Jack Flaherty fans first 7 batters he faces to tie AL record Tigers starter Jack Flaherty ties an American League record as he strikes out the first seven batters of his outing vs. the Cardinals. Rangers' Max Scherzer misses rehab start with sore thumb Rangers right-hander Max Scherzer, coming off back surgery, missed Tuesday's rehab start because of thumb soreness. "I'm frustrated," he said. Mike Trout explains genesis of torn meniscus Angels star Mike Trout explains how he began to feel an issue with his knee on Monday against the Phillies.

The UFC heads back to Brazil on Saturday night to follow up on the wildly successful UFC 300 card. Although UFC 301 won't carry the star power of the event that preceded it, Rio de Janeiro will welcome home two of its heroes as UFC flyweight champion Alexandre Pantoja will defend his title against Steve Erceg in the main event and UFC Hall of Famer and former featherweight champion Jose Aldo comes out of retirement to face Jonathan Martinez in a bantamweight showdown.

This will be Pantoja's second title defense, and it will come against an unlikely opponent. Erceg is the UFC's No. 10-ranked flyweight. Since making his debut with the promotion less than a year ago, he has collected three wins -- including a blistering knockout of Matt Schnell in March -- and with most of the flyweights in the top 10 unavailable, Erceg looks to seize the moment and become the lowest-ranked fighter to win a title since the UFC introduced the rankings system in 2013.

Aldo steps back into action after a brief hiatus from the sport in 2022. The former featherweight kingpin tried his hand at boxing in 2023 with a majority draw against Jeremy Stephens and a unanimous decision win over Esteban Gabriel Espindola. But with one fight left on his UFC contract, Aldo returns home to test himself against the surging Martinez and his six-fight winning streak.

ESPN MMA reporters Brett Okamoto and Andreas Hale spotlight the top storylines to follow and matchups to watch during the fights this weekend.

Hale: Erceg isn't supposed to be here. Not this soon, at least. But after just three fights, he's getting the opportunity of a lifetime as the lowest-ranked fighter to challenge for a UFC title since Dan Henderson faced Michael Bisping for the middleweight championship in 2016.

Erceg didn't arrive in the UFC with much fanfare, nor did he blow fans away with his wins, aside from his second-round knockout of Matt Schnell. But there's a reason that he's just a +210 underdog, according to ESPN Bet. Erceg has the skill set to upset the apple cart and capture UFC gold.

The flyweight division has been volatile since Demetrious Johnson's exit from the UFC. Since Johnson's remarkable title reign, which saw him defend his championship 11 times from 2012 to 2017, no fighter has successfully defended the title more than twice. Pantoja already has one title defense but hasn't looked like an unbeatable force. He has holes in his striking that Erceg can exploit, and as long as "Astro Boy" can avoid being taken down, he stands a good chance of pulling off the upset.

Would it be a bigger upset than Matt Serra knocking out Georges St-Pierre at UFC 69 or Holly Holm's stunning finish of Ronda Rousey at UFC 193? Probably not. But the idea that the little-known fighter from Perth, Australia, didn't deserve the opportunity would be put to rest. Or Pantoja just runs him over, and the whole conversation is null and void.

Okamoto: Admittedly, I am extremely biased here. I've worked with Smith a lot because of his analyst role with ESPN, and I visited his camp in Denver last week to discuss his mindset around a looming retirement.

Regardless, this is still the most intriguing storyline. Smith is in such a dilemma, deciding how much he has left. Some people would look at his recent record and his last knockout loss to Khalil Rountree Jr., and immediately say there's no reason for him to continue fighting. But at the same time, he's 35. Alex Pereira won the light heavyweight title at age 36. Jan Blachowicz won it at 37. Glover Teixeira won it at 42.

One can understand why Smith still believes a title could happen. He has taken a new approach this camp, by not focusing on the belt. He believes his obsession with it has hindered him in recent fights, and those closest to him agree. It has been a surprisingly light-hearted camp for a fight that carries such danger. His coaches are apprehensive about fighting in Brazil, which is understandable. One of his coaches described Brazil as the most hostile place in the world to win a fight. It takes its toll on food changes, sleep changes, etc. This is a massive challenge for Smith, but he's going into it confident.

And beyond that, I haven't even mentioned Vitor Petrino (11-0), who could be a serious addition to the top 10 if he goes out and dominates a veteran like Smith. There's a lot on the line for both in this one, and there will be plenty to discuss or debate afterward.

Okamoto: Michel Pereira vs. Ihor Potieria. This matchmaking is a little confusing. Pereira has looked really good lately. The guy who would get attention by doing backflips during fights and looked like a .500 welterweight is long gone. Pereira is fighting with purpose and confidence. He's a brick house of an athlete who doesn't seem to forfeit any speed for it.

This wasn't his original matchup -- but even his former opponent Makhmud Muradov felt like a bit of running in place. Pereira has won seven in a row. When are we going to see him in a ranked fight? He went through this phase of fighting entertaining opponents such as Niko Price and Khaos Williams, and it became clear he had a higher ceiling than that. Let's find it out. If he can record his third straight finish in Brazil, we'll see him in a relatively big, ranked fight.

Hale: Paul Craig vs. Caio Borralho. It's time to figure out just how good Borralho is. Craig is 1-3 in his past four fights but remains a dangerous finisher who enjoys taking advantage of his opponent's defensive deficiencies. Borralho is extremely athletic and explosive, which is why he hasn't lost in the UFC in five fights. But he hasn't faced someone who presents a significant threat standing or on the ground as Craig.

Could Craig catch an overly aggressive Borralho and derail this slow-moving hype train, or will the Brazilian impress and put himself on the radar for the upper crust of the middleweight division that needs new blood? If Craig falls short, would it be safe to say his best years are behind him? There's a lot on the line for both fighters, and both should fight like this is a make-or-break situation heading into Saturday's fight.

The leaders of college sports are involved in "deep discussions" to reach a legal settlement that would likely lay out the framework for sharing revenue with athletes in a future NCAA business model, sources told ESPN.

The NCAA and its power conferences are defendants in an antitrust class action lawsuit, House v. NCAA, which argues that the association is breaking federal law by placing any restrictions on how athletes make money from selling the rights to their name, image or likeness. The case is scheduled to go to court in January 2025. If the plaintiffs win at trial, the NCAA and its schools could be liable to pay more than $4 billion in damages, which has motivated many leaders across the industry to seek a settlement.

Sources indicated that a turning point in the discussions, which have been ongoing, came last week in the Dallas area, where the power conference commissioners, their general counsels, NCAA president Charlie Baker, NCAA lawyers and the plaintiffs' attorneys met. (They chose the Dallas area because they were already there for the College Football Playoff meetings, which were held in that area last week.)

While sources stressed that no deal is imminent, details about what a multibillion-dollar settlement could look like are expected to be shared with campuses in the near future. There are myriad variables to get to the finish line and still some obstacles and objections at the campus level, but sources indicate that progress has ramped up in recent weeks.

A settlement would provide some legal relief for a college sports industry that's been peppered by lawsuits. It could also serve as a keystone piece to formulating a more stable future. With the settlement expected to cost billions in back pay for former athletes, it would likely also require the NCAA and conferences to agree to a system for sharing more revenue with some of the players moving forward.

Sources indicated the top-end revenue share number per school -- once it's determined -- would be in the neighborhood of $20 million annually, although that's yet to be settled. Whatever number is set by the settlement, individual schools will be able to opt in to share revenue up to that number with their student athletes at their discretion. (They could choose to share less, but not more.)

Texas A&M athletic director Trev Alberts, for example, recently told the Bryan-College Station Eagle that schools could be adding $15 million to $20 million to their budgets annually for what he termed a "new expense category" in college athletics.

What's uncertain, for now, are the mechanics of how this could work. Do the schools buy the NIL of their athletes? How would Title IX be impacted?

The House case is one of four active antitrust lawsuits, all of which serve as a threat to some part of the NCAA's remaining caps on how athletes are paid. In three of those cases, including the House case, athletes are represented by veteran sports labor attorney Jeffrey Kessler.

Kessler did not respond to a request for comment Monday. His co-counsel, Steve Berman, told ESPN on Monday: "Judge Wilken has told us that she expected us to be discussing settlement given the lengthy litigation over the issues and the parties' familiarities with the strengths and weaknesses on each side. We are simply following the judge's instructions and have nothing to report other than that."

In an interview with ESPN earlier this month, Kessler declined to comment on any possible negotiations but said he felt a settlement was the quickest route toward transforming college sports.

"I can't guarantee this, but I think [the defendants'] lawyers have told them they're in all likelihood going to lose," Kessler said. "If they lose, the damages are going to be gigantic. Further, they've been told that it's much better for them to be active participants in settling and deciding their future lives and fate than it is to let the court impose it on them."

The House case includes two separate classes of plaintiffs. The damages class is composed of former college athletes from the past several years who argue the NCAA owes them back pay for the money they could have earned if they had been allowed to sign NIL deals prior to 2021. The injunctive class includes current college athletes, who argue that any of the existing restrictions on what types of NIL deals athletes can sign are also illegal.

In court testimony, economic experts hired by the plaintiffs argued that the damages class missed out on more than $1 billion in NIL opportunities in the years leading up to 2021. In antitrust cases, the court makes the defendant pay triple the amount of actual damages as punishment if it has violated the law -- hence the estimated $4 billion price tag of a legal loss.

"If we settle for the injunction class, it will involve an agreement of what the future will look like," Kessler said. "If we settle for the damages class, that's basically money for the past."

Another pending antitrust lawsuit, Carter v. NCAA, which was also filed by Kessler, argues that the NCAA should not be able to keep schools from paying players directly for their performance. While the cases do not need to be settled together, it's likely that both sides would want to reach an agreement that is substantial enough to keep them from ending up back in court for the Carter case in the near future. Sources indicated to ESPN that schools would likely want protection from future litigation as part of a settlement in the House case.

In professional sports, revenue sharing deals are typically reached through a collective bargaining agreement. While that might also be the route for college sports if schools decide to share more with players, there is some precedent for working out the details of labor agreements within the settlement of a lawsuit. The NFL, for example, settled a case with Reggie White in 1993 that established the rules for free agency and salary caps for the league. One of the lawyers who represented White in that case was Kessler.

Along with the threat of antitrust lawsuits, the National Labor Relations Board is also reviewing a pair of cases that aim to classify college athletes as employees and allow them to unionize.

NCAA leaders have remained firmly opposed to athletes becoming employees. However, Baker -- who took over as the association's president last March -- said he wants to find ways for some schools to provide more to their athletes. He proposed in December creating a new subdivision of the wealthiest teams that would be required to pay at least half their athletes a minimum of $30,000 per year.

"If you look at what Baker has been out there doing, he seems to be very aware," Kessler told ESPN earlier this month. "Some of his proposals he's made in December -- I'm not say it's what we'd settle for -- but it's certainly moving in the direction of proposing to give much more compensation to the athletes. That's what we're advocating."

The NCAA has also attempted for the past several years to convince Congress to create new rules to help govern college sports. Among the items it would like to see in a federal law is a clause that specifies that college athletes aren't employees. Congress has thus far made no demonstrable progress on a bill, but a significant settlement that shows a commitment to future revenue sharing in the House case could convince some lawmakers to provide help to the NCAA.