of Terrell Suggs — or something even more effective that we can’t even fully comprehend.

Makai Lemon, WR, USC, Philadelphia Eagles — 1st round, 20th overall

When the dust settles, I think the Dallas Cowboys are going to seriously regret getting two fourth-round picks in exchange for giving the Eagles their future top weapon in Makai Lemon.

Obviously, the writing is on the wall for A.J. Brown’s time in Philly, but this is an extremely rare case where I look at this team and think they’re going to be absolutely fine — potentially even scarier when Lemon gets up to NFL speed. That’s not a knock on Brown, but more a realization that a change in receiver skillsets can be additive to the Eagles’ passing offense.

It goes without saying that DeVonta Smith and A.J. Brown have been great, but it’s been more duplicative than anything. Both have similar skill sets, with crisp route running and amazing hands, but neither is really a YAC beast. Smith and Brown averaged around 3.0 yards after the catch last season, which is fine when you’re consistent — but Lemon is an absolute YAC MONSTER. He is going to be able to line up in the slot, split out wide, or operate out of trips and give this team another level to its passing offense.

What we’re going to see is another layer of the Eagles’ passing game get opened up because of Lemon, and I think he’s landing in the perfect spot to really make noise.

Peter Woods, DT, Clemson — Kansas City Chiefs, 1st round, 25th overall

This is just an absolutely filthy fit, which could give us a defensive front unlike anything else in the NFL. The biggest reason Woods went from being a Top 10 prospect when the college season began, to falling to 25th was due to questions about his individual motor and the ability to be the centerpiece of a defensive line — a necessity when you’re a top pick in the draft.

Now he lands on a Steve Spagnuolo defense where Chris Jones will be lined up next to him where the All Pro DT will be eating those doubles and be the focal point, so Woods is in a position to get downfield and penetrate. That’s a ludicrous boon to a young defensive player, and it’s my expectation that he will benefit the same way George Karlaftis did off the edge.

Perhaps more importantly, the fit gives Woods a veteran in Jones who can help mold his game. Both have that sudden “quick win” element to their play, with a violent first step — and while Woods’ arms don’t meet the NFL ideal on length, that can be helped if he’s a sponge and learns technique from Jones next to him.

Ultimately, I think the defensive front with two sudden defensive tackles operating out of a 4-3 front might be something we haven’t seen in the NFL since the early 2000s with Pat and Kevin Williams on the Minnesota Vikings.

Aveion Terrell, CB, Clemson — Atlanta Falcons, 2nd round, 48th overall

It’s rare to find an example where a player both slides in the NFL Draft and finds their perfect fit. Aveion Terrell was tailor-made for the Falcons’ defense, and he has the absolute best person to nurture him in the league: His brother.

It’s not just that both A.J. Terrell and Aveion Terrell now play cornerback for the same team, but that they have extremely similar skillsets. Both are very fluid athletes with fantastic technique and outstanding instincts when it comes to tracking and locating receivers. Aveion is slightly smaller than his brother, but makes up for his lack of ability in jump ball situations with being a better open-field tackler, and more aggressive in run support.

This means what we have in Atlanta is a highly skilled rookie corner who now gets to learn about the transition to the pros from a family member with a vested interest in seeing him succeed. There won’t be the concern of one replacing the other, because they are complementary corners where A.J. will be expected to play cover the No. 1, while Aveion has the ability to roam inside out a little more.

It’s just impossible to see how this fit will fail. It’s going to be so much fun to watch.

Lee Hunter, NT, Texas Tech — Carolina Panthers, 2nd round, 49th overall

The Carolina Panthers put mammoth work into overhauling their woeful defense this season with two huge signings in EDGE Jaelan Phillips, and MLB Devin Lloyd. The only missing piece to the puzzle was a stud nose tackle to eat up space, and now the Panthers have their guy.

Hunter is such a good fit in this Panthers defense lining up in their odd front with Derrick Brown. Brown is already one of the most dominant defensive tackles in the NFL, who doesn’t often get his flowers because it was too easy to pull the center over on a double. Hunter will ensure that can’t happen anymore. His ability to dent the pocket with his power and drive the center back into the quarterback’s lap will have a domino effect on the entire Panthers defense. Without that ability to push interior linemen out of the double teams will need to pick whether they need to deal with Phillips off the edge, or Brown off the interior.

It might not stack the stats for Hunter, but he is going to be an absolute difference maker. This applies to clogging running lanes as well, which will then open up Lloyd to get to the point of attack and wrap up plays. This is going to be such a good fit for the Panthers, and one that could pay huge dividends.

Garrett Nussmeier, QB, LSU — Kansas City Chiefs, 7th round, 249th overall

Closing out our best fits lets talk about the biggest wild card in all this and that’s Garrett Nussmeier. Prior to the draft I said that Nussmeier was going to be one of the best steals in this class, and that was operating under the assumption he was going to be a third round pick — not in the friggin’ seventh.

If you haven’t followed this story, yes, Nussmeier needs back surgery — but it’s to remove a cyst that was pressing on a nerve. It basically killed his year at LSU and led to the collapse in his performance. He will be full healed and ready to go by training camp, which means we all see where this one is headed.

With Patrick Mahomes on the sideline to start the season and only Justin Fields ahead of him on the depth chart there’s a very real chance a healthy Nussmeier could come in and steal the starting job. He’ll be operating in an offense with good weapons and astounding offensive minds to play to his strengths, with a real chance he can shine for a couple of months until Mahomes is back.

Fast-forward to next year, and someone is missing on a QB. Are they going to look to the second or third tier in 2027, or potentially send a decent pick to the Chiefs for Nussmeier on a bargain-basement deal, assuming he proves it in Mahomes’ absence.. Honestly, it’s a better landing spot than any quarterback got outside of the first round, and I think there’s a very real chance we enter next season with Nussmeier starting somewhere in the NFL as a result.

#NFL #Draft #team #fits #good #rookies #instant #stars">6 NFL Draft team fits that are so good, rookies can become instant stars  With the NFL Draft behind us, it’s time to start getting excited about some of the rookies set to hit the league, and a huge part of their success will be based on fit. Time and time again, we’ve seen elite talent fail to reach their ceiling because they landed in a bad situation, while players who flew under the radar in the pre-draft process become superstars due to finding an ideal home for their talents.In this 2026 draft class there were a handful of early picks that are truly eye-catching when it comes to their potential to be a serious factor as soon as they hit the league.Arvell Reese, LB, New York Giants — 1st round, 5th overallIt might seem like a copout to throw the top player on our big board on this list, but it really can’t be overstated how perfect a fit Reese will be on the Giants. The best trait Reese brings to the pros is his unbelievable scheme flexibility, which translates to chaos in the NFL. Essentially he’s a player that can be moved all around the formation into basically any position in the front seven and find a way to make an impact.The only thing that can hamper a player like this is a lack of talent around them. If a chaotic linebacker like this finds himself being the only threat on the field then it becomes easy for a team to bracket them and neutralize that ability. This simply is not possible when it comes to the New York Giants. Opposing offenses have to account for Brian Burns on every down, then worry about a rotation of Abdul Carter and Kayvon Thibodeaux coming off the edge. With two solid pass rushers in on snaps it creates the ultimate canvas for Reese to wreak havoc.Sprinkle in the fact that you have John Harbaugh running the show, and we could see a new-generation version of Terrell Suggs — or something even more effective that we can’t even fully comprehend.Makai Lemon, WR, USC, Philadelphia Eagles — 1st round, 20th overallWhen the dust settles, I think the Dallas Cowboys are going to seriously regret getting two fourth-round picks in exchange for giving the Eagles their future top weapon in Makai Lemon.Obviously, the writing is on the wall for A.J. Brown’s time in Philly, but this is an extremely rare case where I look at this team and think they’re going to be absolutely fine — potentially even scarier when Lemon gets up to NFL speed. That’s not a knock on Brown, but more a realization that a change in receiver skillsets can be additive to the Eagles’ passing offense.It goes without saying that DeVonta Smith and A.J. Brown have been great, but it’s been more duplicative than anything. Both have similar skill sets, with crisp route running and amazing hands, but neither is really a YAC beast. Smith and Brown averaged around 3.0 yards after the catch last season, which is fine when you’re consistent — but Lemon is an absolute YAC MONSTER. He is going to be able to line up in the slot, split out wide, or operate out of trips and give this team another level to its passing offense.What we’re going to see is another layer of the Eagles’ passing game get opened up because of Lemon, and I think he’s landing in the perfect spot to really make noise.Peter Woods, DT, Clemson — Kansas City Chiefs, 1st round, 25th overallThis is just an absolutely filthy fit, which could give us a defensive front unlike anything else in the NFL. The biggest reason Woods went from being a Top 10 prospect when the college season began, to falling to 25th was due to questions about his individual motor and the ability to be the centerpiece of a defensive line — a necessity when you’re a top pick in the draft.Now he lands on a Steve Spagnuolo defense where Chris Jones will be lined up next to him where the All Pro DT will be eating those doubles and be the focal point, so Woods is in a position to get downfield and penetrate. That’s a ludicrous boon to a young defensive player, and it’s my expectation that he will benefit the same way George Karlaftis did off the edge.Perhaps more importantly, the fit gives Woods a veteran in Jones who can help mold his game. Both have that sudden “quick win” element to their play, with a violent first step — and while Woods’ arms don’t meet the NFL ideal on length, that can be helped if he’s a sponge and learns technique from Jones next to him.Ultimately, I think the defensive front with two sudden defensive tackles operating out of a 4-3 front might be something we haven’t seen in the NFL since the early 2000s with Pat and Kevin Williams on the Minnesota Vikings.Aveion Terrell, CB, Clemson — Atlanta Falcons, 2nd round, 48th overallIt’s rare to find an example where a player both slides in the NFL Draft and finds their perfect fit. Aveion Terrell was tailor-made for the Falcons’ defense, and he has the absolute best person to nurture him in the league: His brother.It’s not just that both A.J. Terrell and Aveion Terrell now play cornerback for the same team, but that they have extremely similar skillsets. Both are very fluid athletes with fantastic technique and outstanding instincts when it comes to tracking and locating receivers. Aveion is slightly smaller than his brother, but makes up for his lack of ability in jump ball situations with being a better open-field tackler, and more aggressive in run support.This means what we have in Atlanta is a highly skilled rookie corner who now gets to learn about the transition to the pros from a family member with a vested interest in seeing him succeed. There won’t be the concern of one replacing the other, because they are complementary corners where A.J. will be expected to play cover the No. 1, while Aveion has the ability to roam inside out a little more.It’s just impossible to see how this fit will fail. It’s going to be so much fun to watch.Lee Hunter, NT, Texas Tech — Carolina Panthers, 2nd round, 49th overallThe Carolina Panthers put mammoth work into overhauling their woeful defense this season with two huge signings in EDGE Jaelan Phillips, and MLB Devin Lloyd. The only missing piece to the puzzle was a stud nose tackle to eat up space, and now the Panthers have their guy.Hunter is such a good fit in this Panthers defense lining up in their odd front with Derrick Brown. Brown is already one of the most dominant defensive tackles in the NFL, who doesn’t often get his flowers because it was too easy to pull the center over on a double. Hunter will ensure that can’t happen anymore. His ability to dent the pocket with his power and drive the center back into the quarterback’s lap will have a domino effect on the entire Panthers defense. Without that ability to push interior linemen out of the double teams will need to pick whether they need to deal with Phillips off the edge, or Brown off the interior.It might not stack the stats for Hunter, but he is going to be an absolute difference maker. This applies to clogging running lanes as well, which will then open up Lloyd to get to the point of attack and wrap up plays. This is going to be such a good fit for the Panthers, and one that could pay huge dividends.Garrett Nussmeier, QB, LSU — Kansas City Chiefs, 7th round, 249th overallClosing out our best fits lets talk about the biggest wild card in all this and that’s Garrett Nussmeier. Prior to the draft I said that Nussmeier was going to be one of the best steals in this class, and that was operating under the assumption he was going to be a third round pick — not in the friggin’ seventh.If you haven’t followed this story, yes, Nussmeier needs back surgery — but it’s to remove a cyst that was pressing on a nerve. It basically killed his year at LSU and led to the collapse in his performance. He will be full healed and ready to go by training camp, which means we all see where this one is headed.With Patrick Mahomes on the sideline to start the season and only Justin Fields ahead of him on the depth chart there’s a very real chance a healthy Nussmeier could come in and steal the starting job. He’ll be operating in an offense with good weapons and astounding offensive minds to play to his strengths, with a real chance he can shine for a couple of months until Mahomes is back.Fast-forward to next year, and someone is missing on a QB. Are they going to look to the second or third tier in 2027, or potentially send a decent pick to the Chiefs for Nussmeier on a bargain-basement deal, assuming he proves it in Mahomes’ absence.. Honestly, it’s a better landing spot than any quarterback got outside of the first round, and I think there’s a very real chance we enter next season with Nussmeier starting somewhere in the NFL as a result.  #NFL #Draft #team #fits #good #rookies #instant #stars

India’s women’s table tennis team rose to the occasion in a high-stakes group match, edging Ukraine 3-2 in a pulsating contest to keep its ITTF World Team Championships Finals qualification hopes on track on Wednesday.

The win also placed India in a strong position to top Group 6.

The tie began tensely, with World No. 49 Manika Batra put under pressure by the experienced Tetyana Bilenko. After dropping the second game, Manika showed her composure to win 11-9, 7-11, 11-6, 11-5 and give India an early lead.

Ukraine hit back through World No. 51 Margaryta Pesotska, who beat Yashaswini Ghorpade in a five-game contest. Ghorpade fought back after losing the first two games, including a dominant 11-1 win in the third, but Pesotska held her nerve in the decider to level the tie at 1-1.

India regained control through Diya Chitale, who produced an assured performance against Veronika Matiunina. The young paddler won 11-6, 11-8, 11-6, combining sharp placement with relentless tempo to put India 2-1 ahead.

ALSO READ | Madrid Open: Baptiste stuns World No. 1 Sabalenka, knocks her out in quarterfinal

With the tie hanging in the balance, Pesotska beat Manika 11-9, 5-11, 11-8, 11-6 to force a decisive fifth match.

Ghorpade then showed remarkable resilience under pressure, beating Tetyana 11-7, 11-9, 9-11, 11-7 to seal the tie for India.

The win places India in a commanding position in the group. It will take on Rwanda in its last group fixture on Thursday, a match that could confirm its passage into the main draw as group topper.

In the men’s section, India will take on Slovakia later in the day before wrapping up its Group 7 campaign against Guatemala on Thursday.

Published on Apr 29, 2026

#ITTF #World #Team #Championships #Yashaswini #holds #nerve #decider #India #women #beat #Ukraine #Group #thriller">ITTF World Team Championships: Yashaswini holds nerve in decider as India women beat Ukraine in Group 6 thriller  India’s women’s table tennis team rose to the occasion in a high-stakes group match, edging Ukraine 3-2 in a pulsating contest to keep its ITTF World Team Championships Finals qualification hopes on track on Wednesday.The win also placed India in a strong position to top Group 6.The tie began tensely, with World No. 49 Manika Batra put under pressure by the experienced Tetyana Bilenko. After dropping the second game, Manika showed her composure to win 11-9, 7-11, 11-6, 11-5 and give India an early lead.Ukraine hit back through World No. 51 Margaryta Pesotska, who beat Yashaswini Ghorpade in a five-game contest. Ghorpade fought back after losing the first two games, including a dominant 11-1 win in the third, but Pesotska held her nerve in the decider to level the tie at 1-1.India regained control through Diya Chitale, who produced an assured performance against Veronika Matiunina. The young paddler won 11-6, 11-8, 11-6, combining sharp placement with relentless tempo to put India 2-1 ahead.ALSO READ | Madrid Open: Baptiste stuns World No. 1 Sabalenka, knocks her out in quarterfinalWith the tie hanging in the balance, Pesotska beat Manika 11-9, 5-11, 11-8, 11-6 to force a decisive fifth match.Ghorpade then showed remarkable resilience under pressure, beating Tetyana 11-7, 11-9, 9-11, 11-7 to seal the tie for India.The win places India in a commanding position in the group. It will take on Rwanda in its last group fixture on Thursday, a match that could confirm its passage into the main draw as group topper.In the men’s section, India will take on Slovakia later in the day before wrapping up its Group 7 campaign against Guatemala on Thursday.Published on Apr 29, 2026  #ITTF #World #Team #Championships #Yashaswini #holds #nerve #decider #India #women #beat #Ukraine #Group #thriller

Madrid Open: Baptiste stuns World No. 1 Sabalenka, knocks her out in quarterfinal

With the tie hanging in the balance, Pesotska beat Manika 11-9, 5-11, 11-8, 11-6 to force a decisive fifth match.

Ghorpade then showed remarkable resilience under pressure, beating Tetyana 11-7, 11-9, 9-11, 11-7 to seal the tie for India.

The win places India in a commanding position in the group. It will take on Rwanda in its last group fixture on Thursday, a match that could confirm its passage into the main draw as group topper.

In the men’s section, India will take on Slovakia later in the day before wrapping up its Group 7 campaign against Guatemala on Thursday.

Published on Apr 29, 2026

#ITTF #World #Team #Championships #Yashaswini #holds #nerve #decider #India #women #beat #Ukraine #Group #thriller">ITTF World Team Championships: Yashaswini holds nerve in decider as India women beat Ukraine in Group 6 thriller

India’s women’s table tennis team rose to the occasion in a high-stakes group match, edging Ukraine 3-2 in a pulsating contest to keep its ITTF World Team Championships Finals qualification hopes on track on Wednesday.

The win also placed India in a strong position to top Group 6.

The tie began tensely, with World No. 49 Manika Batra put under pressure by the experienced Tetyana Bilenko. After dropping the second game, Manika showed her composure to win 11-9, 7-11, 11-6, 11-5 and give India an early lead.

Ukraine hit back through World No. 51 Margaryta Pesotska, who beat Yashaswini Ghorpade in a five-game contest. Ghorpade fought back after losing the first two games, including a dominant 11-1 win in the third, but Pesotska held her nerve in the decider to level the tie at 1-1.

India regained control through Diya Chitale, who produced an assured performance against Veronika Matiunina. The young paddler won 11-6, 11-8, 11-6, combining sharp placement with relentless tempo to put India 2-1 ahead.

ALSO READ | Madrid Open: Baptiste stuns World No. 1 Sabalenka, knocks her out in quarterfinal

With the tie hanging in the balance, Pesotska beat Manika 11-9, 5-11, 11-8, 11-6 to force a decisive fifth match.

Ghorpade then showed remarkable resilience under pressure, beating Tetyana 11-7, 11-9, 9-11, 11-7 to seal the tie for India.

The win places India in a commanding position in the group. It will take on Rwanda in its last group fixture on Thursday, a match that could confirm its passage into the main draw as group topper.

In the men’s section, India will take on Slovakia later in the day before wrapping up its Group 7 campaign against Guatemala on Thursday.

Published on Apr 29, 2026

#ITTF #World #Team #Championships #Yashaswini #holds #nerve #decider #India #women #beat #Ukraine #Group #thriller

Post Comment