NFL Picks, 2026 Week 7

All eight teams in the two North divisions are above .500.  In the NFC, the North would account for all three wild cards if the season ended today.  Things are so crazy in those two divisions that the Bengals and Lions dropped into last place because they had their bye (and thus weren't able to win) last week.  Will it continue all season?  Probably not.  But it's still really cool.  And it continued on Thursday night with the Bears' win over New England.

Thursday Night: Chicago (Win)

Steelers (4-2) vs Saints (2-4): New Orleans-The NFL's international state stops in Paris for the first time.  Not without controversy, though.  The Steelers had a fan event at the Bastille cancelled because of civil unrest in the city.  Which prompted geniuses to suggest they also cancel the game itself (because the teams aren't both already there and ready to play or anything).  Anyway, I just have a feeling New Orleans will win.  I'm not sure why.  I just do.

49ers (6-0) at Falcons (2-4): San Francisco-San Francisco is the No. 1 team in most of the NFL Power Rankings.  Even above Kansas City.  And with good reason.  The 49ers probably are the best team in football right now.  They head into Atlanta looking to hit their bye at 7-0.  I'm not sure what kind of a game we're gonna get here.  The Falcons finished their three primetime games in a row, then returned to playing at 1:00 last week and had a very competitive showing in a loss to the Bears.  Don't be surprised if the same thing happens here.

Browns (4-2) at Titans (1-5): Cleveland-Give Cleveland credit.  They're taking full advantage of that schedule.  Is the Browns' record a bit of smoke & mirrors because of the teams they've played?  You could make that argument.  But, with the exception of Week 1 and the game against the Jets played during a nor'easter, they've figured out ways to keep the game close and pull it out in the end.  And that defense is legit!  The Titans beat the Colts last week for their first win of the season.  Don't expect a second this week.

Colts (2-4) at Vikings (5-0): Minnesota-We'll find out how the bye week impacted unbeaten Minnesota, if at all.  The Vikings are a very good team (as evidenced by the record), and their defense doesn't give up very many points.  That's why they've been able to keep winning all those close games.  I'm not sure this one will be that close.  The Colts are a confusing bunch that can go to overtime in Kansas City, then also lose to Tennessee.  If the first one shows up, they'll give the Vikings a game.  Either way, though, Minnesota should still be undefeated heading into a brutal stretch that starts next week in Detroit.

Dolphins (0-5) at Jets (2-4): Jets-As crazy as it sounds, this game is a real test for both of these teams.  I think the Jets are less bad than the Dolphins, so the pressure's on them not to be Miami's first win of the season.  Although, give the Jets credit, when they're the better team on paper, they play like it.  That's what they did in their Week 1 win against the Titans, and they'll do it again here.  On the flip side, if the Dolphins don't get their first win here, I'm not sure when they will.  It might not be until the second meeting with the Jets on Thanksgiving weekend.

Buccaneers (1-5) at Panthers (3-2): Carolina-Carolina has begun to assert itself as the top team in the NFC South.  If Tampa has any prayer of staying in the race, they really need to get a win in this one.  Especially after what happened last week against Pittsburgh.  What a difference one loss can make!  Because 2-4 looks a whole lot better than 1-5.  A 1-5 that could very easily turn into a 1-6 and put the Bucs 3.5 games behind the Panthers.

Bengals (3-2) at Ravens (4-2): Baltimore-There's a three-way tie atop the AFC North, with the Browns, Ravens and Steelers all a half game ahead of Baltimore in the standings.  Which means the Bengals can flip the division and knock Baltimore into last with a win.  Or the Ravens will create a little bit of separation and possibly be the division leader depending on how things go in Paris and Nashville.  It's safe to say that at least one AFC North team should be 5-2 at the week's end.  And that team will be Baltimore after the Ravens win the division matchup.

Giants (3-2-1) at Texans (2-4): Houston-Maybe the Texans weren't done in by that 0-4 start.  They finally got the first one, then went to London and knocked off the Jaguars.  Can they make it three in a row against the Giants?  The Giants have maintained their hold on first place due to the entire NFC East's aversion to winning, but I'm not sure how long they can keep it.  Especially if they can't figure out a way to notch their first road win of the season.

Broncos (4-2) at Cardinals (2-4): Denver-Arizona is 2-0 at SoFi Stadium this season.  The Cardinals are 0-4 everywhere else.  Unfortunately, the only possible game in LA remaining on their schedule is the Super Bowl, which they don't seem very likely to play in.  They need to focus on winning a home game first.  It doesn't look like that'll happen this week, though.  Not with the Broncos rolling.

Packers (4-2) at Lions (3-2): Detroit-With the World Series taking Sunday off, Wisconsinites can turn their attention back to their football team in a key division matchup.  The NFC North is so tight and all four teams are so good that every division game matters that much more.  It should be a fun one, too.  Green Bay has won three straight.  Detroit scores 40 points a game.  This is the first of back-to-back division home games for the Lions, who can really leave their mark on the division race over the next two weeks.  It seems a little make-or-break for Detroit, too.  This week, at least, I think it'll be make.

Rams (2-4) at Raiders (3-3): Las Vegas-OK, we were all wrong about the Rams.  The overwhelming preseason Super Bowl favorite lost to Arizona at home last week and is now in the NFC West basement.  It'll be a long road back for the Rams to even make the playoffs.  Is it impossible for them to get a wild card and ride it all the way to the home Super Bowl?  Of course.  But they need to start playing like that's a possibility.  I'm not even sure they can beat the Raiders, who've been surprisingly competitive with the good teams that come into Las Vegas.  Of course, whether the Rams actually qualify as a "good team" is now a matter of debate.

Chiefs (5-0) at Seahawks (3-3): Kansas City-Two of the last three Super Bowl champions meet on Sunday night in Seattle.  The Seahawks are really in danger of letting the NFC West slip away.  They're already three games behind the 49ers as they begin a three-game homestand where the first two games are the Chiefs and Bears.  There's a real chance they'll be under .500 when they host Chicago.  Because the Chiefs are back to being the Chiefs after last year's glitch.

Cowboys (2-4) at Eagles (2-4): Dallas-An NFC East team hasn't won a game since the Giants and Cowboys did in Week 4.  Which means, incredibly, both Dallas and Philadelphia are still right there in the division mix despite being 2-4.  Although, you have to wonder how much the Eagles can stay in it with all their injuries.  Especially now that Jalen Hurts is officially out for the year.  So, with that in mind, Dallas is the pick on Monday night.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-6
Overall: 49-44-1

A Dream or a Nightmare?

By so many accounts, this is a dream World Series.  The two best teams in baseball, both representing small markets.  Two of the most exciting young stars in baseball (who both share my initials), Jackson Chourio and Junior Caminero.  Two teams that are just fun to watch play.  A guaranteed first-time champion for the first time since 1980. 

For MLB and its owners, however, a Brewers-Rays World Series was the last thing they wanted.  For all that talk about the big, bad Dodgers, they sure didn't mind the ratings that they generated for the last two World Series.  That's been replaced by consternation and wondering if anyone will watch.  In fact, they're running thru doomsday scenarios that this could replace Texas-Arizona from 2023 as the lowest-rated World Series in history.

Mostly, though, the owners don't like this World Series because it exposed their argument for why they "need" a salary cap and why they "need" a lockout in order to get one for what it is.  A fraud.  They've spent months screaming "competitive balance" as their reason to anyone who'll listen.  The sad thing is so many people are buying it, despite it being patently untrue.  Well, that argument is a lot harder to make when you have the 19th-highest payroll playing the 28th-highest payroll in the World Series.

Good luck convincing people that teams like the Brewers and Rays can't compete for a championship.  Because the fact that they're both competitive every year apparently wasn't already enough proof of that.  Or the fact that they're far from the only small market teams who are regular playoff contenders.  Or the fact that spending doesn't guarantee you anything.  Just ask the Yankees (0 World Series titles, 1 appearance in the last 10 years).  Or the Red Sox (1 title).  Or the Mets (0 titles, 0 appearances, 1 NLCS).

Major League Baseball doesn't have a competitive balance problem.  That's just a convenient excuse the owners are using because they feel it's the one that'll get people on their side.  It's just like a political campaign in that way.  Never mind the fact that it isn't true.  But, why should they let a little thing like the truth get in the way when it contradicts their narrative?

The "poor" owners want you to believe they're losing so much money on their teams that a salary tax is the only thing that will prevent that.  That isn't even close to true.  The Orioles' owner has even admitted it.  He mentioned how he makes more money from owning the team than he did in private equity.  And, let's not forget, the small-market Padres just sold for $3.9 billion.  That's billion.  With a B. 

People who are on the owners' side of the upcoming lockout don't even realize they're contradicting their entire argument when they say why they think the owners will ultimately get their salary cap.  The reason they're so convinced the players will cave is because the owners have enough money to hold out longer.  Wait, I'm confused.  I thought the owners were losing money and that's why they "needed" a lockout?  So, which is it?  Do they need a lockout because they're losing money or do they have enough that they can endure one longer than the "greedy" players can?

Meanwhile, it didn't take this World Series matchup to expose the "competitive balance" argument as a myth.  Uh oh, here come those pesky facts again!  In the five seasons since MLB adopted the current playoff format of six teams per league, 24 different teams have made the postseason at least once.  Whoever wins the World Series will be the fourth different champion during that span.  Nine different teams have made the World Series.  That sounds like pretty good balance to me.

I love it when people try to compare MLB's "lack of competitive balance" to other sports, particularly the three other North American men's major leagues, all of which have salary caps.  Baseball has fewer teams make the playoffs, yet has had nearly as many of its franchises (24) reach the postseason in the last five years than the NFL (28), which has seven, or the NHL (28), which has eight.  It's the NFL that's given us Kansas City or New England in nine of the last 10 Super Bowls, and the NBA had eight consecutive Finals featuring LeBron (four in a row of which were Cleveland vs. Golden State).  In hockey, a team from the State of Florida played for the Stanley Cup six straight years.  How exactly is that competitive balance?

Why do people think there's so much more competitive balance in the capped sports?  It really is amusing to hear that argument.  The same teams make the playoffs every year in the NFL, NBA and NHL.  The Sabres snapped a 14-year playoff drought last season.  The Jets haven't made it since 2011.  You know who has the longest playoff drought in MLB?  The Angels, who last made it in 2014.  The big-market Angels.

It's obviously because of the Dodgers' and Mets' spending that fans bring up the salary cap issue, but how exactly is it the Dodgers and Mets fault that other teams choose not to spend?  This isn't a large market vs. small market economics question.  The Dodgers and Mets pay their luxury tax penalties, which then go into the revenue sharing pool that is distributed evenly to all 30 teams.  They're paying teams like the Marlins and Guardians to simply exist.  The fact that the owners of those teams choose to pocket the money rather than investing it in their club is the real problem.

And I also love it how some of those same people think the Dodgers' ability to sign any free agent they want is what makes them good.  It helps.  I won't deny that.  But it isn't the only reason.  They also have a shrewd front office that's excellent at scouting, drafting and developing players.  That's how you stay consistently good.  Just ask the Rays and Brewers about that.  (And does anyone doubt that the Dodgers will still figure out a way to consistently be one of the best teams even if a cap is put in place?  Whatever the system is, they'll find a way to adjust and be successful.)

If anything, Tampa Bay and Milwaukee have shown small market teams exactly what they should do.  The Rays and Brewers are great at evaluating young talent, and they've both locked up their young stars to long-term deals before they even hit free agency.  They've figured it out.  Other small market teams should take notice.  Because there's no reason they can't also do the same thing.  Anthony Rizzo is actually worried about that exact possibility.  He's worried about this World Series because he thinks it'll lead to more owners deciding they can win with a cheaper, younger roster, which will result in less spending, which will hurt the players as a whole.

Will this World Series matchup change either side's position heading into the CBA negotiations?  No.  The owners are still hellbent on trying to push forward a salary cap.  The idea of a cap is still a nonstarter for the players.  But the owners really might need to start rethinking theirs (or at least their messaging).  Because, as this postseason has proven, there's nothing wrong with Baseball the way it is right now.

The Best Overtime Strategy

There's been an overabundance of overtime games in the NFL over the past two weeks.  We saw three consecutive primetime games go to OT, and this after the Commanders' terrible clock mismanagement resulted in a tie against the Giants.  And, every time a game goes to overtime, there's the inevitable conversation about what the team that wins the toss will choose to do.  Which inevitably leads to the conversation about what they should do.

That's been the debate ever since the NFL implemented the current overtime rules prior to the start of last season.  Do you take the ball, guaranteeing yourselves the first shot at scoring and, just as importantly, a possible second possession (when the game becomes sudden death)?  Or do you kick, trust your defense and know what you need to do?  There's no consensus.  And there are pros and cons to both arguments.

More often than not, it seems teams prefer to take the latter option.  If they win the toss, they choose to kick.  (How many players do you see trying to defer, which isn't an option in overtime?)  The thought process is usually that if their defense gets the job done, they'll win with any score.  Or, worst case, you give up a touchdown, you know your offense needs to score one, as well.  Plus, if there isn't enough time to get the ball back, you'd also have the ability to go for a two-point conversion and the win.

Likewise, knowing what you need to do offensively gives you a little more freedom.  If the other team scored a touchdown, you know that's what you need to do.  So, there's no decision to be made.  Everywhere on the field is four-down territory.  Or, if you only need a field goal, all you have to do is get into field goal range, set it up where your kicker likes it, and walk it off.

Until the rule change guaranteeing both teams a possession, there was no choice on the overtime coin toss.  Take the ball, score, and you don't have to worry about it.  Even when they initially changed it and said both teams were guaranteed a possession unless there was a touchdown on the opening drive, you still usually saw teams choose to receive.  That changed with the 2025 rule change, where playing defense first was suddenly en vogue.  But, is it really an advantage?  The numbers suggest it's more of a toss-up.

Choosing to receive has its own set of pros and cons.  Just as choosing to kick means you're putting faith in your defense, taking the ball means putting faith in your offense.  And, just like how choosing to kick means you know what your offense has to do, the opposite applies to the receiving team's defense.  If you score and your defense can stop them, that's it.  Game over.

However, there's a huge advantage to taking the ball that isn't taken into consideration nearly as much as it should be.  After each team's first possession, the game becomes sudden death.  So, should it get to a second possession, whoever gets the ball first might be the only team to get one.  That's especially true in the regular season, when overtime is only 10 minutes (which I hate...it should be a full 15).  If you receive, you could theoretically have the ball for the entire overtime.  Or, at the very least, leave them with very little time to answer.  The chances of both teams being able to get the ball the same number of times in 10 minutes aren't great.  So, if there's gonna be an odd number, why wouldn't you want to be the team that gets the ball twice?

In the postseason, overtime is different.  Instead of 10 minutes, it's a standard 15.  And, since games can't end in a tie, the start of overtime is essentially the start of a new game.  Since both teams are guaranteed a possession, time isn't a factor.  The 15 minutes can expire mid-possession and it would just roll into a second overtime period (which we almost saw in Super Bowl LVIII).  Then it only becomes sudden death after that.  Which is all the more reason to receive the overtime kickoff in the playoffs.

Of course, there are other factors that determine your kick or receive overtime decision.  If you made a massive fourth quarter comeback to force OT and your offense is rolling, you're gonna want the ball.  Likewise, if you were on the opposite end of that comeback, you might want to give your defense a break.  Or, you may want to keep the other team's quarterback off the field.  Which is a perfectly valid reason.  Same thing about wanting your quarterback to be on the field.

To me, the choice is an easy one.  There are so many more pros to receiving in overtime than there are to kicking.  I don't understand the analytics suggesting the opposite or why so many coaches rely on those analytics.  The only benefit to kicking is how if you do get a stop, you have the ball first when the game becomes sudden death.  That's literally it.  Even matching what the other team did isn't a great advantage because your choices are (A) go for two and the win, which means you lose if you don't get it or (B) go for the tie and give them the ball back with the game now in sudden death.

NFL overtime has always been a source of controversy.  It wasn't too long ago that it was straight sudden death (when you always took the ball no matter what).  Then they made it where only a touchdown on the first possession automatically wins the game.  Then the Bills lost a playoff game in overtime, people whined about how unfair it was, and they adopted the current format.  First, it was just in the postseason before adopting the same rules for the regular season (with the exceptions of OT being five minutes shorter and games being able to end in a tie) last season.

And I think it probably is too early to judge which approach is the "right" one.  There simply isn't enough data pointing one way or the other.  Although, it is interesting that all the numbers we have do seem to indicate that there isn't an inherent advantage either way.  It doesn't seem to matter whether you get the ball first or second.  So, it really is just a matter of preference.

Speaking of preference, there are plenty of people out there who'd like to see the NFL adopt rules similar to college football overtime.  In college, it's alternating possessions from the 25-yard line, with two-point conversion attempts eventually required the longer OT goes.  Some fans think that's more fair than what the NFL does.  Personally, I prefer the NFL version since it more closely resembles the rest of the game.  All three phases are involved, there's a clock, the offense actually needs to move the ball and the defense has to try and stop them.  You aren't automatically in field goal range.

Is NFL overtime perfect?  No.  Is it stupid that games can end in a tie?  Yes.  Should it be 15 minutes long instead of 10?  Yes.  (That extra five minutes makes a huge difference, especially for the team that gets the ball second and has to chase with potentially limited time.)  But, if I were an NFL coach, the decision whether to kick or receive in overtime is an obvious one.  As Keyshawn Johnson famously said, "Just give me the damn ball!"

NFL Picks, 2026 Week 6

That Seahawks royal blue throwbacks vs. Broncos orange throwbacks Thursday night game was amazing!  There are a lot of things NFL teams are doing with uniforms that are terrible (color rush, those division rivalry alternates, any of those third jersey/different-colored-helmet combos).  But not the throwbacks!  Especially when they wear the team's best uniforms from their history.  More of that, please!  (And, hey, I actually got my Thursday night pick right this week, too!)

Thursday Night: Denver (Win)

Texans (1-4) vs Jaguars (4-1): Jacksonville-Houston needed a win last week and got it.  Now the Texans head to London, where the Jaguars have been all week after beating the Eagles in that wild finish (that ran into the start of the 1:00 games and made plenty of people at CBS and FOX not too happy).  Anyway, Jacksonville is proving to be one of the better teams in the league.  Can they fly back from the UK with a pair of wins in tow?

Bears (3-2) at Falcons (2-3): Chicago-After three weeks in primetime, the Falcons return to the Sunday 1:00 window for a meeting with the Bears.  Atlanta came thisclose to going 3-0 in those primetime games.  And, if they had, it would've put them in first place.  Chicago, meanwhile, is in a three-way tie, two games behind Minnesota, in a division where everyone is over .500.  They've got a short turnaround before a Thursday night game with New England, but they can't afford to overlook this one.

Ravens (4-1) at Browns (3-2): Cleveland-Just when you start to think the Browns might actually be good, they go and lose to the Jets.  Yes, the weather was disgusting.  But that was what you'd typically expect to see in a Browns-Jets game.  It certainly wasn't what we'd seen from Cleveland in the first four weeks of the season.  Baltimore took over first place with its overtime win against Atlanta.  Don't be surprised if the Ravens and Browns are tied after this week.

Titans (0-5) at Colts (2-3): Indianapolis-Titans fans have resorted to putting paper bags over their heads like the New Orleans Ain'ts fans back in the day.  In last week's Battle of the Defeated, they fell to the Texans, dropping them to 0-5.  Incredibly, they're one of three 0-5 teams in the AFC.  Miami's off this week, so that means the Dolphins can't lose.  But it also means they can't win either.  You know the Colts are looking at this game as a way to get back to .500, though.  Which they'll need with road games at Minnesota and Jacksonville coming up after this.

Jets (2-3) at Patriots (3-2): New England-Ladies and gentlemen, last week the New York Jetropolitans actually resembled a professional football team!  It was an ugly game, sure, but they pulled out a win that few people expected.  If they can win again this week, they'll be tied with the Patriots (and technically in second since they'd have the head-to-head victory over New England).  Let's not get too carried away, though.  This is still the Jets we're talking about.  It would be mighty shocking if they go into Foxboro and beat the team that has been their nemesis for the better part of the last two decades.

Saints (1-4) at Giants (3-1-1): Giants-History was made in the NFC East.  For the first time ever, nobody in a division won in a week when there was a division game.  Which says all you need to know about the NFC East in 2026.  But, hey, the Giants will take it.  They were celebrating like they had won after Washington gifted them a tie last week.  And, since nobody else seems to want to be in first place, they actually gained a half game in the standings.  Their schedule is very conducive to maintaining that lead.  They have New Orleans and Houston before their bye.  Can they be 5-1-1 when they get there?

Panthers (2-2) at Eagles (2-3): Philadelphia-Full discretion: This pick was made before the Jalen Hurts injury news.  The Eagles were already banged up.  Now they're dealt an even bigger blow.  Depending on how long Hurts is out, the season has a chance of getting away from them.  Which makes getting a victory here and getting back to .500 that much more important.  Fortunately, for them, the NFC East is weak this season.  So, if they can tread water, they may have a chance of salvaging their playoff hopes.

Steelers (3-2) at Buccaneers (1-4): Tampa Bay-Tampa Bay should be better than 1-4, right?  And, to think, they could be 0-5.  I think last week's game in Dallas might've been a turning point for them.  And, the NFC South is so bad that it's still winnable.  The Steelers, meanwhile, are like two completely different teams.  They're great at home.  They can't win on the road.  Well, guess where this week's game is being played.  Not in Pittsburgh.  Thus, the Bucs are the pick.

Cardinals (1-4) at Rams (2-3): Rams-I still can't decide if I think the Rams are good or not.  On paper, they should be.  They have one of the most talented rosters in football.  But the results haven't shown it.  It's only Week 6, so there's no reason to panic yet.  But you can't say there aren't some concerns.  And, they also have the 49ers and Seahawks to deal with.  Fortunately, they've got the Cardinals at home this week.  That should get them back to 3-3.

Chargers (0-5) at Chiefs (4-0): Kansas City-This is, obviously, not the season anyone was expecting out of Jim Harbaugh and Justin Herbert.  I'm not sure what the Chargers can do to fix it at this point, either.  Things don't get any easier as they head to Kansas City to face an undefeated Chiefs team coming off its bye.  We all know Andy Reid's history in games immediately following the bye.  There's no reason to think he won't add another win to that record this week.

Bills (4-1) at Raiders (3-2): Buffalo-The Bills stayed out west after somehow getting that win over the Rams.  Now they face a Raiders team that has dropped two straight after a 3-0 start.  They gave Kansas City a game.  But they got blown out in New England.  I think we're starting to see that the Raiders' start was partially a result of the teams they were playing.  Back at home, this game should be more similar to the Chiefs game than the Patriots game.  The result should be the same, though.  Buffalo moves to 5-1.

Cowboys (2-3) at Packers (3-2): Green Bay-Packers-Cowboys is usually a slam dunk selection for Sunday night.  Two marquee teams that are big draws.  They played on a Sunday night last year in Dallas, and it was a highly entertaining game that ended in a tie.  This year's matchup feels like a must-win, especially for the Cowboys.  Green Bay seems to have gotten back on track with two straight wins, including thumping the Bears last week.  Makes the Packers an easy pick in this one.

Commanders (1-3-1) at 49ers (5-0): San Francisco-Let's call a spade a spade.  Washington should've won last week.  That was one of the worst examples of clock mismanagement I've ever seen!  It was so bad, in fact, that I'm shocked somebody didn't get fired after the game.  Anyway, now the entire nation will be subjected to the Commanders as they head west to take on arguably the best team in the league over the first five weeks.  Expect them to go back to DC with a loss.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 7-7-1
Overall: 41-38-1

NFL Announcer Merry-Go-Round

Tony Romo and CBS have "mutually decided to part ways" after his arrest over the summer and suspension that has now become permanent.  J.J. Watt was promoted to the top team alongside Jim Nantz as his replacement for the rest of the season.  But, whether Watt will become Jim Nantz's permanent partner or not is still up in the air.  Not because of Watt's performance (which has been pretty good).  But because there could be some network changes among the top NFL analysts, which would shake the entire thing up.

When Troy Aikman left FOX for ESPN, they left that spot as the analyst on the No. 1 team open for Tom Brady.  During that transition year between when Brady retired as a player and when he started his broadcast career, Greg Olson filled in very capably.  Olson called a Super Bowl alongside Kevin Burkhart and was so good in the role that some people wondered if FOX would leave him on the No. 1 team full-time and relegate Brady to the No. 2 team (which was never going to happen with the amount they're paying Brady).

Well, guess whose contract with FOX is up at the end of this season.  A certain former Panthers tight end will be a very coveted target by all of the networks.  You know FOX will want to keep him.  You know CBS will want him.  But that list of potential Greg Olson suitors now suddenly includes a third option--ESPN.

It was a major coup when ESPN plucked both Joe Buck and Troy Aikman away from FOX to do Monday Night Football.  They kept arguably the best broadcast team in football together and brought credibility back to the Monday Night Football booth after the revolving door that followed Mike Tirico's departure for NBC.  ESPN has its first Super Bowl this season, which means they'll get to call one together for the first time since leaving FOX.  But, then again, maybe they won't.

Rumors of a feud between Buck and Aikman have been circulating over the past few weeks.  Apparently it came to a head before the game last week.  Although, they called Bills-Rams together without incident.  The root of the issue appears to be Joe Buck's recent extension with ESPN.  Aikman still hasn't signed one, which is reportedly the source of the resentment.  And it raises the question of if this is the last year the longtime partners will be calling games together.

Things have apparently gotten so bad that some people are questioning whether Buck and Aikman will even make it to the end of the season.  Now, I think that's extremely unlikely.  When ESPN poached them, they did it with the idea of them broadcasting the network's first Super Bowl in mind.  Now that we're a few months away from that Super Bowl, it would be shocking if ESPN didn't have them call it...even if Aikman decides not to return next season.  And he's too much of a professional to leave before the season's over...especially since he's set to call the Super Bowl.

Now, does that mean Troy Aikman will stay with ESPN beyond this season?  Honestly, I'm not sure.  Not when he's gonna become a very coveted free agent.  Brady's entrenched at FOX, so Aikman won't be going back there.  But would he consider joining CBS and calling games with Jim Nantz?  It suddenly seems very possible.  Which would leave the Monday Night Football analyst spot open for...Greg Olsen?

Of course, there are also other possibilities to consider.  Maybe CBS decides to leave Nantz and Watt together.  Maybe everything between Aikman, Buck and ESPN gets resolved and he decides to stay with Monday Night Football.  Maybe Aikman does leave ESPN, but doesn't go to CBS (although, I'm not sure where else he would go).  Maybe Olsen re-ups with FOX with the promise that he'll become the No. 1 analyst when/if Brady decides he doesn't want to do it anymore.

Then there's the elephant in the room.  Travis Kelce.  The guy's got broadcaster written all over him once his playing career ends.  Which could be after this season.  Do I think a network will put Kelce on their No. 1 team right away?  No.  I think he'll more likely go the J.J. Watt, Greg Olsen route.  But, we also saw Tom Brady and Tony Romo immediately get No. 1 analyst jobs with no experience, so it can't be counted out, either.

Nor can the possibility of it being somebody else entirely.  I've heard Russell Wilson's name mentioned as a potential Troy Aikman replacement on Monday Night Football.  How serious that suggestion is, I don't know.  But it seems unlikely in any case.  Wilson has done a good job as a studio analyst, but being in the studio and doing games are completely different things, and Wilson's never done the latter.

Don't count out Kurt Warner, either.  Now that ESPN owns NFL Network, it's very easy to picture Warner transitioning from the NFL Network games to replacing Aikman in the MNF booth.  It's a much higher-profile gig, but Warner is more than capable of filling it.  He's NFL Network's lead game analyst for a reason.  And he's been doing Monday Night Football on radio.  Plus, as a Super Bowl-winning, Hall of Fame quarterback, he's obviously got the pedigree and name recognition.  Should Aikman leave ESPN, I can definitely see this one happening.

Either way, there's gonna be some changes in the NFL broadcast booths next season.  At the very least, CBS needs to find someone to fill the analyst spot on their No. 2 team.  Or, what I think is more likely, J.J. Watt slips back into that spot and they make the move to bring in either Olsen or Aikman as the No. 1 analyst alongside Nantz.  And, once one of those dominoes falls, the others will follow.

Whether Troy Aikman leaves ESPN or not, I think Greg Olsen leaves FOX.  He'll either take the No. 1 job at CBS or replace Aikman on ESPN.  Which then makes the No. 2 job at FOX open...and right there for someone like Travis Kelce to slip in (FOX seems like his most likely destination since there would be less of a possibility of him doing Chiefs games).  And, if Olsen becomes the No. 1 analyst with a regular Sunday assignment, that opens up the analyst gig for those standalone games on Netflix, YouTube and all of the other various services that have random NFL games.

There have also been some grumblings about Al Michaels, with many people calling for him to retire from Thursday Night Football.  If that happens, it creates a whole different carousel ride.  Because, even though he's in the twilight of his career, whoever replaces Al Michaels (whenever that is) will be taking over for a legend.  But that's a play-by-play gig.  And it'll be fascinating to see who Amazon goes after to replace him when the time comes.  For now, though, there'll be plenty of intrigue regarding where the top analysts will end up in 2027.

An Arena Crisis Averted

The WNBA Finals will start this weekend.  The Golden State Valkyries are taking on the Atlanta Dream.  Golden State plays in the Chase Center, the Warriors' 18,000-seat arena in downtown San Francisco.  The Dream's home court is a 3,500-seat arena in the Atlanta suburb of College Park.  Quite the contrast, isn't it?

Fortunately, Atlanta's WNBA Finals home games won't be played at the Gateway Center.  They'll instead be held at State Farm Arena in downtown Atlanta.  Which they almost weren't.  Had they not been able to make the switch, it would've been such an embarrassment for the league.  An embarrassment they were able to avoid.

Each of the Dream's first three home playoff games were moved to State Farm Arena, where they'll play full-time in 2027.  However, there was an event scheduled at the arena on all three of their WNBA Finals home dates.  There's a Sombr concert on October 22 (the day of Game 3), while the Hawks' home opener is on October 24 (the day of Game 4).  There's also a Hawks game on October 29, when the Dream are scheduled to potentially host Game 6.

It took a little bit of work, cooperation and collaboration, but they were able to come up with a solution that allows the Dream to play at least their first two home games at State Farm Arena.  There were originally two off days between Games 2 & 3.  They cut that to one and moved Game 3 up a day to October 21, when the arena is available.  They also moved the start time of Game 4 from 3:30 to 1:00.  The Hawks, in turn, moved the start time of their game that night from 8:00 to 8:30, allowing enough time in between for both games to be played in the arena on the same day.

This situation came about, in part, because the WNBA took a two-week break in September for the Women's Basketball World Cup in Germany.  As a result, the playoffs got pushed back later into October than usual.  So late, in fact, that the NBA season will have already started before the WNBA Finals are over.  Which meant that schedule conflicts with NBA games were also possible.  This is Exhibit A.

Presumably, this situation won't happen again next season, when there won't be a World Cup break.  Although, there's an Olympics in 2028, so it certainly does seem like a possibility in the future.  The wisdom of having the WNBA playoffs run deep into October, when they're going head-to-head with all four Major League men's sports, as well as college football, is a completely separate issue that's a topic for a different day.  But it certainly was a contributing factor here.  The league put itself in this position.  So, if they weren't able to get out of it, it would've been their own fault.

When this story first broke, the thing that struck me was how they couldn't find another venue in the Atlanta area as an alternative site.  That, frankly, was the most surprising part.  Why not Georgia Tech's Alexander Coliseum?  It's not NBA-sized, but it seats 8,500, which is more than double the Dream's regular arena.  Or what about the 13,000-seat Gwinnett Center, their former home 30 miles northeast of Atlanta (which previously hosted the WNBA Finals in 2013)?  It seemed odd that presumably the only two possibilities were the Hawks' arena or the Dream's 3,500-seat arena.

Contrast that to the Valkyries.  They came into the WNBA last year and are owned by the same group that owns the Warriors.  The plan was always for the teams to share the Chase Center.  And that faith has proven to be justified.  The Valkyries sold out all 22 of their home games last season.  So, they have no issue selling 18,000 tickets (being good right off the bat sure didn't hurt).

Atlanta, meanwhile, moved from Philips Arena to the Gateway Center (which they share with the Hawks' G League affiliate, the College Park Skyhawks) in 2021.  The team wasn't very good then, so playing in the arena with the smaller capacity made a degree of sense.  They've played select games at State Farm Arena each season since then and will move back there full-time next year.  Which, frankly, they should.  If you want to be taken seriously as a professional team, you need to play in a professional arena.

That contrast really is striking.  The Dream aren't alone in playing in an arena with a smaller capacity than their NBA counterparts in the same city.  The Valkyries aren't alone, either.  Just as many WNBA teams share an arena with their city's NBA team.  Some are even owned by the same group.  For a league on the rise, having its teams play in arenas with such a massive difference in size really doesn't make much sense.  Especially since it leads to situations like what we almost saw in Atlanta, which is embarrassing no matter how you look at it.

Over the past few years, the WNBA has seen massive growth.  From expansion to a longer season to a new CBA that gives the players more money and better treatment than they've ever had before, everything is moving in a positive direction.  That doesn't even include the increased attendance from the likes of Caitlin Clark and Paige Bueckers joining the league or the increased television exposure the WNBA gets through its deals with like five different networks that broadcast games.  Yet, despite all that, you've still got teams--successful teams--playing in 3,500-seat arenas in the suburbs.

I understand that sometimes there are underlying factors at play.  And some teams may prefer to play in the smaller venue where they know they'll be able to sell tickets instead of playing in a mostly empty NBA arena.  However, we're seeing more and more WNBA games being moved to larger venues because of increased ticket demand.  This is a good thing that the WNBA should try to capitalize on.  And, it's worth noting that all of the WNBA's recent and upcoming expansion teams with the exception of Toronto do or will play in NBA arenas.  All the more reason not to be playing a WNBA Finals game in what's essentially a high school gym.

Just imagine the ridicule that would've come the WNBA's way had they allowed the Dream's Finals games to be played there.  And it would've been deserved.  Especially when compared to the 18,000 purple-clad fans who figure to be on hand in San Francisco for the first two games.  If the WNBA wants to be taken seriously as a major professional league on par with the men's sports, it needs to act seriously.  Fortunately, everyone was on the same page about not wanting that look and a reasonable, common-sense solution was reached.

If the series comes back to Atlanta for Game 6, I have no idea what they'll do.  But they'd better be thinking about that contingency.  Because, just as Game 4 is a potential clinch game, so is Game 6.  Fans will want to see the clinch game, regardless of which team is trying to clinch.  So, the demand will be there.  They just need to meet the moment and move to the arena these women deserve to be playing in.  Especially when somebody has the chance to lift the trophy at the end of the game.

The Magnificent Seven

Barring any unforeseen entrants jumping into the race over the next three weeks, the competition to host the 2036 Olympics is down to seven contenders.  The deadline is Oct. 31, so it's conceivable that another country may submit a bid, but even if not, IOC members will have a quality and diverse selection of potential hosts to choose from.  That decision won't come until 2029, as the IOC is moving back to the old timeline of selecting an Olympic host seven years out (after LA 28 and Brisbane 32 were both awarded 11 years in advance).

What's great about the list of possibilities for 2036 is that they give the IOC just that.  Options.  This looks more like the bid race for 2012 that featured four European capitals and New York as the finalists than for recent Olympics, which were pretty much just given to the only cities willing to host them. 

The Paris Games went a long way towards changing that narrative and the opinion about hosting the Olympics.  They showed you how to do it without spending a massive amount of money building venues that won't be used again.  Use existing venues.  Use the city.  Be creative.  Now, not every city is Paris.  But they set the model for other cities (and countries) to follow.  More importantly, they made hosting the Olympics attractive again.  The clearest evidence of that is the list of cities in the running for the Olympics a decade from now.

That list of seven countries with confirmed interest: Germany, Hungary, India, Qatar, South Africa, South Korea, Turkiye.  Not all of them have announced their bid city (which is no longer required, but I think we're less likely to see for the Summer Olympics than the Winter Games), but some have.  Germany's bid is from Munich.  Istanbul has been bidding for the Olympics for years.  Doha and Budapest are obvious.  India, South Africa and South Korea, meanwhile, haven't declared their official candidate city.

There's one obvious point about that list that's really hard to miss.  Those seven countries are on three different continents.  One of those continents is Africa, the only one to have never hosted an Olympics.  Which is something that the IOC President (who's from Africa herself) would like to amend before her tenure is up.  There are also two Muslim-majority countries.  The Olympics have also never been held in the Arab world.  There's also the world's most populous country (India) and the country that's won the most Olympic medals to have never hosted (Hungary).  So, there's a good chance the 2036 Olympics will be historic no matter where they're held.

In the 130-year history of the Modern Olympics, there's never been more than 12 years between Games in Europe.  It was 12 years between London and Paris, and 2036 will be 12 years since Paris.  Which would lead you to believe Munich or Budapest might be considered an early favorite.  I'm not sure that's necessarily the case, though.  Not when you have Doha champing at the bit for its opportunity.  And not when history is very much not on Munich's side.

It's great that Germany has finally reentered the mix as a potential Olympic host.  Frankly, it's been far too long.  And they're committed.  They've expressed interest in hosting not just the 2036 Olympics, but 2040 and 2044, as well.  All of which are problematic years for a Munich bid.  None of which is Munich's fault.  But, still, do you want to celebrate the centennial of the 1936 Berlin Games (the Jesse Owens Gams that were phenomenal in so many respects, but problematic in so many others) or World War II by returning to Germany?

Munich also has its own Olympic history to overcome.  The 1972 terrorist attack was the darkest moment in Olympic history.  And it's, unfortunately, the first thing that comes to mind when anybody thinks about those Munich Games.  Munich is a great city.  I've been there.  They deserve a chance to rewrite their Olympic legacy.  But, whether it's fair or not, history isn't on their side.

Budapest, meanwhile, will make for a phenomenal Olympic city once it finally hosts.  They're ready, too.  Budapest has hosted so many World Championships in so many Olympic sports in recent years.  All of which were spectacular.  All of which were extremely well run.  It was Budapest backing out that led to the historic Paris-LA double awarding for 2024 & 2028.  In a way, they did the Olympic movement a solid with that move in 2017.  It's time for the Olympic movement to pay Budapest back.

Doha is another Olympic host-city-in-waiting.  For all the legitimate concerns about the summer heat in the Middle East and Qatar's human rights record, it does seem inevitable that Doha will host the first Olympics in the region (and possibly become the first Arab Olympic host).  It even seems probable that if they don't host in 2036, they'll get either 2040 or 2044, with South Africa getting the other.

Make no mistake, Africa WILL be awarded its first Olympics during Kirsty Coventry's IOC presidency.  The (final?) Youth Olympics will take place next month in Dakar, Senegal.  It will be the first Olympic event held on the continent.  The 2029 World Athletics Championships will be in Nairobi, Kenya.  The success of those two events (as well as the 2030 World Cup in Morocco) could determine when Africa's first Olympics is.

Although, awarding the 2036 Games to South Africa (the only African country with the finances and existing infrastructure to realistically host) would make for something pretty cool.  The 2016 Olympics were in South America.  In 2021, they were in Asia.  The 2024 Games were in Europe.  The next two will be in North America and Australia.  Going to Africa in 2036 would mean that six consecutive Olympics took place on all six inhabited continents.  That, and the first Olympics in Africa, are pretty compelling reasons to go to South Africa.

Likewise, there are compelling reasons to go to India.  For a country with such a large population to have never seriously been considered as a potential Olympic host really is pretty crazy.  And, to be fair, there are a lot of questions about India as a potential host.  So, I don't think 2036 is realistic.  However, the 2030 Commonwealth Games will be in India.  If successful, those Commonwealth Games (and the related infrastructure) could be a springboard towards a future Olympic bid.  Just like how the excellent 2007 Pan Am Games helped Rio land the 2016 Olympics two years later.

Then there's perennial Olympic bidder Istanbul.  Istanbul will bid for the Olympics until it's finally selected to host, which I do think is coming eventually.  Just not in 2036.  Not with these other heavy hitters in contention.  And Istanbul boasts one thing no other major city in the world can.  It's in two continents!  You could have the Olympics in both Europe AND Asia at the same time!  The Olympics need to go to Istanbul for that reason alone.

Our seventh and final confirmed candidate is South Korea.  I'd imagine it would be for a return to 1988 Olympic host Seoul.  People definitely got East Asia fatigue after those three Olympics in a row that started when South Korea hosted the 2018 Winter Games in PyeongChang.  I think seeing them host again 18 years later is a longshot, though.  If they do choose an Asian city, it'll be Doha.

We're still more than three years away from finding out the host of the 2036 Olympics, which will return to the previous format of actually voting among the different cities rather than just designating a preferred host and having the rest of the IOC members essentially rubber stamp it.  It'll be a great race heading into that vote in 2029.  There's no shortage of quality choices, either.  All seven options for the 2036 Olympics are great.  And we have Paris 2024 to thank for that.  Paris made hosting the Olympics cool again.  The 2036 race is proof of that.