This story was updated to add new information

Carlos Edwin Colón Coates Jr., better known as pro wrestler Carlito, will not return to the WWE.

He announced on X that his current contract was set to expire in late June and would not be renewed. Carlito took a lighthearted approach to the news on social media and joked that he was going to own the company before adding, “All jokes aside, gracias WWE & especially the WWE universe. Los quiero mucho!”

Carlito returned to the company in 2023 when he returned at the premium live event, Backlash, to assist rapper Bad Bunny during a match in Puerto Rico. He spent most of his recent tenure in a supporting role as a member of the Judgement Day faction.

Carlito had originally joined the company in 2003 before leaving in 2010. The Puerto Rican wrestler only made a few sporadic appearances before returning full-time in 2023. He made two brief appearances on WWE programming, inducting his father Carlos Colón into the Hall of Fame in 2014 and participating in the 2021 Royal Rumble.

One of the more notable moments of his recent tenure was when he was speared by Bron Breakker.

Carlito’s WWE career achievements

Carlito won the United States Championship, the Intercontinental Championship, the WWE Tag Team Championships and the World Tag Team Championship.

What’s next for Carlito?

Carlito isn’t looking to slow down his career after winning the World Wrestling Council Puerto Rican Championship. The 46-year-old wrestler started his professional wrestling career with WWC in 1999. He had previously returned to WWC in 2010.

WWC is a wrestling promotion owned by his father.

The biggest stories, every morning. Stay up-to-date on all the key sports developments by subscribing to USA TODAY Sports’ newsletter.

The 2025 NCAA Baseball Tournament regional round is wrapping up.

That means the field in contention for the 2025 College World Series shrinks from the initial 64 teams to just 16 teams as regionals wrap up across 16 host sites on June 1 and 2. The next round is the super regionals, held across eight host sites, with eight teams advancing to the CWS at Charles Schwab Field in Omaha, Nebraska.

While the top eight seeds are usually in line to host the super regional round, there have been upsets early in the regional round, which could shuffle potential host sites.

Here’s what you need to know about who is advancing to the super regionals, the hosts and when the games start:

Watch NCAA baseball super regionals with ESPN+

Who is in the NCAA baseball tournament super regionals?

Here are the teams that have won regionals and advanced to the super regional round of the 2025 NCAA baseball tournament:

This section will be updated

No. 9 Florida State (won Tallahassee Regional)
No. 13 Coastal Carolina (won Conway Regional)
Duke (won Athens Regional)
West Virginia (won Clemson Regional)

When are the NCAA baseball tournament super regionals?

The 2025 NCAA baseball tournament super regionals are scheduled to begin on June 6 and run through June 9. Across eight super regional sites, 16 teams will play three-game series to determine who advances to the College World Series (CWS).

NCAA baseball tournament schedule

Here’s the full 2025 NCAA baseball tournament schedule:

Regionals: May 30-June 2
Super regionals: June 6-9
College World Series: June 13-22/23
CWS finals: June 21-22/23

The 2025 NCAA baseball tournament began May 30 with the regional round of play. It will advance to the super regionals (June 6-9) and the College World Series (beginning June 23). The CWS championship series will take place from June 21 through either June 22 or 23, depending on whether the series requires two or three games.

A Swede who once dominated Big 12 golf at Oklahoma State, Maja Stark captured her first major by winning the U.S. Women’s Open.

Stark, 25, won the 80th Open by two strokes over American Nelly Korda and Japan’s Rio Takeda at Erin Hills near Milwaukee.

Celebrate Stark’s historic victory with a beautifully designed commemorative page print from USA TODAY. Featuring a bold headline and a striking image of Stark celebrating on the challenging Erin Hills course, this keepsake captures the moment perfectly.

Buy our U.S. Women’s Open page print

Printed on premium, acid-free art paper, this collectible starts at $35 (plus shipping). Elegant upgrade options include framed editions and backgrounds in canvas, acrylic, metal or wood through the USA TODAY Store.

As a sophomore at Oklahoma State in 2021, after COVID-19 short-circuited her first season in the States, Stark was the player of the year in the Big 12. She turned pro that summer. She has won six times on the Ladies European Tour, represented Europe in the Solheim Cup, competed for her homeland at the Paris Olympics and finished second in a major in 2024, just two strokes behind Korda at the Chevron Open.

Own a piece of golf history today! This rising Swedish star and former Cowgirl is just getting started.

Buy our commemorative Florida posters

Contact Gene Myers at gmyers@gannett.com. Follow him on X@GeneMyers. After nearly a quarter-century as sports editor at the Detroit Free Press, Myers unretired to coordinate book and poster projects across the USA TODAY Network. Explore more books and page prints from the USA TODAY Network, including titles on the Florida Gators’ NCAA basketball championship and the Philadelphia Eagles’ victory in Super Bowl 59.

Scottie Scheffler just keeps on winning.

Scheffler — the world No. 1 — shot 2-under 70 during Sunday’s final round to win the Memorial Tournament at Muirfield Village Golf Club in Dublin, Ohio. Scheffler became the first golfer to win consecutive Memorial Tournament titles since Tiger Woods pulled off a three-peat from 1999-2001. It also marked Scheffler’s third PGA Tour win in his last four starts.

The Memorial Tournament is in the final round at the esteemed Muirfield Village Golf Club in Dublin, Ohio, where the clash of the best golfers in the world is underway.

The Memorial Tournament, a beacon of philanthropy, extends its support to numerous charities in collaboration with organizations like the Nicklaus Children’s Healthcare Foundation, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, and Stephen and Ayesha Curry’s Eat. Learn. Play. Foundation. Despite this noble focus, the tournament offers a substantial prize purse for the top finishers at Muirfield Village Golf Club.

The prize purse for the Memorial Tournament is an impressive $20 million, with the winner receiving $4 million. The second-place finisher will earn $2.2 million, while the third-place finisher will take home $1.4 million.

Let’s delve into the prize money distribution, shedding light on the substantial rewards that await the top finishers at the Memorial Tournament.

What is the total purse for the 2025 Memorial Tournament?

The total purse for the 2025 Memorial Tournament presented by Workday is $20 million. The first place winner will take home $4 million of the prize purse.

2025 Memorial Tournament: Purse breakdown for PGA Tour event

Money amounts don’t include ties. All figures according to the PGA Tour

First place: Scottie Scheffler (-10) – $4 million
Second place: Ben Griffin (-6) – $2.2 million
Third place: Sepp Straka (-5) – $1.4 million
Fourth place: Nick Taylor (-4) – $1 million
Fifth place (tie): Maverick McNealy (-2) – $800,000
Fifth place (tie): Russell Henley (-2) – $800,000
Seventh place (tie): Brandt Snedeker (-1) – $603,200
Seventh place (tie): Tom Hoge (-1) – $603,200
Seventh place (tie): Rickie Fowler (-1) – $603,200
Seventh place (tie): Jordan Spieth (-1) – $603,200
Seventh place (tie): Keegan Bradley (-1) – $603,200
12th place (tie): Patrick Cantlay (E) – $415,000
12th place (tie): Taylor Pendrith (E) – $415,000
12th place (tie): Harris English (E) – $415,000
12th place (tie): Sam Burns (E) – $415,000
16th place (tie): Ludvig Aberg (+1) – $319,000
16th place (tie): Tommy Fleetwood (+1) – $319,000
16th place (tie): Akshay Bhatia (+1) – $319,000
16th place (tie): Sungjae Im (+1) – $319,000
20th place (tie): Collin Morikawa (+2) – $250,666
20th place (tie): Robert MacIntyre (+2) – $250,666
20th place (tie): Ryan Fox (+2) – $250,666

Controversy has taken the spotlight as the Women’s College World Series on June 1.

However, the celebration for UCLA quickly turned to worry.

After the home run, Grant was mobbed by teammates at home plate to celebrate the home run. When Grant took her final step to home plate, she missed the plate and was touched by teammates. Eventually, catcher Alexis Ramirez assisted Grant to touch home plate.

Following a lengthy umpire review, the officials ruled that while Grant did not initially touch home plate and was assisted to touch it afterwards, the run counted because ‘play is not reviewable according to Appendix G.’

Tennessee coach Karen Weekly quickly moved to file a protest and was heated following the review. However, the ABC broadcast following the inning break informed the audience that because the play was not reviewable, the Lady Vols could not protest.

But why did the run count? Here’s what you need to know:

Why did Karen Grant’s run count?

Replays quickly showed that Grant did not touch home plate right away and received assistance from her teammate Ramirez, who was the on-deck hitter, to touch the plate.

If the umpires had seen Grant missing home plate and receiving assistance from Ramirez, they could have ruled her out. If Grant had been ruled out, it would have ended the game with a Lady Vols 4-3 win, as Grant’s run would not have counted and the play happened with two outs in the inning.

With this being an elimination game with the winner going to the WCWS semifinals and the loser heading home, the stakes on the call could not be bigger.

According to Appendix G, this is what is reviewable:

1. Regarding batted balls (any ball higher than the top of the foul pole when itleaves the field cannot have that aspect reviewed):

a. Deciding if a batted ball called fair is fair or foul.
b. Deciding if a batted ball called foul should be a ground-rule double,home run, or hit-by-pitch.
c. Deciding if a batted ball is or is not a home run.

2. Regarding pitched balls at the plate:

a. Deciding if a pitch ruled a dropped third strike was caught before the balltouched the ground.
b. Deciding whether a live or dead ball should be changed to a foul ball.c. Deciding whether a foul ball should be changed to a foul tip only with nobase runners, or if it would result in a third out.
d. Deciding whether a batter is entitled to an award of first base per HitBatter (by Pitch) – whether the ball hit the batter, whether the ball wasentirely in the batter’s box, whether the batter made an attempt to getout of the way of the pitch when required, and/or whether the batterintentionally tried to get hit by the pitch (see Rule 11.13).

3. Spectator interference.
4. Obstruction and interference (including collisions).
5. Deciding if malicious/flagrant contact occurred. Umpires may initiate thisreview without requiring a coach’s challenge at any point in the game toensure student-athlete safety.
6. Timing plays (deciding whether a third out is made before the lead baserunner touches home plate).
7. Force/Tag Play Calls: Plays involving all runners acquiring the base beforethe defensive player’s attempt to put the runner out at any base.
8. Blocked or dead ball/Placement of Runners: Deciding whether a ball notruled blocked should be ruled blocked, and the proper placement of runners(per the rules/case book) after any blocked or dead ball call.
9. A catch or no catch in any situation.
10. Runners leaving the base prior to the touch on a fly ball (tagging up), runners missing a base and runners leaving early on a pitch.

Note: The crew chief may not initiate a review of runners leaving early on a pitch. This review is only allowed by a coach’s challenge.

11. Any of the listed reviewable items if the action on the field results in a deadball.

Tennessee softball’s elimination game against UCLA in the 2025 Women’s College World Series on Sunday at Devon Park in Oklahoma City sent fans across the country to a place few would have anticipated when they tuned into the matchup — the NCAA rule book.

With the Lady Vols leading the Bruins 4-2 in the top of the seventh inning with two outs, Megan Grant smacked a two-run, game-tying home run off Tennessee flame-thrower Karlyn Pickens. 

What initially appeared to be a straightforward — albeit incredibly consequential — play soon became a subject of controversy.

After rounding third base, Grant headed home, with her teammates waiting there to mob her. Grant, however, did not initially touch home plate and only did so several seconds later after teammate Alexis Ramirez prompted her to do so.

Umpires prompted a lengthy video review, which ultimately resulted in the call on the field being upheld, even though Grant had not originally touched the plate and had been assisted to go back and make contact. However, the play wasn’t reviewable according to Appendix G. The decision sent the game into extra innings.

The ruling led to frustration and outright anger from the Tennessee dugout, but for those watching the game, it created some understandable confusion. What, exactly, is Appendix G?

Here’s a closer look at Appendix G and how it factored into the umpiring crew’s decision in Sunday’s WCWS game between UCLA and Tennessee softball:

What is Appendix G?

Tucked away in the 185-page 2025 NCAA Softball Rule Book is Appendix G, which legislates video review in the sport.

The appendix, which covers two pages in the rule book, details what plays are subject to video review and criteria for using video review.

Appendix G outlines 12 different plays and scenarios that can be reviewed. While there is a section for flagrant and malicious contact, that doesn’t appear to include actions like Ramirez nudging her teammate to ensure she touches home plate.

Here’s a list of the plays subject to video review, according to the NCAA rule book:

1. Regarding batted balls (any ball higher than the top of the foul pole when it leaves the field cannot have that aspect reviewed):
a. Deciding if a batted ball called fair is fair or foul.
b. Deciding if a batted ball called foul should be a ground-rule double, home run, or hit-by-pitch.
c. Deciding if a batted ball is or is not a home run.
2. Regarding pitched balls at the plate:
a. Deciding if a pitch ruled a dropped third strike was caught before the ball touched the ground.
b. Deciding whether a live or dead ball should be changed to a foul ball.
c. Deciding whether a foul ball should be changed to a foul tip only with no base runners, or if it would result in a third out.
d. Deciding whether a batter is entitled to an award of first base per Hit Batter (by Pitch) – whether the ball hit the batter, whether the ball was entirely in the batter’s box, whether the batter made an attempt to get out of the way of the pitch when required, and/or whether the batter intentionally tried to get hit by the pitch (see Rule 11.13).
3. Spectator interference.
4. Obstruction and interference (including collisions).
5. Deciding if malicious/flagrant contact occurred. Umpires may initiate this review without requiring a coach’s challenge at any point in the game to ensure student-athlete safety.
6. Timing plays (deciding whether a third out is made before the lead base runner touches home plate).
7. Force/Tag Play Calls: Plays involving all runners acquiring the base before the defensive player’s attempt to put the runner out at any base.
8. Blocked or dead ball/Placement of Runners: Deciding whether a ball not ruled blocked should be ruled blocked, and the proper placement of runners (per the rules/case book) after any blocked or dead ball call.
9. A catch or no catch in any situation.
10. Runners leaving the base prior to the touch on a fly ball (tagging up), runners missing a base and runners leaving early on a pitch.

Note: The crew chief may not initiate a review of runners leaving early on a pitch. This review is only allowed by a coach’s challenge.

11. Any of the listed reviewable items if the action on the field results in a dead ball.

The biggest stories, every morning. Stay up-to-date on all the key sports developments by subscribing to USA TODAY Sports’ newsletter.

The California Interscholastic Federation crowned two champions in a pair of events at Saturday’s state high school track and field meet when transgender athlete AB Hernandez placed first in the high jump and triple jump – and finished second in the long jump.

Hernandez shared the podium with her cisgender competitors following a rule change enacted last week that allowed athletes assigned female at birth to receive medals based on where they would have finished if a transgender athlete had not competed.

The awards ceremonies after the events did not produce any protests or disruptions – according to New York Times reporting from the meet in Clovis, California – as some had feared if Hernandez won a state title.

Hernandez and Brooke White of River City High School celebrated on the podium after the long jump as they ‘put their arms around each other, held their medals out from their chests and smiled for photos.’

Despite isolated protests outside and inside the stadium, cheers largely drowned them out, the Times reported.

Hernandez also was part of a three-way tie for first in the high jump after all three competitors cleared the same height.

The rule change was made after President Donald Trump demanded that Hernandez – a 16-year-old junior at Jurupa Valley High School in Riverside County – not be allowed to compete in girls track and field events at the state meet. Trump threatened to withhold federal funds to the state if it did not comply with an executive order he signed Feb. 5 seeking to bar transgender student athletes from playing women’s sports.

State athletics officials drafted the new rule to allow additional female athletes to take part in events in which a transgender athlete was competing.

‘The CIF values all of our student-athletes and we will continue to uphold our mission of providing students with the opportunity to belong, connect, and compete while complying with California law and Education Code,’ the federation said in a statement.

PARIS — World No. 12 Tommy Paul blitzed Australian Alexei Popyrin 6-3 6-3 6-3 on Sunday to become the first American male player to reach the French Open quarterfinals in 22 years.

Paul matched Andre Agassi’s run from 2003 after Americans on Saturday equalled a 40-year-old record with five women and three men in Round 4 of the clay court Grand Slam.

Paul also became the only active American player to reach the last eight on all three surfaces after his 2023 Australian Open semi-final and 2024 Wimbledon quarter-final runs.

‘I am very happy to get a straight sets win. I have been playing some very long matches so that felt really good,’ Paul, who spent almost 11 hours on court in his previous three rounds, which included two five-setters, said in a post-match interview.

‘Shorter matches like this help a lot.’

The 28-year-old found himself a break down after the first game, before immediately resetting the match’s trajectory, breaking straight back to correct his early setback.

Popyrin, a former junior champion in Paris like Paul, had not lost a set in his run to the fourth round but found himself a set down when he was broken again, with Paul’s superior movement and clinical shot-making handing him the first set.

The Australian, constantly turning to his box to express his frustration, was clearly rattled with Paul attacking at every chance and with Popyrin’s second serve proving a weakness.

He was broken again at the start of the second set with Paul now firing on all cylinders and hitting winners at will.

The American added another break to land the set before going 3-0 up in the third and finishing off his 25th-seeded opponent in less than two hours.

He will now face either second seed and defending champion Carlos Alcaraz or fellow American Ben Shelton.

The Dallas Cowboys swung a trade to add a potential-packed young quarterback, Joe Milton, during the 2025 NFL offseason.

Dallas sent a 2025 fifth-round pick to the New England Patriots to acquire Milton – who played sparingly as a rookie but flashed in a Week 18 win over the Buffalo Bills – and a 2025 seventh-round pick. The Cowboys will look to develop the 25-year-old behind Dak Prescott, who is entering his age-32 season after missing half of the 2024 NFL season with a hamstring injury.

Milton admitted he wasn’t expecting to be traded after spending less than a year with the Patriots.

‘Was I surprised? Yes,’ Milton told the Cowboys website of the trade. ‘I kind of woke up around, like, 7 o’clock to a call and I knew I was getting traded.’

Still, Milton took the trade in stride and is grateful to have landed with the Cowboys.

‘The only thing I could have done, well, the only thing I did at that moment was to thank God,’ Milton described of being traded. ‘Coming here was a blessing. I didn’t know it was going to be here. … I didn’t know where I was going to end up.’

‘I was just thankful to go to work. [But now I’m] back in the heat, for one. He allowed me to play in the dome, for two. And, three, it’s America’s team. Also, it’s just great to learn from someone like Dak.’

Adding Milton was part of a greater restructuring of Dallas’ quarterback room. The Cowboys’ second- and third-string quarterbacks from last season, Cooper Rush and Trey Lance, are no longer with the team. Rush signed a two-year deal with the Baltimore Ravens in free agency while Lance signed a one-year contract with the Los Angeles Chargers.

Replacing Rush and Lance are Milton and veteran quarterback Will Grier, a 30-year-old who signed with the Cowboys for a second stint last season after Prescott’s injury. The two are expected to battle for the backup quarterback job, with Milton having the edge because of his athleticism and arm strength.

Milton is getting good vibes from his counterparts despite his competition with Grier. He is relishing an opportunity to learn from the duo as he tries to establish himself at the NFL level.

‘It’s great, man,’ Milton said of Dallas’ quarterback room. ‘We all have three different games, you know? Dak brings the most experience to the room and Will has been around football throughout his whole life. And then you’ve got me, whereas I didn’t grow up with a quarterback coach.
I just happened to be so athletic, and I bring extra tools.

‘I learned along the way and I’m able to do certain things. So, putting it all together, we just shape one another as quarterbacks. It’s just great. We feed off of each other.

‘They help me out a lot, man. Shout out to those two, man.
Like, respect for sure. No matter what it is, they’re willing to help, regardless.’

The Indiana Pacers are looking to make history.

For only the second time in franchise history, the team has moved on to the NBA Finals, where the Oklahoma City Thunder await.

The Pacers, who have never won an NBA title, dispatched the Knicks in the Eastern Conference finals Saturday night in six games behind their tempo, shot-making and improved defense.

Forward Pascal Siakam dropped 31 points and Tyrese Haliburton added 21 and 13 assists.

The Knicks kept things close until a decisive third quarter in which the Pacers outscored New York by 11. Jalen Brunson, New York’s top offensive threat, was the team’s third-leading scorer with 19 points.

Winners and losers from the closeout game of the Eastern Conference finals between the Indiana Pacers and New York Knicks:

WINNERS

The Pacers spread the wealth

In Game 5 Thursday night, the only starter for the Pacers to score in double figures was forward Pascal Siakam, who recorded just 15 points. In Game 6 on Saturday night, it was a very different story. Seven Pacers — and all five starters — reached double figures, with Siakam leading the way with 31 points. Indiana whipped the ball around the floor, moving it far more efficiently than it did two nights previous, and the speed of the Pacers passes left the Knicks struggling to catch up.

In Game 5, Indiana recorded just 20 assists, with All-Star point guard Tyrese Haliburton getting just six. Saturday, the Pacers dished out 30 dimes, 13 of which were Haliburton’s.

Andrew Nembhard

He had a rough series offensively, there’s no question, but Pacers guard Andrew Nembhard took on the assignment of guarding Jalen Brunson with determination. With Aaron Nesmith slowed by his ankle injury, Pacers coach Rick Carlisle switched things up early in Game 6, putting Nembhard on Brunson.

Nembhard responded by bodying Brunson, guarding him all 90 feet and making him feel constant pressure. In the first half, Brunson shot just 4-of-10 from the field for 10 points. Nembhard finished with six steals.

Thomas Bryant

He lost his minutes to fellow Pacers big man Tony Bradley, but a hip injury to Bradley thrust Bryant back into the rotation for Game 6. He responded with an energy-filled 11-point performance in just 13 minutes on the floor. The third quarter, when the Pacers pulled away from the Knicks, was when Bryant shined brightest, scoring eight of his 11 points in the period and draining a pair of massive 3s.

LOSERS

New York’s ball security

Give the Pacers plenty of credit for swarming and harassing ball handlers and jumping gaps to steal passes, but New York’s careless approach with the ball cost the Knicks the game. New York committed 18 turnovers that led to 34 Pacers points.

The Pacers turned those turnovers into quick offense, firing passes up the floor, often to players streaking wide open to the basket.

New York’s transition defense

Whether it was cumulative fatigue from six games of trying to match the tempo of the Pacers, or whether it was a lack of attention to detail, the Knicks simply conceded far too many attempts for the Pacers in transition. This had been an issue throughout the Eastern Conference finals. The Pacers are known for getting players sprinting down the floor for open layups, even after opponents convert field goals.

The concern for New York was that it did not adjust to this over the course of the game. In fact, if anything, the Pacers leaned into their speed in the second half. No player benefitted from this more than Pascal Siakam, who all series long got easy layups after his teammates launched passes to him after he had leaked out; four of his first seven field goals were layups in transition. Overall, the Pacers outscored New York in transition, 25-10.

New York’s perimeter defense

Inexcusably, the Knicks also took a lax approach to defending Indiana’s perimeter shots, allowing multiple players to get uncontested looks and failing to close out. A lot of this happened when Knicks players — center Karl-Anthony Towns in particular — went under screens or lacked the effort and intensity to meet Indiana’s shooters. The Pacers attacked this repeatedly, calling for pick-and-rolls when Towns was the secondary defender.

Indiana shot 17-of-33 (51.5%) from beyond the arc. And, since the Knicks made only 9-of-32 (28.1%) shots from 3, that means the Pacers carried a 24-point advantage from deep.