Hawks, Hawkeyes, and a congressional investigation that could have used the sports section.
The Riff. September 30, 2026
I spend part of most mornings checking who’s playing whom, where the game is, and whether the person I expect to pitch is actually pitching. Sometimes I get it wrong. Yesterday, I discovered there is a considerably more prestigious place to do that.
The United States Senate.
During Jack Smith’s testimony yesterday, Senator Eric Schmitt tried to establish that Smith had attended an Atlanta Hawks game in February 2024. Smith said he hadn’t. He recalled seeing Iowa’s women play Maryland instead. Iowa is the Hawkeyes. The game was in Maryland.
That complicates the Atlanta portion of the accusation. And who would intentionally go to a Hawks game anyway?
I understand confusing team names. We have Cardinals in baseball and football. Giants, too. If somebody tells me they watched the Panthers, I need a little more information before I know whether to ask about the quarterback, the goalie, or PinkPantheress the singer.
But I would probably settle that before accusing them of perjury.
Schmitt had a poster board displaying text messages. This poster board looked annoyingly like one of those dream boards people were making years ago from magazine cutouts.
According to the hearing coverage, the board was taken down, Smith asked to see it again, and Schmitt said he would address the information in a follow-up. When it came back, the basketball explanation emerged.
The poster board is what bothers me.
Somebody had to prepare that thing. Somebody selected the text, enlarged it, and decided where it should sit so the cameras could see it. At some point, an actual human probably asked whether they wanted a matte finish or whether they should go for the high school girl sophomore burn book look.
Nobody appears to have asked whether they had the correct bird.
I would like to imagine the preparation meeting.
“Are we ready?”
“We have the messages.”
“Good.”
“We have the board.”
“Excellent.”
“Do we know which Hawks?”
“Let’s not lose momentum.”
There is a particular confidence that comes with holding a large piece of evidence. I’ve seen it on courtroom shows. Once somebody brings out a board, I assume we’re about to learn something. At minimum, I expect the city to be right.
Amy Klobuchar helped identify the mascot confusion. That’s a strange assignment for a senator. You prepare for a hearing about federal investigations and end up doing the work of a bartender who has been asked to put the Iowa game on.
“College basketball?”
“Yes.”
“Women’s?”
“Yes.”
“All right. Give me the remote.”
The funny part is how little research this particular distinction required. You don’t need access to classified material to determine whether Caitlin Clark played for the Atlanta Hawks. You need the sort of information people yell across a sports bar while someone is trying to order wings.
And the wings would introduce a third bird problem.
I’m also enjoying the idea that attending a basketball game needs to be reconstructed like an international incident. There are tickets. There are schedules. There are people in the seats wearing clothing that often identifies the team in letters large enough to read from the parking lot.
This is one of the few areas of American life where we label ourselves voluntarily.
I can picture the follow-up investigation becoming increasingly cautious.
“You say you attended a Bulls game.”
“That’s correct.”
“Chicago?”
“Durham.”
“Take the board down.”
We just had a hawk in Monday’s column doing excellent work at a Ford factory. El Charro showed up, identified the correct birds, and dealt with them. Apparently that qualification deserves more attention on a résumé.
Ford might want to make him available for congressional hearings. Let him perch beside the evidence and inspect it before anyone starts talking.
I’m not suggesting a hawk could conduct the whole investigation.
But I would trust him to check the mascot.
Inspired by coverage of Jack Smith’s Senate testimony, with the basketball exchange reported by The Associated Press.
Don’t Pick What I Pick
Yesterday: 6–2. The original card went 2–2: Atlanta and the Yankees won; the Aces and Lynx lost. Then I went rogue and added a baseball ticket with the Yankees, Padres, Braves, and White Sox. All four won.
Apparently my concern about the WNBA road teams was worth listening to. Bertie supplied the basketball confidence. I supplied the baseball escape route.
The Yankees and Braves count twice because they were separate bets. If the sportsbook can charge me twice, the scoreboard can acknowledge it twice.
ALL SPORTS: 1,108–1,116–7 · 8 net losses from .500.
TENNIS: 1–1
Today we have five picks: four baseball games and a hockey game. We also have two different kinds of Sox, which feels like something we should establish before printing the poster board.
- Braves ML vs. Phillies — around even money to −110. Tyler Mahle gets the ball against Cristopher Sánchez. Mahle’s work for Atlanta, including his outings against Philadelphia, gives me enough reason to stay with the Braves.
- White Sox ML at Astros — around +125. Sean Burke faces Hunter Brown. This is the pick I trust least on the card, but the price gives us something in return for taking the less comfortable side.
- Red Sox +1.5 at Yankees — −190. We switched this one from the Yankees moneyline. Sonny Gray went 1–0 with a 1.98 ERA in two starts against New York this year. Max Fried makes this a difficult assignment, but Boston can lose by one and still do its job for us.
- Padres ML vs. Cubs — around −135 to −145. Nick Pivetta starts for San Diego. The Padres’ bullpen is fresh after yesterday’s 8–0 win. Chicago’s bullpen isn’t exhausted, so I’m not making that the entire argument. Pete Crow-Armstrong has also done enough damage against San Diego to keep this from becoming a comfortable afternoon.
- Colorado Avalanche ML vs. Kings — around −182. I took Colorado regardless. That one is on the ticket, even with the goalie confirmation still unresolved.
Five games. Four moneylines. One run line. Please check which Sox you’re looking at before accusing anybody of anything.
This isn’t called Pick What I Pick.
It’s called Don’t Pick What I Pick.
Please wager accordingly.
