Business
Want to Understand America? Watch ‘Shark Tank.’
One day in late June, a panel of investors entertained business ideas from around the country. A kitschy advent calendar. A fancy mini-fridge for drinks. A flashlight that emits beams from multiple angles. A machine that grows mushrooms. Bendable cups. Pet plants (for you, not your cat).
This was the Los Angeles set of “Shark Tank,” the ABC show that for 15 years has turned business negotiation into entertainment. Aspiring entrepreneurs use hustle, gross margins and cringe-worthy pitches to pry money from the so-called Sharks in exchange for a stake in their companies.
On one level, “Shark Tank” is your basic reality TV show. The pitches, which last about 45 minutes, are edited to snappy 12- to 15-minute segments with music scored for suspense over tight shots of bug-eyed, sweaty supplicants. Some founders leave the tank defeated, humiliated or in tears. Others leave triumphant with handshake deals. Stories about overcoming struggle and self-doubt feel calibrated to make you cry.
With a short window to impress the Sharks, contestants make the most of “hello.”
ABC
But if you watch the show as I did — most of its 15 seasons in one year — you might be struck by something else: the way it reflects the shifting contours of the American economy. The show started in August 2009, in the pit of the Great Recession. Over the next decade and a half, 1,275 people pitched their ideas on air. The comfort food and DVDs featured in those first years were replaced by the rise of online direct-to-consumer businesses, the allure of Silicon Valley and its build-at-all-costs mentality, and then the shock of the pandemic and the ingenuity that came out of it.
“Shark Tank” Over the Years
Season 1 (2009-10)
The show premiered against the backdrop of the Great Recession. Small business owners, like Tod Wilson, shared stories of struggle and overcoming adversity.
Season 3 (2012)
The economy was getting better and so was the show. Mark Cuban joined and raised the tempo and the stakes of the negotiations.
Season 4 (2012-2013)
Scrub Daddy, the smiley face sponge, makes its debut. Shark Lori Greiner, also known as the “QVC Queen,” helps turn it into one of the show’s most recognizable products.
Season 5 (2013-14)
This season brought items with a tech spin, like DoorBot. This object became Ring, which Amazon later acquired for more than $1 billion.
Season 6 (2014-15)
The founders of Bombas, the sock company, got a grilling for their high valuation. But the company has since become a huge success.
You can also see the emergence of consumer trends: online dating (the Coffee Meets Bagel app); combining capitalism with social good (Bombas socks); democratizing professional services (Everlywell home medical tests); reimagining personal care products (Dude Wipes). And, of course, the show has featured plenty of minimally useful, niche gimmicks that are destined to collect dust.
“‘Shark Tank’ is not a game show,” said Kevin O’Leary, a cutthroat investor known sarcastically in the tank as Mr. Wonderful. “It’s real life. It’s real investing, real money. And it reflects the real economy.”
It is also real exposure. Perhaps the show’s most important role in the entrepreneurial economy is not the advice or money the Sharks dispense, but to serve as a platform for the most American of business strategies: shameless self-promotion.
That exposure might be even more relevant now. As the show enters its 16th season on Oct. 18, the economy seems good on paper, but feels bad for many Americans, including entrepreneurs. Yes, inflation is starting to ease and interest rates are slowly coming down, but the economy still feels in suspense.
The show has been adjusting over the past few years. The Sharks are less excited about businesses with big valuations and more interested in discovering and funding smaller start-ups, said Barbara Corcoran, founder of the Corcoran Group who got rich selling Manhattan real estate and has appeared as a Shark since the show’s first season. “So there are a lot of low asks, which I really like because I love to get on the ground floor with people,” she told me.
These “mom-and-pa type people,” as Ms. Corcoran calls them, also make for better TV. Where “Shark Tank” is concerned, good TV comes from stoking a belief — some might call it a myth — that anybody with a good idea and some moxie can make it in America. Having difficulty brushing your daughter’s curly hair? A flash of genius provides the solution and you create a hairbrush company! It’s the American dream.
In fact, the Sharks invoked the American dream so often in my interviews with them that it felt like they were trying to make a sale. Mark Cuban, who is leaving the show after this season, put it this way: “The idea that maybe we had a little bit to do with amplifying entrepreneurship and making the American dream stronger, that’s pretty damn cool, you know?”
From Bakeries to Bots
The “Shark Tank” concept grew out of a Japanese show called “Tigers of Money.” It spread to Britain and Canada as “Dragons’ Den,” and in 2009, Mark Burnett, the television producer known for hit shows like “The Apprentice” and “Survivor,” adapted the idea for the United States.
It was, in some ways, exactly the wrong moment for a show about making it in business. “Shark Tank” debuted less than a year after the subprime mortgage crisis devastated the global economy. The investment firm Lehman Brothers had gone belly up and banks were not lending. Retail sales cratered. But the investors chosen as Sharks saw the show as a new way to make money. “It’s ’08, nobody’s buying more clothes and they can’t pay their rent or mortgage,” said Daymond John, the founder of apparel brand FUBU. “I went on the show to diversify my portfolio.”
That first season Mr. John and the other Sharks were pitched by a lot of sole proprietors: a woman opening a plus-size clothing boutique in Houston, a caregiver who created an elephant-shaped medicine dispenser. The money offered was $100,000 here, $50,000 there. Small potatoes.
Every pitch leads to an ask, a dollars-and-percent offer that starts the negotiation with the Sharks. ABC
The producers and casting department recruited entrepreneurs by looking at local newspapers or relying on word of mouth. Tod Wilson, the first person to pitch in the “tank,” was one of them. He owned a bakery that sold sweet potato pies in Somerset, N.J., and wanted to expand nationwide.
“I had a couple small loans with some local community banks, but nobody was lending any more money,” Mr. Wilson said. On the show, Mr. John and Ms. Corcoran offered him a deal.
By the third season, in 2012, it was time to feel optimistic again. Businesses were making it pleasant to buy stuff online that you usually need to feel and touch — like clothes and eyeglasses. Uber, Airbnb and WeWork, with their outsize valuations, emboldened many companies to think they could hit it big. Instagram and Twitter, along with the ubiquity of Amazon Marketplace, offered new ways to sell goods.
Shark Tank, too, wanted a piece of Silicon Valley.
Producers recruited more ambitious companies through open calls held at Las Vegas convention centers and pitch sessions hosted on college campuses. Sweet potato pies gave way to apps and cloud-based solutions. In episode after episode, viewers saw entrepreneurship as a pathway to financial success and autonomy. The show was growing in popularity, and by Season 6 in 2014, had reached 9.1 million people tuning in per episode.
“The idea that anybody can make it into that top echelon, I think, is an incredibly American mind set,” said Angela Lee, who teaches at Columbia Business School.
In the first season, the average valuation for a company that appeared on the show was $376,000; a decade later, it had ballooned to $2.4 million, according to a database compiled by Halle Tecco, an adjunct professor at Columbia Business School who tracked the first 10 seasons of “Shark Tank.” The average amount the Sharks agreed to invest nearly doubled.
The Sharks didn’t always spot the winners. In 2013, the producers reached out to Jamie Siminoff, a successful serial entrepreneur who was tinkering in his garage with a product he called DoorBot.
Like all the entrepreneurs who appear on the show, Mr. Siminoff walked down a long hallway to the double doors that open up to the awaiting Sharks. But instead of those doors opening, Mr. Siminoff knocked three times, prompting Mr. Cuban to ask, “Who’s there?” After some back and forth, the door opened and Mr. Siminoff said, “Wouldn’t it have been nice to know who was behind the door before you let me in?”
He demonstrated how, with a smartphone and his video doorbell, anyone could see who was standing at their door. He had already sold more than $1 million of the devices through his own website alone.
The ensuing negotiations made for good TV. Four Sharks declined to invest, leaving only Mr. O’Leary. He offered Mr. Siminoff an infusion of cash in return for a percentage of every sale. Mr. Siminoff balked, saying those payments would bleed him of cash when he needed it most. With the suspense soundtrack playing underneath, Mr. Siminoff responded: “Respectfully, Mr. Wonderful, we’re going to decline.”
A year later, Mr. Siminoff renamed his business Ring, and four years after that, Amazon bought it for more than $1 billion.
At the time of his “Shark Tank” appearance, Mr. Siminoff “was actually broke, so I did want to get money,” he told me recently. “I didn’t get money, but I got awareness and credibility, which was amazing. I think if it wasn’t for ‘Shark Tank,’ I don’t think Ring would exist today.”
Mr. Siminoff came back as a guest shark in 2018; all the Sharks stood up and clapped.
The QVC Economy
Companies appearing on “Shark Tank” have reinvented the wheel (though the Smart Tire Company didn’t convince the Sharks it was needed). One contender confidently asserted that he had created a “vortex chamber” that harnesses the Earth’s rotation to create electricity. (The Sharks didn’t get it either. He left empty-handed.) The Sharks were pitched a wakeboard-like device that, when attached to an airplane, would allow people to fly. (No thanks. Too much of a liability risk.)
There are a lot of crazy inventions out there.
There are some pretty mind-numbing ones, too (insurance, enterprise software, energy production) that power the economy. But those kinds of companies are rarely reflected on “Shark Tank” for one simple reason: They don’t make for good TV.
Robert Herjavec, a Shark since the first season, has an expertise in cybersecurity. He likes to tell the story of taking Mr. Burnett out for dinner in the show’s early years and asking why producers weren’t bringing to the sound stage more of the back-end companies he gravitated toward.
As Mr. Herjavec recalls, Mr. Burnett told him, “I don’t know how to say this to you, but what you do is boring. You’re missing the entire point of the show.”
That dinner, Mr. Herjavec says, changed his perspective. “I need to invest in things that the consumer is going to get excited about,” he said.
What people get excited about, it turns out, is merchandise that you might purchase impulsively in the checkout line at TJ Maxx. Or, in Target or on the QVC shopping network, platforms where Lori Greiner, one of the mainstay Sharks, has strong connections. “What is a winning product? What do people want? Those are the basics,” Ms. Greiner said.
“Shark Tank” Over the Years
Season 7 (2015-16)
Simply Fit Board, an exercise board created by a mother-daughter duo, clinched a deal with Shark Lori Greiner. The founders said they did a million dollars in sales in the 24 hours after the show aired.
Season 11 (2019-20)
After 10 years, entrepreneurs recognize the value of “Shark Tank” as a potential marketing platform for their products.
Season 12 (2020-21)
Scores of small businesses closed during the pandemic, but “Shark Tank” celebrated the founders who were able to pivot, like Foam Party Hats.
Season 15 (2023-24)
More first-time entrepreneurs stepped onto the set, making the show feel more like the early seasons.
More than two-thirds of the U.S. economy is driven by consumer spending, and while that includes less tangible things like auto insurance, Ms. Greiner leans into the relatable. She has backed “Shark Tank” companies with some of the biggest sales: Scrub Daddy, the smiley-faced sponge; Simply Fit, the exercise balance board; and the Squatty Potty toilet stool.
Mr. Herjavec learned his lesson. Soon after his dinner with Mr. Burnett, he took an equity stake in what he says is his most memorable investment: Tipsy Elves, a company that makes ugly Christmas sweaters. It has done about $200 million in sales.
What You Don’t See in the Tank
Venture capitalists praise the show for introducing the masses to business concepts like “landed costs” and “scaling.” The show has also helped entrepreneurs find out what their company is worth.
Founders coming from small towns who might not have deep connections to major investors can use “Shark Tank” as a barometer, said Michael Jones, founding partner of Science Inc, a Los Angeles-based investment firm which has poured money into consumer brands like the canned water company Liquid Death and Dollar Shave Club.
“You can get a sense of what terms at least the Sharks think are normal,” he said.
But, venture capitalists are often quick to add, the show does not reveal the nitty-gritty of the negotiation process. The painstaking effort of combing through a company’s financials and ownership structure and analyzing the market sector happens off camera.
During that process, deals agreed to during the taping might be restructured or the founders or Sharks are allowed to walk away. According to an 2023 analysis from Forbes, roughly half of the deals clinched on the show never actually closed.
“They’re a platform to promote entrepreneurship and small businesses,” said Taryn Jones Laeben, founder of early-stage advisory and investment firm IRL Ventures, “more than they are a direct window into the venture capital world.”
Tod Wilson, the pie maker who appeared on the very first episode and received a handshake deal, decided not to go through with the offer. He eventually secured a bank loan. After some ups and downs, he continues to sell in Wegman’s and ShopRite supermarkets as well as online.
He beat the odds. While the show promotes the upside of the American dream, many entrepreneurs face constant challenges to stay in business. Nearly half of all small businesses fail within the first five years.
“I don’t think people know how hard it is to be one of the ones that have made it,” Ms. Lee, the Columbia Business School professor, said. “The problem with social media and everything is that we only hear about the success stories.”
Marketing Muscle
Ms. Lee is also the founder of 37 Angels, an early-stage investment firm. She says she has done due diligence on dozens of companies that have appeared on “Shark Tank.” None of them, she says, described the show primarily as way to get funding. It was a way to market their products.
With nearly 4 million viewers, the show has become a cultural phenomenon. Dozens of blogs and podcasts are dedicated to the show and hundreds of memes on social media reference it (“Hello sharks. Today I am seeking $100,000 so I can just vibe for a bit”). Educators like Ms. Lee use episodes as case studies, and educational programs like Junior Achievement use it to teach students about how to start businesses.
Sarah Paiji Yoo, one of the founders of Blueland, which makes sustainable cleaning products, didn’t really need an investment. By the time she appeared on the show in 2019, she had already raised $3 million in venture capital. The funding she got from Mr. O’Leary was about “driving more awareness of our product,” and credibility, she told me later. Her company has now done more than $200 million in sales.
Dave Heath, co-founder of Bombas, the sock retailer, described the show as a “megaphone.” He appeared in 2014, and two months later his company sold $1.2 million worth of socks. Bombas has now surpassed $1.7 billion in lifetime revenue, making it the show’s most successful company.
Reinventing the wheel isn’t necessary to impress the Sharks. But some have tried.
ABC
The possibility of television exposure also piques the interest of traditional retailers. Ann Crady Weiss, the co-founder of Hatch, was scheduled to tape a “Shark Tank” segment with her husband to pitch a baby changing pad that doubled as a scale. Before the filming, she flew out to Target’s headquarters in Minneapolis to meet a buyer.
“I decided to leverage the fact that we were going to be on TV,” Ms. Weiss recounted. “The buyer gave us a shot at Target because of the ‘Shark Tank’ appearance.”
“We turn you into a rock star and you become part of the ‘Shark Tank’ culture and the lore of ‘Shark Tank’,” said Mr. O’Leary. “Your deal becomes legend and stays in syndication for decades. What venture capital can do that?”
On the weekend in June, toward the end of the second day of “Shark Tank” tapings, a young man in a black T-shirt burst through the set’s familiar doors to pitch his restaurant in Queens. He had saved $600,000, which impressed the Sharks, who offered encouragement. At one point, Mr. O’Leary said, “you should be mentoring me.”
Near the end of his time in front of them, Mr. John stood up, walked over and handed him his personal phone number.
“This is what I wanted,” the founder said before walking off.
Business
SoFi Stadium workers vote to authorize strike with World Cup days away
Nearly 2,000 food and beverage workers at SoFi Stadium voted overwhelmingly Friday to authorize a strike just a week before the venue will stage the first World Cup game on U.S. soil in more than three decades.
Negotiations on a labor contract between Unite Here Local 11, the union representing the cooks, dishwashers, concession workers and bartenders at SoFi and, Legends Global, the stadium’s food-service operator, are expected to continue Monday despite the vote. But Kurt Petersen, the union’s co-president, said if an agreement isn’t reached workers will walk off the job and the 70,000 fans arriving for the June 12 match between the U.S. and Paraguay will be greeted by hundreds of picketers.
Union members have been working without a contract for a year and Petersen said Unite Here is demanding salary increases, protection against subcontracting and job loss through automation, and are protesting the collection of sensitive private information such as nationality and home addresses that FIFA, organizer of the World Cup, said it needs to accreditate workers.
Workers are also demanding the right to walk off the job if federal immigration enforcement enters the stadium and creates a reasonable fear for their safety. Ninety-six percent of the vote was in favor of strike authorization.
Legends Global, the stadium’s food-service operator, responded to the vote with a statement.
“Legends Global has presented progressive wage proposals to Unite Here Local 11 throughout our negotiations and remains confident an agreement is within reach,” it read. “While we expect a contract will be finalized in time, a contingency staffing plan is in place to ensure seamless operations and no disruption to fans. We remain committed to delivering an outstanding hospitality experience at the FIFA World Cup matches.”
That contingency plan would involve hiring replacement workers who would have to undergo the same detailed accreditation procedures demanded by FIFA, plus job training. SoFi Stadium is scheduled to play host to eight World Cup matches, including two of the U.S. team’s three group-stage games. The first of those is on June 12 when the U.S. faces Paraguay in its World Cup opener.
Petersen said the union is looking for “substantial increases” in hourly pay, to more than $30 an hour. Legends’ most recent proposal calls for wage freezes for some workers and a 25-cent hourly increase for cooks and dishwashers, the union said.
But perhaps the biggest sticking point is FIFA’s demand for workers’ sensitive personal information, including Social Security numbers and fingerprints, to process background checks. Under California privacy laws, workers have the right to know exactly what personal information their employer collects, how it will be used, and who it will be shared with. Local 11 said its members fears such information, if collected, could be made available to the Department of Homeland Security and ICE.
According to Petersen, when workers were originally hired by Legends they submitted the documentation necessary for employment, and under the current collective bargaining agreement the company does not have the right to request it again for FIFA.
FIFA has refused to comment on the contract talks, saying they are “between Legends Global and Unite Here Local 11.” But its insistence on collecting personal information is something Legends cannot address during contract talks, which makes a resolution impossible.
FIFA said it was partnering with the governments of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, the three countries in which the 39-day tournament will be played, “to enhance safety and security of all workers, staff, team members, vendors, journalists, volunteers, and spectators by mitigating potential insider threats. … Such name checks do not constitute pre-employment checks.”
All data collected during the name-check process, FIFA said, will be processed “in accordance with applicable data protection and privacy laws, and will be deleted by FIFA as soon as it is no longer needed for purposes of adjudicating requests for credentialed access to FIFA-controlled spaces.
Business
Read the Email From the ‘60 Minutes’ Stars
TO All our colleagues at 60
FROM Lesley, Bill and Jon
We have had a hard time deciding whether to stay at 60 Minutes. We’re still deeply upset by the firings of Tanya and Draggan, strong leaders who everyone respected. As far as we can tell – because no explanation has ever been offered, they were expelled because they fought for our 60 Minutes values and stood up to protect our independence and integrity.
Newsrooms are not supposed to be run like dictatorships. Collaboration and argument are the way we have always worked at 60. Don Hewitt actually encouraged loud passionate advocacy for our pieces.
This goes for Sharyn, Cecilia and Scott as well, all at the top of the world of TV journalism who exemplified 60 Minutes’ ethos of tough questions and honest storytelling.
And Guy Campanile, an outstanding 60 Minutes producer whose advice on our stories was invaluable.
And Matt Polevoy, who ran our online operations, moved us onto YouTube, was working on developing 60 Minutes Podcasts and many other projects expanding our presence on the Web: vital and necessary for our future.
We want to express how sorry we are that these principled, fair and honest journalists were treated so shabbily, with such indecency. Tanya deserves to be celebrated, not cruelly cast off. Draggan too. It’s been heartbreaking.
But, we have decided to stay on.
We feared that our returning might be construed as an endorsement of the existing power structure. That is simply, categorically not the case.
Here’s why we’re are staying:
We don’t want to see 60 Minutes die.
We have been grieving because this whole mess has wounded and damaged the broadcast. We want to stay and fight, try to repair and preserve our reputation by continuing the Mike Wallace tradition of hold their feet to the fire as well as Morley’s brand of quirky off-kilter reports like his on why people in Finland like to tango!
1
Business
Polluted rain runoff from big box store parking lots could see a crackdown
When rain falls on California shopping centers and warehouses, the water runs off parking lots carrying metal dust and chemicals from vehicle tires and brake pads, oil and grease from engines, and bacteria from trash.
The gunk washes into storm drains and pollutes creeks, rivers and beaches.
Now environmental advocates are pushing state regulators to crack down by requiring stormwater permits — essentially best practices — for businesses that haven’t been held accountable for their polluted runoff.
“Commercial properties right now are not regulated under any stormwater permit,” said Sean Bothwell, executive director of California Coastkeeper Alliance. “Think Costco, think Amazon warehouses. Large places with large parking lots are really what we’re going after.”
Groups that represent the businesses say they are already paying property taxes that in L.A. County include a special tax for cleaning up stormwater, and that imposing new regulations in this way doesn’t make sense.
But California Coastkeeper Alliance and other nonprofit groups submitted petitions to regional water officials across the state this week demanding they begin regulating commercial properties such as big-box stores, auto dealers and industrial parks.
A drone view of the East L.A. Sustainable Median Stormwater Capture Project in East Los Angeles.
(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)
The groups want the State Water Resources Control Board to establish a statewide rule, or permit, for “commercial, industrial and institutional” properties, which also include stadiums, malls and private hospitals.
If the state doesn’t act, Bothwell said, “our waterways will never be safe to fish or swim in, particularly Southern California beaches.”
That’s because a large portion of the pollution fouling waterways comes from these businesses. Bothwell said his group estimates, using methods developed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, that unregulated businesses are responsible for 30% to 60% of metals like copper and zinc found in waterways, depending on the area. At high concentrations, these are toxic to fish and other animals.
Many Southern California creeks and concrete-lined channels are deemed “impaired” by regulators because pollution levels violate water quality standards.
The way California currently enforces the federal Clean Water Act, the businesses have no obligation to reduce the filthy water that flows into drains, and the costs of cleanup efforts fall to cities and counties, Bothwell said.
Because large parking lots often contribute to polluted stromwater runoff, environmental groups are urging state regulators to start requiring permits.
(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)
Instead, the cities or counties where they are located are regulated. Researchers estimate California cities and counties spend more than $700 million each year on capturing and cleaning up stormwater.
California would be the first in the country to adopt such a statewide standard or permit. In addition to cities, the state already requires stormwater permits for construction sites, roads and certain industrial plants.
Business groups have opposed the proposal. John Myers, a spokesperson for the California Chamber of Commerce, noted that the effort to mandate stormwater permits has been discussed for several years in L.A. County after environmental groups won a favorable court ruling. “Simply choosing to use that effort as a template for other diverse regions, without a careful analysis of benefits and costs, could have major impacts on California’s economy,” he said.
The Los Angeles County Business Federation, or BizFed, raised similar concerns.
“Everyone wants cleaner waterways. However, this proposal simply isn’t ready for prime time,” said Mike Lewis, BizFed’s water co-chair.
As written, the proposal “hits existing property owners with retroactive costs while simultaneously ignoring the stormwater taxes they’ve been paying in good faith for years,” Lewis said in an email. “This seems less like environmental policy and more like a penalty. There are better, fairer ways to clean up stormwater.”
If there were a statewide measure for commercial businesses, many would probably have to build retention ponds or swales to filter out contaminants before water percolates underground. Or they could pay an annual fee, helping to fund local stormwater projects that cities need.
The money collected from companies, Bothwell said, would be used for building wetlands, water-absorbing parks and other green spaces next to parking lots — which help clean runoff instead of letting it run into storm drains.
At the same time, Southern California cities have been investing in projects to capture stormwater and recharge groundwater as they seek to rely less on water imported from Northern California and the Colorado River.
Unless the state acts, contaminated water will continue running off businesses’ parking lots into drains, adding to the “toxic soup” in Southern California waterways, said Bruce Reznik, executive director of Los Angeles Waterkeeper.
California Coastkeeper Alliance and a coalition of local Waterkeeper groups submitted the petitions to regional boards in the Inland Empire, San Diego, the Bay Area, the Central Coast, the north coast and the Sacramento Valley.
They invoked a provision of the Clean Water Act that authorizes states to require additional permits on a case-by-case basis.
L.A. Waterkeeper and other environmental groups successfully used the same provision to convince the EPA in 2024 to require permits for businesses near the polluted Dominguez Channel and Los Cerritos Channel in L.A. County. State regulators are preparing to issue those permits.
The regional water boards received the new petitions and will consider them, said Ailene Voisin, a spokesperson.
In 2022, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation that would have required stormwater permits for many businesses statewide. In 2025, a similar bill faced opposition and died in the Legislature.
-
New York44 minutes agoHow Tony Danza Spends a Day Playing a Villain and Frank Sinatra
-
Los Angeles, Ca51 minutes agoWoman killed by driver while crossing PCH in Long Beach
-
Detroit, MI1 hour agoTigers takeaways: Detroit rolls to a little ALDS revenge vs Seattle
-
San Francisco, CA1 hour agoChapman (8 RBIs) among trio of Giants with 2 HRs in 18-run Wrigley romp
-
Dallas, TX1 hour agoIsolated Flooding Threat to North Texas Late Saturday
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoTampa Bay Rays beat the Miami Marlins in game 1 of the series, with a score of 6-0
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoRed Sox win series opener, ending rough stretch against Yankees – The Boston Globe
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoDenver weather: Near-record heat Saturday