Bob Olinger rode off into retirement with victory in the Champion Stayers Hurdle on day three of the Punchestown Festival.

Ridden by Darragh O’Keefe, the Henry de Bromhead-trained 11-year-old (4-1) saw off Willie Mullins’ Jimmy Du Seuil (9-1) and pre-race favourite Teahupoo (5-4) who was seeking a third consecutive triumph in the race.

It capped a remarkable 11-win career that produced three at Cheltenham, as he rolled back the years to go out on a high.

Teahupoo led as they headed down the final stretch of the three-mile circuit, but Bob Olinger had closed the gap by the final fence and had more in the tank to open a gap.

While Jimmy Du Seuil applied late pressure, it just was not enough as Bob Olinger had three-quarters of a length to spare.

The Novice Chase went the way of Salvator Mundi (13-2) who took advantage of a fall from favourite Kopek Des Bordes.

With Mullins’ new retained jockey Harry Cobden onboard, it was a case of taking advantage of his stablemate’s misfortune two fences from home to claim the win.

Kopek Des Bordes seemed to be in full control before the fall with Salvator Mundi, who was on his coattails, galloping to a 12-length win from second place Irish Panther (15-2) and Jacob’s Ladder (18-1) in third.

Gujarat Titans (GT) skipper Shubman Gill expressed satisfaction after the team’s four-wicket win over Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) in their Indian Premier League (IPL) 2026 match on Thursday in Ahmedabad. Gill also lauded GT bowlers for a fine effort in restricting RCB to a subpar score of 155 in the first innings of the match, setting up an easy chase for the hosts. Chasing 156, GT completed the target comfortably in 15.4 overs, powered by quickfire knocks from Shubman Gill (43 off 18) and Jos Buttler (39 off 19). Rahul Tewatia (27 not out) and Rashid Khan guided the team home after a few middle-order wickets. Earlier, GT’s bowlers restricted RCB to 155 in 19.2 overs, led by Arshad Khan (3/22), with support from Rashid Khan (2/19) and Jason Holder (2/29).

With the win, GT are now placed fifth in the IPL points table with five wins in nine matches, having accumulated 10 points.

Speaking at the post-match presentation, Shubman Gill said he was pleased with the win, crediting the bowlers for restricting the opposition to under 160 on a good batting surface.

On his batting, Gill mentioned he felt “in the zone” and wanted to take on the bowlers. He praised Rahul Tewatia for finishing the game, while noting the team lost a few more wickets than expected but benefited from contributions across the lineup.

“Feels very satisfying. On a wicket like this, restricting them to under 160 was a tremendous job by the bowlers. Our fielding was one of the things…in phases, we have not fielded well. Energy in the field was very nice. (On his batting) I was just feeling I was in the zone. Felt it is my day and wanted to take the bowlers on. (On Tewatia) He is a very important player, happy he finished the game. We lost couple more wickets than we would have liked. He got some nice runs and everyone got a hit in the middle,” Gill said.

Jason Holder was named Player of the Match for his impressive spell of 2/19 in four overs, along with three key catches, dismissing Rajat Patidar, Tim David, and Krunal Pandya.

Patidar’s dismissal stood out in particular. Off a short delivery from Arshad Khan, Patidar attempted a pull shot but got a top edge towards deep backward square leg. Holder sprinted to his right and completed a sharp low catch, even as Kagiso Rabada also charged at the ball.

While RCB players contested the decision, arguing that Holder had not been in full control and that the ball may have touched the ground, the umpires ruled it a dismissal.

Jason Holder said he was pleased with his overall performance and credited the team’s strong energy.

Speaking about his catch to dismiss Patidar, Holder noted he was aware of Rabada nearby but felt confident going for the ball. He added that he embraces whatever comes his way, is happy to take his chances, and contribute to the win.

“Happy things how went for me personally. Felt our energy was good from the start. (On his catch to dismiss Patidar) I did see him (Rabada), was just hoping to not run into him. He was in my peripheral but he was far enough for me to put in an attempt (to catch it). (On ball following him) I welcome it as it comes. Just happy to hold on to the chances. Happy to contribute and to get over the line,” he said at the post-match presentations.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Featured Video Of The Day

IPL 2026 News | RCB Outplay CSK For 2nd Win On Trot, Ruturaj Gaikwad & Co Suffer 3rd Loss

Every April, minutes after the draft ends, we all start pretending we know exactly what just happened. Draft grades go up almost instantly. Winners and losers get declared. Someone “crushed it.” Someone else “reached.” In that moment, we’re trying to project three, four, even five years into the future based largely on what we thought we knew about college players.

It’s a little silly. Maybe it’s very silly. But in a strange way, it’s also a useful exercise that can help us get closer to the truth.

That tension — between what draft grades pretend to be and what they actually are — sits at the heart of what I’m about to talk about. Because when I zoom out and look at my post-draft rankings from 2021-2025 (I’m not including 2026 because, well, it just happened, and we have yet to see any of the players take an NFL snap), a picture emerges. 

It’s not crystal clear, but it’s at least a little less foggy. And it can offer insight into what teams are thinking in the moment — and why — and, with the benefit of hindsight, whether those teams got it right or very, very wrong.

Put another way: Draft grades aren’t meaningless, but maybe we’re collectively misusing them. They don’t tell you what will happen; for me, my post-draft grades reflect what I believed should happen based on the information available in that moment.

At their core, these grades are snapshots, not forecasts.

Before we get going, and because I think showing my work can be instructive, here are my days-after-draft grades from 2021-2025, which form the basis of this retrospective analysis: 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025. If you’re looking for how your team graded out in 2026, you can find my full 2026 draft grades here.

Feel free to reference them as you continue reading. Also feel free to point, gawk or laugh because, if nothing else, it’s a humble reminder that the draft is a crapshoot. None of us know how it will play out, but I also think that’s what makes it so much fun.

What the 2026 NFL Draft told us about every team: Ravens aim to set tone, Raiders find hope

Zachary Pereles

Advertisement

Why one ‘great’ class rarely changes everything

When I had the Patriots atop my 2021 rankings, it wasn’t because I knew Mac Jones would hit or that Christian Barmore would anchor the defensive line. (My pre-draft ranking for each player is in parentheses below.)

R1.15. Mac Jones, QB, Alabama (1.11)
R2.06. Christian Barmore, DT, Alabama (1.29)
R3.32. Ronnie Perkins, DE, Oklahoma (1.32)
R4.15. Rhamondre Stevenson, RB, Oklahoma (3.30)
R5.33. Cameron McGrone, LB, Michigan (4.15)
R6.04. Joshuah Bledsoe, S, Missouri (5.25)
R6.13. William Sherman, OT, Colorado (7.15)
R7.14. Tre Nixon, WR, UCF (PFA)

It was because, relative to my board, New England maximized value by landing a quarterback I viewed as a top-15 player, then following it up with Barmore and Ronnie Perkins at spots that felt like steals. At the time, that class represented alignment between value and need, projection and process. 

Perkins, it should be noted, was one of my favorite players in the class. He was a juiced-up college pass rusher who struggled to get on the field in New England, in part because of injuries. He last appeared in an NFL game with Denver in 2023 and has been out of the league since 2024 without recording a sack.

To reiterate: We just don’t know.

The same dynamic showed up again in 2023. I had the Steelers at No. 1, and it was easy to see why: Broderick Jones in Round 1, Joey Porter Jr. early in Round 2, followed by Keeanu Benton and Darnell Washington. (Reminder: my pre-draft ranking for each player is in parentheses below.)

R1.14. Broderick Jones, OT, Georgia (1.14)
R2.01. Joey Porter Jr., CB, Penn State (1.15)
R2.18. Keeanu Benton, DL, Wisconsin (3.29)
R3.30. Darnell Washington, TE, Georgia (2.21)
R4.30. Nick Herbig, LB, Wisconsin (2.18)
R7.24. Cory Trice, CB, Purdue (3.22)
R7.34. Spencer Anderson, OG, Maryland (6.12)

It was a class built on value and physicality, with multiple players coming off the board later than I expected based on my big board — the kind of haul that signals a disciplined, coherent approach to team building: filling needs at the top while adding value and depth with subsequent selections.

Meanwhile, I had the Cowboys at the bottom.

R1.26. Mazi Smith, DL, Michigan (2.27)
R2.27. Luke Schoonmaker, TE, Michigan (4.19)
R3.27. DeMarvion Overshown, LB, Texas (4.29)
R4.27. Viliami Fehoko, EDGE, San Jose State (5.14)
R5.34. Asim Richards, OT, North Carolina (7.14)
R6.01. Eric Scott Jr., CB, Southern Miss (6.01)
R6.35. Deuce Vaughn, RB, Kansas State (7.30)
R7.27. Jalen Brooks, WR, South Carolina (UDFA)

They took Mazi Smith in Round 1, Luke Schoonmaker in Round 2 and DeMarvion Overshown a round later. My evaluation wasn’t that those players couldn’t play; it was that, relative to my board, the value didn’t line up (and I wasn’t a huge fan of Smith coming out of Michigan). 

And yet, whether that class ultimately succeeded hinged far more on variables Dallas controlled — like how those players were developed regardless of where I had them slotted before the draft — and variables it didn’t.

That’s the balancing act. Draft grades measure process, not outcome.

And even when the process looks questionable, it can still work. The Rams were a perfect example. In 2021, I graded their class dead last largely because, in a group headlined by second-round pick Tutu Atwell, the value didn’t align with my draft grades; I had Atwell as a mid-fourth-rounder.

This is where it’s worth reiterating a few things: I’m one person evaluating these players throughout the pre-draft process — from the previous summer through last-minute 30 visits. I talk to league sources and gather intel on injuries and off-field concerns. 

But I’m not in draft meetings. I’m not building a roster. I’m not operating with team-specific needs. The Rams were. And the fact that some guy named Ryan Wilson disagreed probably didn’t cause them to lose any sleep.

R2.25. Tutu Atwell, WR, Louisville (4.15)
R3.39. Ernest Jones, LB, South Carolina (5.15)
R4.12. Bobby Brown III, DT, Texas A&M (4.24)
R4.25. Robert Rochell, CB, Central Arkansas (4.25)
R4.36. Jacob Harris, WR, UCF (5.29)
R5.30. Earnest Brown IV, DE, Northwestern (7.15)
R7.05. Jake Funk, RB, Maryland (UDFA)
R7.21. Ben Skowronek, WR, Notre Dame (7.15)
R7.24. Chris Garrett, LB, Concordia University St Paul (UDFA)

But a couple of years later, that same organization found Puka Nacua in the fifth round of the 2023 draft, along with starters and contributors Steve Avila, Kobie Turner, Byron Young, Warren McClendon and Davis Allen. (I ranked the Rams’ class 10th-best in 2023.) The narrative shifts — not because the grading process was wrong, but because development, usage and organizational context filled in the gaps.

What five years of draft grades reveal

In the table below, you’ll see my post-draft ranking for every team from 2021-2025. You’ll also see, in the last two columns, each team’s winning percentage from 2022-23 and 2024-25.

It’s an effort to capture whether there’s any discernible relationship between a good (or bad) draft class and a better (or worse) record in the season or two that follows.

My draft grades for some teams, like the Dolphins, were neither spectacular nor disastrous; in the last six years, I never had Miami higher than 12th or lower than 20th. 

Others, like the Patriots, had wild swings from No. 1 in 2021 to 30th in 2023 and 2024. Those shifts don’t solely reflect talent evaluation; they reflect philosophical shifts, risk tolerance and, at times, organizational instability. 

And then there’s the myth that one great draft can fix everything, that a team is “one class away.” I’ve had teams like the Raiders or Titans with top-tier classes in recent years. (Las Vegas ranked eighth in both 2022 and 2023 and third in 2025 and 2026; Tennessee was second in 2025 and seventh in 2026.) 

And yet they were still objectively bad football teams based on their records. The missing pieces weren’t talent alone; they were organizational alignment, quarterback play, coaching continuity and health. 

And that brings me back to the core limitation of draft grades: I’m evaluating decisions as if every team is starting from the same place. They’re not.

Quarterbacks and context change everything

The NFL doesn’t stop once the draft ends. Rosters are ever-evolving, sometimes dramatically, between then and Week 1, and even more so over the next two or three seasons. Coaching staffs change. Schemes shift. Quarterbacks develop or regress. Injuries happen. 

And those variables — the ones that actually determine success on Sundays — are largely unknowable at the time I’m handing out grades. 

That’s why it’s both fun and instructive to look a little deeper. In searching for any correlation between my draft grades in one year and winning percentage over the next two seasons … well, it’s nonexistent. There is no correlation. None.

In other words, how a team “did” in April has very little immediate connection to how it performs in the fall. 

That could be a function of my draft grades being off, which is fair. But anecdotally, I’d imagine most draft grades aren’t all that dissimilar because, at the end of the day, if a team fills needs with generally agreed-upon players taken in a certain range, it’s hard not to give that draft a thumbs up. 

But I don’t think that’s an indictment of the grading process; it’s a reflection of how complex team building really is. You can see this more clearly when looking at individual teams. 

I gave the Eagles, for example, strong draft grades early in the window (they had top-six classes in both 2021 and 2022), yet they remained dominant even as their grades fluctuated in subsequent years, winning 73.5% of their games from 2022-23 and 2024-25. Their success wasn’t tied to any single draft; it was the result of hitting on a quarterback, building along both lines, supplementing through free agency and maintaining organizational continuity. 

Even within those strong classes, the limits of this exercise show up. Drafting DeVonta Smith and Landon Dickerson made perfect sense on paper in 2021 — elite talent at premium positions — but whether that class ultimately “hit” had less to do with those April decisions and more to do with how those players developed, how they were deployed and how the roster evolved around them.

I say it all the time: Put Patrick Mahomes on the Browns and let’s see how many Super Bowls he has. Cleveland took Myles Garrett No. 1 overall that year, and Garrett is one of the best players in the league and a likely future Hall of Famer. He’s also won one playoff game in nine seasons and has been part of teams that won five, three and zero games in a season. It’s an oversimplification, but that’s the point. 

On the other side, teams like the Raiders and Titans illustrate the opposite dynamic. Even though I had both near the top in recent years, they’ve struggled badly in the standings, with win percentages hovering around 20% or worse in the 2024-25 window. 

If draft grades were directly predictive, those teams should have been on the rise. Instead, they fell apart, which highlights an important truth: Acquiring talent is only one piece of the puzzle. 

Quarterback play, in particular, distorts everything.  

Teams like the Bills and Chiefs prove it. Despite draft grades all over the map, both franchises win consistently. The Chiefs, for example, followed an all-time great 2022 class — Trent McDuffie, George Karlaftis, Isiah Pacheco, Jaylen Watson, Bryan Cook and Leo Chenal — with a much shakier 2023 haul that included Felix Anudike-Uzomah, Rashee Rice and Wanya Morris, a group that hasn’t come close to matching that impact for one reason or another. 

And yet, Kansas City keeps winning. 

The Bills tell a similar story: Their 2024 class, led by Keon Coleman, hasn’t delivered early returns, especially compared to a strong 2022 group that produced James Cook, Khalil Shakir, Christian Benford and Terrel Bernard after missing on Kaiir Elam in Round 1. But none of that has fundamentally altered their place in the standings. 

The presence of a franchise quarterback raises the floor so dramatically that draft outcomes become marginal gains rather than existential turning points. When that position is stable, a “bad” draft rarely derails a season. When there is no franchise QB to lean on, however, even a “great” draft can’t save one. 

Every NFL team’s biggest position to improve post-NFL Draft, plus best free agent solutions

Zachary Pereles

Advertisement

Draft grades are useful — if we use them correctly

These grades, no matter how detailed, come from a single perspective — mine. My board, my positional values, my interpretation of traits and production. That doesn’t make them wrong, but it does mean they aren’t definitive. 

Every evaluator has biases. Maybe you value route-running nuance over raw athleticism. Maybe you prioritize trench play more than others. Maybe you’re more skeptical of certain positions or archetypes. Those preferences shape how you see a class — and how you grade it. That holds true for me and my process, too. 

Meanwhile, NFL teams are operating with entirely different information: medical reports, interviews, psychological profiles, probabilistic models, AI and scheme-specific requirements. What looks like a “reach” from the outside might be a perfect fit internally. 

So when I assign a grade, I’m not declaring a universal truth about draft philosophy. I’m offering an informed opinion rooted in my process and based on my sources. It’s a data point, not a verdict.

And over time, those data points still matter.  

They reveal patterns. They show which teams consistently align with sound process, which ones chase need over value, which ones deviate from their own tendencies. They highlight discipline — or lack thereof. When I layer those observations across multiple years, they offer a peek into organizational behavior. 

What draft grades can’t do is predict wins and losses. There are too many variables. Scheme changes can redefine roles. Development paths diverge. Coaches get fired. And injuries can undo it all. For me, the lesson isn’t that draft grades are useless. It’s that they need to be contextualized. 

They are snapshots of belief — a record of what we thought we knew, what teams appeared to value and how those decisions aligned with my evaluations and big board. They capture intent more than outcome. 

And when we revisit them years later, they become something more meaningful. Not a scoreboard, but a lens. A way to examine process, question assumptions and better understand how unpredictable the path from draft weekend to on-field success really is. 

So yes, draft grades are, in many ways, silly. They’re immediate, imperfect and often proven wrong over time. But they’re also insightful — not because they predict the future, but because they reveal how we try to make sense of it. 

In a recent report, Calciomercato stated that Manchester United could intensify their efforts to sign AC Milan winger Rafeal Leao. It has been mentioned that the Red Devils are eyeing a move to secure the services of the Portuguese wide player this off-season.

Leao’s Impressive Form In Serie A

Leao is having a productive campaign at the Italian club as he has managed to put in a run of impressive displays for them in Serie A. The 26-year-old has netted ten goals and secured three assists in 28 matches for AC Milan this season across all competitions.

Advertisement

The Portuguese talent is currently among the most feared wingers in Serie A. Hence, Man United would do well to lure him to the Theatre of Dreams in this summer transfer window.

His current contract at Old Trafford will run out in the summer of 2028, which could make it difficult for the Red Devils to sign him on the cheap later this year.

MILAN, ITALY – APRIL 26: Rafael Leao of AC Milan reacts during the Serie A match between AC Milan and Juventus FC at Giuseppe Meazza Stadium on April 26, 2026 in Milan, Italy. (Photo by Marco Luzzani/Getty Images)

Will Leao Be A Good Fit For Manchester United?

Leao is a good dribbler with the ball at his feet and has got the vision to engineer some decent chances for his teammates in the final third.

Advertisement

The Portuguese sensation is proficient at finding a yard of space for himself to get some strikes in at goal. Leao is primarily a left-sided wide player but can also function as a centre-forward if asked to do so. However, there are some question marks over whether he can adapt to the physical side and high intensity of the Premier League if the Red Devils to snap him up later this year.

We can expect Leao to add more firepower to Man United boss Michael Carrick’s frontline. He has what it takes to fight for a regular first-team spot at Old Trafford in the coming seasons.

At 26, Leao has got his peak years ahead of him, which makes him a decent fit for the Red Devils to consider in this summer transfer window. With all things considered, Carrick would be wise to go all out to bring him to the Theatre of Dreams at the end of this campaign. However, Man United have to be patient with his progress before they can get the best out of Leao at the Mancunian club.

Saudi Arabia‘s sovereign wealth fund, the Public Investment Fund (PIF), confirmed on Thursday that it will be cutting funding for its breakaway LIV Golf tour at the end of the current golf season, citing a change in investment strategy and “current macro dynamics” amid the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

The PIF launched LIV Golf in 2022 as a rival to the established US PGA Tour, which has organized professional golf across North America since 1968.

It followed similar billion-dollar Saudi sports investments across Formula 1, boxing, snooker, tennis, e-sports and football, with PIF purchasing a majority stake in Premier League club Newcastle United in 2021.

Last year, Saudi Arabia was awarded the rights to host the 2034 FIFA World Cup as it looks to diversify its economy, despite allegations of attempts to “sportswash” a democratic deficit and a poor human rights record.

In golf, LIV, backed by PIF to the tune of over $5 billion (€4.26 billion), managed to lure several top stars away from the PGA Tour with multi-million-dollar contracts, including major champions Brooks Koepka, Phil Mickelson and Dustin Johnson, leading to an acrimonious split in the sport.

As of September 2026, however, LIV will have to find alternative sources of funding after the PIF announced that it would be withdrawing financial support.

Saudi Arabia: Why is PIF cutting LIV Golf funding?

“PIF has made the decision to fund LIV Golf only for the remainder of the 2026 season,” read a PIF statement.

“LIV Golf is transitioning ​from a foundational launch phase to a diversified, multi-partner investment model, with a formal process underway to attract long-term financial partners,” the circuit said in a statement later on Thursday.

Advertisement

Signs of potential fractures in the relationship between PIF and LIV emerged earlier this month when US outlet ESPN obtained an email from LIV chief executive Scott O’Neil to staff in which he said the current season would continue “exactly as planned” but pointedly made no mention of the tour’s future beyond 2026.

This week, a LIV tournament planned for June in New Orleans was postponed and is yet to be rescheduled, despite organizers voicing vague hopes that it could be rearranged for some point later this year and fueling speculation that the tour’s financial foundations were under threat.

“The ⁠substantial investment required by LIV Golf over a longer term is no longer consistent with the current phase of PIF’s investment strategy,” read the PIF statement on Thursday. “This decision has been made in light of PIF’s investment ​priorities and current macro dynamics.”

Breakaway LIV golf tour remains controversial

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Advertisement

Saudi sports investments on the retreat

PIF haven’t elaborated on what exactly those “investment priorities” and “macro dynamics” are, but LIV Golf isn’t the first casualty of an apparent reduction in Saudi sports investments amid an economic downturn exacerbated by the war in the Middle East.

Earlier this month, ⁠Yasir Al-Rumayyan, PIF’s governor ​and LIV’s main financial backer, presented a strategy for the Kingdom to cut back on international investments and focus on more domestic projects between 2026 and 2030 – which didn’t mention sport.

“Whether due to the war or reasons related to economic feasibility, we continuously reassess our priorities,” Al-Rumayyan told the state-owned Al Arabiya news channel two weeks ago, adding that PIF were reviewing “some deals and investments.”

Last week, the Saudi Arabia Snooker Masters, one of the richest events on the World Snooker Tour with a $3 million total prize fund, was abruptly canceled after only two editions.

Advertisement

The week before that, PIF sold a 70% share in Saudi Pro League football club Al-Hilal worth €374 million, although slightly reduced transfer spending at Newcastle United is also linked to Premier League and UEFA financial restrictions.

Why is Saudi Arabia investing billions in sports?

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Neom: Saudi mega-project also scaled back

More significantly, Saudi Arabia has also massively scaled back plans for “Neom” – a $500 billion desert redevelopment project championed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman which envisaged the construction of a 170-kilometer (100-mile) long horizontal, futuristic megacity called “The Line.”

Two years ago, however, Bloomberg reported that only 2.4 kilometers would be completed by 2030, housing fewer than 300,000 people rather than the initial target of 1.5 million. And, earlier this year, the 2029 Asian Winter Games were stripped from Neom and given to Almaty, Kazakhstan.

Advertisement

Now, LIV Golf has also felt the pinch and, according to US outlet MSN, some LIV players have already reached out to the US PGA Tour and the European DP World Tour about potential returns.

Such requests are unlikely to be viewed entirely favorably given the involvement of some breakaway players in a PIF/LIV-backed antitrust lawsuit against the PGA Tour.

Is Saudi Arabia really quitting oil?

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Edited by: Rana Taha

Advertisement

People First Stadium will play host to Sunday’s
Round 8 AFL game between Gold Coast SUNS and
GWS Giants. The game kicks off at 7:20 pm with Gold Coast SUNS heading into the game as favourites with the bookmakers. Continue reading for our in-depth preview of the Gold Coast SUNS vs.
GWS Giants
game and give you our free tips and bets.

When: Sunday May 3, 2026 at 7:20 pm

Where: People First Stadium

Bet 💰: Bet On This Match HERE

Gold Coast SUNS vs GWS Giants Odds

Gold Coast SUNS vs GWS Giants Preview

Gold Coast returns home under pressure after a string of losses, with defensive lapses becoming a concern. Despite showing resilience last week, the Suns struggled to contain opposition surges. GWS, while winning, has not been entirely convincing and relied heavily on key forwards to get over the line. With both sides seeking consistency, this shapes as an open contest. The Suns’ midfield strength and home-ground advantage could prove decisive if they tighten defensively and maintain intensity across four quarters.

While the most memorable battles for Thomas Hearns may have come against his fellow members of the Four Kings, he says his best ever rival was someone else entirely.

Hearns is one of the most popular fighters of all time, with his knockout power and action-infused style making him a big favourite of many boxing fans.

He became the first boxer in history to win world titles in five divisions from welterweight to light heavyweight, and across those divisions he was involved in epic encounters with Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran and Thomas Hearns.

The quartet of boxing icons were collectively known as the Four Kings, with Hearns claiming a knockout win over Duran, but suffering stoppage losses to Hagler and Leonard, along with a controversial draw to Leonard in their rematch.

Despite those legendary fights, ‘The Hitman’ believes another rival from his career surpasses each of the aforementioned names, after revealing in a feature with The Ring that he views Wilfred Benitez as the best fighter he ever faced.

“Wilfred Benitez was very good … slick and very crafty … He moved well and fights all around the ring.”

Hearns fought Benitez in December 1982, claiming a majority decision win after a 15-round back and forth contest to win the WBC light middleweight title.

Benitez was a three-weight world champion, and is the youngest world champion in the sport’s history, after claiming the WBA light welterweight title at the age of just 17.

Along with Hearns, Benitez also took on two other members of the Four Kings in his career, defeating Duran but coming up short against Leonard.

Duke coach Jon Scheyer is finding new and inventive ways to uplift college basketball’s nonconference schedule — and getting paid a lot of money while doing so. 

The school announced Thursday that it will play three high-profile non-league games at neutral sites for the 2026-27 season, with a groundbreaking twist. Amazon Prime Video will broadcast the games. This marks the first time that the streaming service, which already carries NFL and NBA rights, will step into the college basketball world. 

Amazon will carry these three games next season:

• Nov. 25: Duke vs. Connecticut in Las Vegas (T-Mobile Arena)
• Dec. 21: Duke vs. Michigan in New York (Madison Square Garden)
• Feb. 20: Duke vs. Gonzaga in Detroit (Little Caesars Arena)

Duke, UConn, Michigan and Gonzaga are all poised to be preseason top-10 teams, making the matchups among the most notable in college hoops heading into next fall. 

Beyond the compelling nature of the non-con games, the business arrangement is also unprecedented. The Duke/Amazon partnership is a multiyear agreement and the NIL opportunities for Duke will be huge — in the millions annually — sources told CBS Sports. In fact, other event organizers had been pursuing Duke for significant nonconference games, sources said, but none of those could match the payouts that will come with Prime Video’s package. There is also the advantage of being able to independently control the teams. Because of that, Scheyer aggressively pursued the innovative deal for months. He has been among the most prominent tone-setters in ambitious nonconference scheduling since he took over the program in 2022.

All of the deals haven’t been finalized and signed, but sources said Duke’s opponents will make north of $500,000 for playing in the games. (Duke, as the organizer and Prime Video’s partner, will make much more.) 

On the broadcast side, Duke is a member of the ACC, which has a long-term television rights deal with ESPN. The workaround Duke managed was to play non-ACC games in cities (Las Vegas, Detroit) where the ACC does not have automatic/default broadcast rights because it does not have member schools in those areas. Madison Square Garden technically falls under that jurisdiction because Syracuse, an ACC team, is in the state of New York, but ESPN and Duke came to terms on making an exception — with a compromise. ESPN negotiated Duke into future nonconference games later this decade in exchange for allowing the NYC matchup with Michigan.

“In partnership with the ACC’s primary media partner, ESPN, and in exchange for the flexibility to participate in this Prime Video series of nonconference games, Duke has committed to participate in select additional ESPN owned and operated men’s basketball neutral-site events across the 2027-28 and 2028-29 seasons,” Duke said in its press release. “Exact details will be announced at a later date.”

The tip times for the three games are to be determined. The Gonzaga tilt in Detroit was intentional: That city is the site of next season’s men’s Final Four, marking the first time Detroit will host college basketball’s grand event since 2009. The game against Michigan is not only a battle against the reigning national champs, but it’s also a rematch of February’s major non-con battle in Washington, D.C. that Duke won 73-72.

The Connecticut game is particularly compelling. The two schools were engaged for the better part of a year on scheduling each other, sources told CBS Sports, and Scheyer opted to keep moving forward with the game even after his team blew a 19-point lead in the Elite Eight and lost in crushing fashion in the final second after Cayden Boozer’s turnover led to Braylon Mullins‘ game-winning 3. Both those players will be back at their respective schools next season, making the Duke-UConn matchup one of the premier tilts of the first two months of the season.