Mailbag: Crossbreeds, Clickbait, and the Algorithm
We got a reader response a few weeks ago pointing us to a recent Guardian article on crossbreed dog behavior about cockapoos, cavapoos, and labradoodles. You can read the article yourself here:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/mar/19/crossbreed-dogs-cockapoo-cavapoo-labradoodle-behavioural-problems-study-research
The article highlights a study suggesting that some of these popular crossbreeds may show higher rates of certain behavioral issues, things like excitability, separation-related behaviors, and general “problem” behaviors compared to their parent breeds. It’s framed in a way that challenges the common perception that these dogs are easier, more predictable, or somehow better behaved.
Now, I’m not going to take a strong stance on the study itself, but I will say this. The study feels a little meh. Large sample, yes. But also heavy reliance on owner-reported data, lots of comparisons, and a very broad grouping of dogs that can vary widely depending on how they’re bred and raised. It answers a narrow question and leaves a lot unsaid.
But honestly, that’s not the most interesting part to me. The interesting part is that this became a headline in The Guardian.
There are enough people who will click on, read, and share an article about whether doodles have behavioral problems that it makes sense to publish it. That’s the signal.
More than ever, algorithms are shaping what gets written, not just what gets shown. Stories like this sit right at the intersection of identity, money, and emotion. People love their dogs. People spend a lot of money on specific types of dogs. And people have strong opinions about breeding, training, and what “kind” of dog is best.
So what’s the point of the article? You tell me. Is it to inform? To challenge assumptions? To generate debate? Or just to capture attention?
Probably some combination of all of the above. But it’s a good reminder that the topics we see covered aren’t random. They’re selected, amplified, and sometimes even shaped by what we’re most likely to click on. And clearly, this is one of those topics.
More Mailbag: Boys vs Girls
Sarah here! Last week’s podcast generated a lot of comments from readers sharing their experiences with both boy and girl dogs. I was amused by the comment that got the most thumbs up, and just had to share it:
Podcast: VAR at NAC and UKI
This week on the podcast, we welcomed Chris Durkee to talk about Video Assisted Review (VAR) in dog agility, a topic I have wanted to revisit for a long time.
When USDAA implemented VAR at Cynosport back in 2016, I assumed other organizations would follow quickly. They didn’t. In the years since, missed calls at major events have had real consequences, from AKC Nationals to Crufts, often on contact obstacles where the difference between a hit and a miss can happen in less time than one-sixth of a blink.
I shared a personal story on the podcast about running Gitchi, my Golden Retriever, at a local Texas trial. The judge called her for a weave pole error. I reviewed the video and she had done them correctly. The judge looked at the footage, acknowledged the mistake, apologized, and then told me she could not use video evidence to overturn her call by rule. I was frustrated then, and I have thought about it several times since.
That frustration came back recently when our daughter’s district swim team finished second because of an incorrectly called false start on the final relay of the meet. Officials reviewed video provided by the team, agreed the call was wrong, and then informed the coach that the rules did not allow them to use video review to correct it. Two weeks later at regionals, an automated system required two officials to agree independently AND sensor plates to confirm. Had that system been used at districts, our girls would have won the championship.
The NFL and NBA went through similar resistance before adopting video review. The concerns were familiar ones: games grinding to a halt, officials feeling undermined, the fear that no call would ever be truly final, and the worry that technology would open the door to endless challenges. What changed, in large part, was that broadcast technology forced the issue. Replays were showing audiences at home and in the stadium exactly what happened, in real time. The mistakes were no longer private.
Dog agility is not immune to that dynamic. Fans watching from home could see what the judge could not: slow motion replays of a teeter flyoff or missed contact. That is a powerful thing, and I think it only enhances the experience for everyone involved, especially when the stakes are high.
It is time for VAR to become standard at the sport’s biggest events. Westminster, I’m looking at you.
To hear our full conversation with Chris Durkee on how VAR works, how it was used at AKC Nationals and the UKI Invitational, and where it might go next, listen to this week’s episode here: Episode 387: Video Assisted Review in AKC and UKI
March Madness
Watching the Women’s NCAA Championship with Hannah was one of those father-daughter moments I’ll remember for a long time. Even though UCLA took care of South Carolina rather convincingly, the level of play was impressive, and it was a historic night.
It’s being called UCLA’s first national championship in women’s basketball, which is technically true in the NCAA era, but the full story is better than that. Back in 1978, UCLA defeated Maryland 90-74 in front of a record crowd of 9,351 at Pauley Pavilion to win the AIAW National Championship. That was the governing body for women’s college sports before the NCAA took over. That 1978 title game was the first women’s championship shown on national television, the first played between two major state universities, and the first to use a Final Four format across multiple weekends. The team was led by Ann Meyers, Denise Curry, and Anita Ortega, with Meyers recording 20 points, 10 rebounds, nine assists and eight steals in the championship game. The NCAA simply doesn’t count it in their record books because it predates their era. The Bruins and their fans know the truth.
I know an agility competitor in California who played basketball at UCLA alongside some of the women on that legendary 1978 team. She made the trip to the Final Four and was there for this championship too. I love how sports brings people together. Can you imagine connecting with teammates decades later and sharing this experience? It’s actually one of the things I love most about dog agility. Our sport is full of former athletes from every background and every level of competition, but it also welcomes plenty of people for whom agility is their very first sport. Either way, people find each other here and big events become reunions as much as competitions.
On the ratings front, the numbers tell an interesting story. The championship averaged 9.88 million viewers, trailing only the two Caitlin Clark-era Iowa appearances—the 2024 game against South Carolina (18.87 million) and the 2023 game against LSU (9.92 million)—as the most-watched women’s title game since Nielsen began tracking the event in 1989. The overall 2026 Women’s Final Four was the second-most-watched in the ESPN era, averaging 6.7 million viewers across the three games. The women’s game has clearly established itself as a reliable ratings draw, even in a year without Clark driving casual viewership.
On the men’s side, Michigan beat UConn 69-63 for the championship, which aired on TBS, TNT and TruTV rather than CBS, and averaged 18.3 million viewers, up slightly from the 18.1 million who watched the 2025 title game on CBS, and the most-watched men’s championship since 2019. That result sent me straight back to high school. The Fab Five, Michigan’s legendary 1991 freshman class, reached back-to-back NCAA championship games as freshmen and sophomores and changed the way my generation thought about college basketball, with their style, their confidence, and yes, those baggy shorts. They became the first team in NCAA history to start five freshmen in a championship game. Four of them (Chris Webber, Jalen Rose, Juwan Howard, and Jimmy King) went on to the NBA. And of course, you cannot mention the Fab Five without the timeout. April 5, 1993, Michigan down two with 11 seconds left, Chris Webber brings the ball up into a half-court trap and calls a timeout his team didn’t have. Technical foul. North Carolina wins. It is one of the most replayed moments in college basketball history. When Webber joined Inside the NBA in 2008, the initiation question was: “How many timeouts do you get in a game?” His answer: “I still don’t know.” His father’s license plate reportedly says TIMEOUT. The moment even made it into the 2018 film Uncle Drew, which I took Sarah to see at the movie theater. It was not a good movie, but it had its moments. Congratulations to both UCLA and Michigan, two great schools that hadn’t won titles in a very long time!
With March Madness in the books, Hannah and I are already looking ahead. The WNBA season tips off May 8, and we’ll be watching.
If you have a controversial call that you wish VAR had been around to catch or if you’ve seen the movie Uncle Drew, email me at team@baddogagility.com!
Happy Training,
