NCAA proposes expanding March Madness by as many as eight teams

posted in: News | 0

The NCAA has presented a plan to Division I conference commissioners that would expand the lucrative men’s and women’s basketball tournaments by four or eight teams alongside an option to leave each field at 68 teams, according to a person familiar with the details.

The proposals were outlined to the commissioners this week by NCAA Senior Vice President of Basketball Dan Gavitt and NCAA Vice President for Women’s Basketball Lynn Holzman, the person told The Associated Press on Thursday on condition of anonymity because no official announcements have been made. The news was first reported by Yahoo! Sports.

Under the proposal, expansion of the 68-team field included both four- and eight-team models. The NCAA would keep its 64-team bracket but would add play-in games involving the 10 through 12 seeds.

If the men’s tournament were to expand, it is expected the women’s tourney would as well.

There are many in college basketball who have said they believe the 68-team fields and three weekends of play are ideal, but pressure has grown to add teams and games to one of the most popular sports events on the U.S. calendar. Last year, the NCAA Division I board of directors approved recommendations that included allowing one quarter of teams in larger sports to compete in championship events; in that scenario, March Madness tourneys could expand to nearly 90 teams.

The NCAA is currently in the midst of an eight-year extension of its TV deal for the men’s tournament worth $8.8 billion that runs through 2032. That would not be expected to change if a handful of teams are added.

More games would provide a small boost through ticket sales and merchandise, but the pool of money the NCAA uses to pay out conferences and member schools would essentially stay the same. What could change, however, is how that money would be divided up if the tournament broadens.

Expansion would also mean the men’s tournament would have to find an additional site besides Dayton for its First Four games. The Ohio city already has games on Tuesday and Wednesday and wouldn’t be able to host additional play-in games ahead of the tourney’s traditional first-round opening on Thursday. Women’s play-in games are at the same campus sites as the first two rounds of the tournament.

Expansion is largely backed by larger conferences and smaller leagues do not want to lose the automatic bids that come with a conference tournament championship, or face the prospect of always being slotted for the play-in games.

The earliest the NCAA Tournament could expand would be the 2025-26 season, the person told AP. The NCAA basketball oversight committee meets next week and the tournament selection committee has a meeting next month.

The men’s tournament last expanded in 2011 when it went from 64 to 68 teams. The women’s tournament matched that in 2022.
The women’s tournament is coming off its most successful year ever that included a record audience of 18.7 million for the title game win by South Carolina over Iowa, the highest for a basketball broadcast of any kind in five years. It outdrew the men’s championship game — UConn winning its second consecutive title with a win over Purdue — by nearly 3 million viewers. The women’s tournament also had record attendance.

Related Articles

College Sports |


Gophers men’s basketball: Cam Christie to remain in NBA draft

College Sports |


Gophers men’s basketball adds Charlotte transfer guard Lu’Cye Patterson

College Sports |


Gophers men’s basketball: Texas-San Antonio center Trey Edmonds commits to the U

College Sports |


Transfer portal losses sting Gophers men’s basketball program

College Sports |


Gophers men’s basketball adds New Mexico State wing Femi Odukale

China has no favorite in Biden-Trump race, US intelligence finds

posted in: Politics | 0

Peter Martin | (TNS) Bloomberg News

WASHINGTON — U.S. spies believe China’s leaders see little or no upside to the looming electoral showdown between President Joe Biden and his predecessor Donald Trump.

Ahead of next week’s first debate of the presidential campaign, U.S. intelligence agencies assess that China has no clear preference between the two candidates, according to American officials, who asked not to be identified discussing nonpublic assessments.

The conclusion suggests that officials in Beijing, like their counterparts in Washington, believe that ties between the world’s two largest economies will continue on their long-term downward trajectory despite a recent increase in high-level meetings billed as efforts to manage differences. In recent years, the two countries have clashed over everything from technology to human rights and the South China Sea.

The U.S. assessment is matched in interviews with Chinese officials, who also spoke on condition of anonymity. They say the view in Beijing is that both candidates are intent on containing China and disrupting its rise.

“Neither is a perfect candidate, to put it mildly,” said Gao Zhikai, a former Chinese diplomat who served as translator to the late leader Deng Xiaoping. “Biden is a Cold War warrior who doesn’t care if he pushes the world into conflict, while Trump will probably impose sanctions and tariffs on China in pursuit of his America-first agenda.”

Spokespeople for the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment on intelligence assessments of how China views the 2024 vote. Asked about the U.S. elections, Liu Pengyu, spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington, said China does not comment on “U.S. domestic affairs.”

A second Trump administration could pose significant problems for Beijing.

In his first term, Trump declared a trade war on China, increased high-level ties with Taiwan and oversaw a reorientation of U.S. military strategy to counter Beijing. By the end of his time in office, it was routine for officials in both Beijing and Washington to refer in private to ties between the nations as a new Cold War.

Chinese officials believe that a second Trump administration would likely be characterized by provocative pronouncements, unpredictable policymaking and a renewed push for anti-China measures, U.S. and Chinese officials said. During Trump’s campaign, he’s already floated the idea of 60% tariffs on Chinese-made goods,

Liu, the Chinese embassy spokesman, said that raising tariffs on Chinese goods would drive up the cost of goods, “inflicting more loss on American companies and consumers” while damaging global supply chains.

The flip side of these concerns, Chinese officials believe, is that a Trump presidency could weaken Washington’s ties with its allies, opening opportunities for Beijing. The former president’s first term in office was characterized by repeated friction with European allies over defense spending, as well as periodic complaints about the cost of the protection the U.S. affords Japan and South Korea.

One Chinese official told Bloomberg that Trump might also prove more amenable to doing deals than Biden, suggesting that Chinese concessions on trade could open the way for U.S. concessions over sensitive issues for China such as Taiwan.

But the prospect of a second Biden term offers little comfort to Beijing.

The central concern for Chinese policymakers would be Biden’s likely push to strengthen regional partnerships to push back against Chinese assertiveness, according to U.S. and Chinese officials.

Over the past four years, China has routinely denounced groups such as the “Quad,” comprised of the U.S., Australia, India and Japan, and “Aukus,” a defense pact among Australia, the U.K. and the U.S., as efforts to contain China. At a recent defense forum in Singapore, a Chinese delegate accused the U.S. of attempting to build an Asian NATO.

At the same time, Biden “needs to pay more attention to the views of its allies, which are likely to call for caution and moderation. This may be good for China,” Jia Qingguo, a prominent academic and standing committee member of Beijing’s top political advisory body, said in an interview this month.

Liu said the U.S.’s Indo-Pacific strategy “is essentially about division, confrontation and detrimental to peace” and that its aim is to “encircle China.”

U.S. intelligence leaders and senators have warned that a host of actors — including China — could also seek to influence the outcome of the election. In April, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told CNN the U.S. had seen evidence of Chinese attempts to “influence and arguably” interfere in the 2024 vote.

Still, officials from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence told journalists in a briefing that Beijing has so far taken a cautious approach to such interference because it’s aware of the blowback that such efforts might cause.

No matter who prevails in the November election, officials in Washington and Beijing are girding for more tense periods.

“From the Chinese perspective, we just need to sit tight,” said Gao, the former diplomat. “Whoever wins, China needs to deal with them as they are, rather than hoping for the unrealistic.”

_____

(With assistance from Rebecca Choong Wilkins and Tania Chen.)

_____

©2024 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Donald Sutherland, the towering actor whose career spanned ‘M.A.S.H.’ to ‘Hunger Games,’ dies at 88

posted in: Politics | 0

By JAKE COYLE (AP Film Writer)

NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Sutherland, the prolific film and television actor whose long career stretched from “M.A.S.H.” to “The Hunger Games,” has died. He was 88.

Kiefer Sutherland, the actor’s son, confirmed his father’s death Thursday. No further details were immediately available.

“I personally think one of the most important actors in the history of film,” Kiefer Sutherland said on X. “Never daunted by a role, good, bad or ugly. He loved what he did and did what he loved, and one can never ask for more than that.”

The tall and gaunt Canadian actor with a grin that could be sweet or diabolical was known for offbeat characters like Hawkeye Pierce in Robert Altman’s “M.A.S.H.,” the hippie tank commander in “Kelly’s Heroes” and the stoned professor in “Animal House.”

Before transitioning into a long career as a respected character actor, Sutherland epitomized the unpredictable, antiestablishment cinema of the 1970s .

Over the decades, Sutherland showed his range in more buttoned-down — but still eccentric — parts in Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” and Oliver Stone’s “JFK.” More, recently, he starred in the “Hunger Games” films. He never retired, working regularly up until his death. A memoir, “Made Up, But Still True,” was due out in November.

“I love to work. I passionately love to work,” Sutherland told Charlie Rose in 1998. “I love to feel my hand fit into the glove of some other character. I feel a huge freedom — time stops for me. I’m not as crazy as I used to be, but I’m still a little crazy.”

Born in St. John, New Brunswick, Donald McNichol Sutherland was the son of a salesman and a mathematics teacher. Raised in Nova Scotia, he was a disc jockey with his own radio station at the age of 14.

“When I was 13 or 14, I really thought everything I felt was wrong and dangerous, and that God was going to kill me for it,” Sutherland told The New York Times in 1981. “My father always said, ‘Keep your mouth shut, Donnie, and maybe people will think you have character.’”

Sutherland began as an engineering student at the University of Toronto but switched to English and started acting in school theatrical productions. While studying in Toronto, he met Lois Hardwick, an aspiring actress. They married in 1959, but divorced seven years later.

After graduating in 1956, Sutherland attended the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts to study acting. Sutherland began appearing in West End plays and British television. After a move to Los Angeles, he continued to bounce around until a series of war films changed his trajectory.

His first American film was “The Dirty Dozen” (1967), in which he played Vernon Pinkley, the officer-impersonating psychopathic. 1970 saw the release of both the World War II yarn “Kelly’s Heroes” and “M.A.S.H.,” an acclaimed smash hit that catapulted Sutherland to stardom.

“There is more challenge in character roles,” Sutherland told The Washington Post in 1970. “There’s longevity. A good character actor can show a different face in every film and not bore the public.”

If Sutherland had had his way, Altman would have been fired from “M.A.S.H.” He and co-star Elliott Gould were unhappy with the director’s unorthodox, improvisational style and fought to have him replaced. But the film caught on beyond anyone’s expectations and Sutherland identified personally with its anti-war message. Outspoken against the Vietnam War, Sutherland, actress Jane Fonda and others founded the Free Theater Associates in 1971. Banned by the Army because of their political views, they performed in venues near military bases in Southeast Asia in 1973.

Sutherland career as a leading man peaked in the 1970s, when he starred in films by the era’s top directors — even if they didn’t always do their best work with him. Sutherland, who frequently said he considered himself at the service of a director’s vision, worked with Federico Fellini (1976’s “Fellini’s Casanova”), Bernardo Bertolucci (1976’s “1900”), Claude Chabrol (1978’s “Blood Relatives”) and John Schlesinger (1975’s “The Day of the Locust”).

One of his finest performances came as a detective in Alan Pakula’s “Klute” (1971). It was during filming on “Klute” that he met Fonda, with whom he had a three-year-long relationship that began at the end of his second marriage to actor Shirley Douglas. Having been married in 1966, he and Douglas divorced in 1971.

Sutherland had twins with Douglas in 1966: Rachel and Kiefer, who was named after Warren Kiefer, the writer of Sutherland’s first film, “Castle of the Living Dead.”

In 1974, the actor began living with actress Francine Racette, with whom he remained ever after. They had three children: Roeg, born in 1974 and named after the director Nicolas Roeg (“Don’t Look Now”); Rossif, born in 1978 and named after the director Frederick Rossif; and Angus Redford, born in 1979 and named after Robert Redford.

It was Redford who, to the surprise of some, cast Sutherland as the father in his directorial debut, 1980’s “Ordinary People.” Redford’s drama about a handsome suburban family destroyed by tragedy won four Oscars, including best picture.

Sutherland was overlooked by the academy throughout most of his career. He was never nominated but was presented with an honorary Oscar in 2017. He did, though, win an Emmy in 1995 for the TV film “Citizen X” and was nominated for seven Golden Globes (including for his performances in “M.A.S.H.” and “Ordinary People”), winning two — again for “Citizen X” and for the 2003 TV film “Path to War.”

“Ordinary People” also presaged a shift in Sutherland’s career toward more mature and sometimes less offbeat characters.

His New York stage debut in 1981, though, went terribly. He played Humbert Humbert in Edward Albee’s adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov’s “Lolita,” and the reviews were merciless; it closed after a dozen performances.

A down period in the ’80s followed, thanks to failures like the 1981 satire “Gas” and the 1984 comedy “Crackers.”

But Sutherland continued to work steadily. He had a brief but memorable role in Oliver Stone’s “JFK” (1991). He again played a patriarch for Redford in his 1993 movie “Six Degrees of Separation.” He played track coach Bill Bowerman in 1998’s “Without Limits.”

In the last decade, Sutherland increasingly worked in television, most memorably in HBO’s “Path to War,” in which he played President Lyndon Johnson’s Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford. For a career launched by “M.A.S.H.” it was a fitting, if ironic bookend.

Related Articles

Movies & TV |


Singer Justin Timberlake charged with driving while intoxicated in the Hamptons

Movies & TV |


Actor Ian McKellen, 85, is looking forward to returning to work after his fall off a London stage

Movies & TV |


Talking to Kevin Costner about ‘Horizon’: He’s bet everything, will it pay off?

Movies & TV |


Kate, Princess of Wales, to make first public appearance since cancer diagnosis

Movies & TV |


Alex Jones’ personal assets to be sold to pay $1.5B Sandy Hook debt. Company bankruptcy is dismissed

Threats of terrorism in the US are ‘more diverse and difficult to counter’

posted in: News | 0

Jeffrey Fleishman | (TNS) Los Angeles Times

She wanted a rifle. He needed a soldier for his plan to overthrow the government.

Sarah Beth Clendaniel was a radical looking for a target when, authorities say, she plotted with Brandon Russell — a white supremacist who belongs to an organization known as Atomwaffen Division — to destroy the power grid around Baltimore. Clendaniel dressed in camouflage fatigues. Russell went by the alias “Raccoon” and, according to federal agents, kept a framed picture of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh on his dresser.

They communicated through encrypted messages, but the mission was foiled by authorities. Clendaniel pleaded guilty in May to conspiring to damage or destroy electrical stations in Maryland. Russell, who was charged earlier for possessing explosives, is awaiting trial. The case did not attract much attention outside Baltimore, but it was another reminder of the danger of terrorism in an unsettled nation.

The U.S. is facing security threats in a presidential election year coming from Islamic militants, far-right extremists, leftist radicals and an array of zealots disgruntled over the nation’s culture wars and our polarized society. Officials are increasingly worried about the deepening strands of left- and right-wing venom rooted in antiestablishment anger and amplified by social media that are testing the government’s ability to track militants like Clendaniel and Russell.

“The threat’s not more potent than it was around 9/11, but it’s certainly more diverse and difficult to counter,” said Colin P. Clarke, the director of research at the Soufan Group, an intelligence and security consulting firm in New York City. “We’re dealing with a more aggressive far-right, left-wing and what we call ‘salad bar people,’ who take a little bit of each ideology and thread them together. Incels. Q-Anon. The range of actors at play now is a lot broader than what we’re used to.”

The race between President Biden and Donald Trump underscores the prospects for unrest and violence. GOP senators have asked the Secret Service to keep demonstrators farther from the Republican National Convention at Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee. Protesters are also expected to arrive en masse at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, where in 1968, during an era of intense upheaval around the Vietnam War that some suggest parallels today’s political tremors, police beat and tear-gassed hundreds of marchers.

On a visit to Chicago this month, Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle met with nearly 100 agents who will be protecting both conventions. She told CNN she was concerned about a number of threats, including “the lone gunman.”

“You’ve got folks that are radicalized. You’ve got demonstrations that may pop up. And obviously, we hope they remain peaceful here, but they could turn violent,” she said.

Most of the violence and “other threat indicators [are] from groups that lean more conservative,” said Amy Cooter, a terrorism expert with the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. What’s notable, she added, was that the extremist narratives, particularly accelerationist ones — like those espoused by Clendaniel that use violence to speed up social collapse — can appeal to radicals across the political spectrum.

“There’s potential for people who have very different underlying political beliefs,” said Cooter, “to join forces on issues they have common ground on.”

National militant organizations complicit in the Jan 6. riots, including the Proud Boys, remain a danger, Cooter said, despite arrests of its leaders and loss of a centralized online home since Facebook blocked extremist groups. Before the 2020 election, Trump told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.” Reuters reported that after Trump was found guilty in May of falsifying business records, a Proud Boys chapter in Ohio promised “war” in a statement that read: “Fighting solves everything.”

Trump’s increasingly militant campaign speeches against immigrants and conspiracies about the “deep state” also resonate with other groups in the so-called patriot movement. The former president suggested in veiled language that his followers might rise up if he were sent to prison: “I’m not sure the public would stand for it,” he told Fox News. “You know, at a certain point, there’s a breaking point.”

“Not all militia members like Trump. Some think he’s too brash, too old,” said Cooter, who spent years interviewing and investigating militia groups in Michigan. “But they are very responsive to his rhetoric because he appeals to their worries about immigration or about changing culture in other ways. Even if they’re not going to vote for him, their urgency around these issues gets stirred up.”

Today’s turmoil has yet to reach the magnitude of the late 1960s or the 1970s, when far-left domestic terror groups like the Weather Underground and Symbionese Liberation Army orchestrated scores of bombings. Many of the threats these days come from varied agendas, including Payton Gendron, who wrote a 180-page racist screed before killing 10 Black people at a supermarket in Buffalo, N.Y., in 2022, and James Hodgkinson, a left-wing radical who in 2017 shot and wounded at least four people at a softball practice for Republican congressmen in Alexandria, Va.

In April, Kyran Caples, who police say was radicalized while at Fresno State and joined an obscure antigovernment group known as the Moorish sovereign citizens, shot and critically wounded two police officers in Florida. Caples was killed by police. In the plot to destroy the Baltimore power grid, the Justice Department quoted Clendaniel, once photographed heavily armed and wearing camouflage fatigues, a headscarf and a skull mask, as saying an attack “would probably permanently completely lay this city to waste.”

The country has been shaken by anger and unrest in recent years around the COVID-19 pandemic, mass shootings, George Floyd protests, an insurrection at the Capitol and pro-Palestinian rallies on college campuses. Those domestic ruptures have coincided with a rejuvenated branch of ISIS that is recruiting militants beyond its base in Afghanistan and this year carried out attacks in Russia and Iran that killed at least 220 people.

FBI Director Christopher A. Wray recently told cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point that his agency was concerned about “a rogues’ gallery” of foreign organizations calling for violence against Americans. But he suggested that the more pressing danger comes from individuals and small groups in the U.S. who “draw twisted inspiration from the events in the Middle East to carry out attacks here at home.” The agency, he said, has been “running down thousands of reported threats.”

He added that tensions around the Israel-Hamas war “will feed a pipeline of radicalization and mobilization for years to come.” In April, Wray, describing what he called a heightened threat environment, told the House Appropriations Committee that the agency’s 2024 fiscal year budget was nearly $500 million below what it needed. “This could not come at a worse time,” he said. “We need people…. Now is not the time to cut back.”

That threat landscape — radiating through a wide prism of anger and ideologies — has shaped America’s discourse and sharpened its divisions. The battles playing out in Congress have run parallel to social and political fervor around antisemitism, Gaza, abortion, immigration and gun rights unfolding on college campuses, state houses, podcasts, rallies and talk shows.

“The powerful emotions that have been unleashed aren’t fading,” said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert and professor at Georgetown University. “Terrorism never occurs in a vacuum. It always leverages off of the divisions, contentiousness and controversies that are in the political arena and that will lead to a very small fringe to conclude that violence is the only way” to overthrow a corrupt system.

The radicalization of the young is rooted in the generation that came of age during the isolation of the pandemic and has since seen governments as either powerless or indifferent to climate change, wealth gaps and stopping wars in Ukraine and Gaza. “This seeds a bed of frustration and mistrust,” said Hoffman, co-author of “God, Guns, and Sedition: Far-Right Terrorism in America.” “They’re looking to be entertained and stimulated rather than informed and confident that they’re getting accurate information. TikTok is feeding them what they want.”

When he was testifying testified before the House Appropriations Committee, Wray outlined the threats the U.S. faces from terrorism, cartels trafficking fentanyl, and cyberattacks on business and infrastructure.

“As I look back over my career in law enforcement,” he said, “I would be hard-pressed to think of a time where so many threats to our public safety and national security were so elevated all at once.”

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.