One Solution: Fewer Bowls

After Notre Dame wasn't selected for the College Football Playoff, they removed their name from consideration for the other bowl games.  It was somewhat controversial and seen by some as Notre Dame being sore losers, but they're not the only ones.  Iowa State and Kansas State both opted out of bowl games, as well, because their coaches had already accepted another job.  They both got fined by the Big XII because of it.  And several other teams that were being considered as replacements passed on the opportunity (for various reasons).

This isn't a new thing that started this year.  For the last few seasons, in fact, teams and/or players have been opting out of bowl games for a multitude of reasons.  That's one of the big reasons why they moved the start of the transfer window in football to January.  So that it was after the bowls and rosters weren't decimated by players entering the portal.  And there have been numerous individual players who decided that they didn't want to impact their NFL Draft prospects by risking injury in a meaningless bowl game.

These opt-outs have created some interesting situations as the bowls scramble to find replacements.  Last year, Marshall opted out of the Independence Bowl at the last minute, leaving Army in limbo before Louisiana Tech stepped in to fill the spot.  Last season's Alamo Bowl featured two Big 12 teams playing each other (BYU vs. Colorado), and this year's Birmingham Bowl will be a matchup between Georgia Southern and Appalachian State, two teams who aren't just in the same conference.  They're in the same division!

Appalachian State only got into a bowl because so many teams opted out.  The Mountaineers finished 5-7 and weren't otherwise bowl-eligible, but became bowl-eligible once they needed to fill spots and started going down the list of 5-7 teams.  If there aren't enough teams, the 5-7 teams are ranked in order by their NCAA APR.  Appalachian State is one of three 5-7 teams playing in a bowl game this season, along with Rice and Mississippi State.

Three 5-7 teams are playing in bowls because three teams that were otherwise bowl-eligible opted out.  Which means that there were exactly enough teams to fill all of the spots in the College Football Playoff and bowl games.  And that's only because Delaware and Missouri State, who typically wouldn't be eligible while transitioning from FCS to FBS, were invited to bowl games since they had enough wins and there wouldn't have been enough teams without them.

It's gotten to the point where if you reach the magic number of six wins, you're not just bowl eligible.  It means, unless you opt out, you're definitely going to a bowl game (or the playoff).  And, since opt-outs have become a regular occurrence, you don't even need to have six wins.  You can be 5-7 and still have a chance at playing in a bowl.  A "reward" for your "great" season.

The four first-round losers in the College Football Playoff are still considered "bowl" teams even though they don't technically play in a bowl.  Likewise, since the four quarterfinals and two semifinals are all bowl games, four teams will play in two bowls under the current 12-team CFP format.  That doesn't change the math, though.  There are 41 postseason games and 82 postseason berths available. 

In the last two years, they reached 82 exactly.  In 2023-24, they only had 79.  In 2022-23, the number was 80.  In 2021-22, there was one extra bowl, and they had the 84 necessary teams exactly.  The last time there were more bowl games than eligible teams was 2019-20, when there were 79 teams for 78 spots and Toledo was left out.  So, it's been six years since a bowl-eligible team didn't play in a bowl game because they weren't selected for one (as opposed to voluntarily declining a bid).

Proponents of bowl games and the bowl system will insist that the number of bowl games isn't a problem.  They see value in them and even embrace the quirkiness of some of the lesser bowls.  And I don't dispute that there's some value.  For programs that haven't had success or have a young team, a postseason game, any postseason game, can be a wonderful experience.  And those teams do see it as a reward. 

Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, you have teams like Notre Dame deciding that playing in a bowl game that isn't part of the College Football Playoff simply isn't worth it.  Especially now that it's a 12-team playoff, if you aren't selected, a bowl game will be seen as nothing more than a consolation prize.  Playing in a non-CFP bowl game is the football equivalent of playing in the NIT, and how many basketball teams do we see opt out of the NIT each year?  I have a feeling Notre Dame has started a similar trend in football.

Let's be honest here.  This is something we already knew.  Most bowl games are essentially the football version of the NIT.  That's become even more obvious now that it's a 12-team playoff.  It'll become even worse when/if the playoff expands to 14 or 16 teams.  Which will make the lesser bowls even more irrelevant to top programs than they already are.

A lot of this, of course, is ESPN's doing.  ESPN doesn't just broadcast a majority of the bowl games, they own and operate many of them.  That's why there are so many.  A lot of which are extremely unnecessary.  ESPN knows this, too.  These bowl games still exist, primarily, to give them programming during the final week in December.  They don't make money, either for ESPN or their host city.  But they're something for ESPN to put on TV, which is apparently enough.

Here's my question, though: If there were, say, five fewer bowls, how many people would miss them?  Would anyone even notice?  And reducing the pool of bowl-eligible teams from 82 to 72 would serve multiple purposes.  It would improve the quality since you'd have fewer 6-6 teams playing in bowls.  You wouldn't have the matchups of two 6-6 teams from Group of 5 conferences playing in a bowl nobody cares about in a half empty stadium.  Most importantly, you'd have a pool of replacements ready to go without having to ask multiple 5-7 teams to fill spots.

If and when the College Football Playoff expands, it seems inevitable that some bowl games will be casualties.  There simply won't be the interest, either from fans or from teams.  Nor will there even be enough teams.  And that might not be such a bad thing.  Because there are too many bowls.  There has been for a while.  Having fewer bowl games would solve a lot of problems.  It would truly be one of those situations where less is more.

It's Never Gonna Happen

Congratulations to Jeff Kent on being elected to the Hall of Fame.  A very deserving honor for not just the best second baseman of his era, but the all-time leader in home runs at the position.  To hit the most home runs by anyone ever to play a position, any position, is certainly Hall of Fame-worthy.  Just ask Kent's Giants teammate.

That's the ironic thing about Kent's selection.  He was just the second-best player on those Giants teams.  He was the second-best player from those Giants teams on this ballot!  The best player on those teams, of course, was Barry Bonds, whose candidacy met the same fate with the Era Committee that it suffered year after year on the BBWAA ballot.  And, because he didn't get at least five votes, he won't be on the ballot the next time this group of players is considered in 2028.  If he doesn't get at least five votes again in 2031, when he's eligible to return to the ballot, that's it.  He won't be considered again.  Which, frankly, might be a good thing.

Don't get me wrong.  I think Barry Bonds is a Hall of Famer.  I always have, and my opinion's not gonna change.  He's the all-time and single-season home run leader, and he won the MVP every freaking year when he was in his prime!  Personally, I think Barry Bonds is on the shortlist of the greatest players of all-time.  The fact that it's unlikely he'll ever actually be a Hall of Famer has absolutely nothing to do with his playing ability and everyone knows that.  If his career was being judged just on that, he would've given a speech in Cooperstown in his first year of eligibility.

Same thing with Roger Clemens.  He wasn't just the greatest right-handed pitcher of his era.  He's one of the best of all-time.  Clemens has more Cy Young Awards than anybody and is third on the all-time strikeouts list.  If you watched baseball at all from the mid-80s to the mid-2000s, you knew you were watching a Hall of Famer every time he pitched.  Like Bonds, the reason he isn't has nothing to do with his playing ability.  Like Bonds, he won't be giving a speech in Cooperstown anytime soon.  Likely never.

We all know the reason why Bonds and Clemens are in this situation.  They're the poster children for the Steroid Era, a period in baseball history that many would like to forget and are now trying to erase.  Except, the problem is, you can't erase it.  The Steroid Era happened.  Pretending it didn't doesn't change that.  Hindsight might be 20-20, but people knew what was going on while it was happening and did nothing about it.  To suddenly act like the Steroid Era isn't part of the game's history is absurd.  Yet, that's exactly what they're trying to do.

It isn't just Bonds and Clemens, of course.  Alex Rodriguez.  Mark McGwire.  Sammy Sosa.  Manny Ramirez.  They'd all be slam dunk choices without their ties to steroids.  Even Gary Sheffield is in ballot purgatory because of his association.  Rafael Palmeiro fell off the BBWAA ballot after failing to even reach the required 5 percent threshold.

Those were some of the biggest names in baseball during the late 90s and early 2000s.  The fact that none of them will be in the Hall of Fame is, frankly, a glaring omission.  The late 90s and early 2000s happened.  There's plenty of video from the era to prove it.  And these players feature prominently in those clips.  You can't tell the story of baseball during that era without them.  Yet none of them will ever be Hall of Famers.

Induction into the Hall of Fame is the greatest honor a baseball player can receive.  And there is a character clause that voters are encouraged to consider when they cast their ballot.  They're the gatekeepers of history, and they take that role very seriously.  They feel that, because of their association with steroids, players like Bonds, Clemens & Co. violated the character clause and, as such, don't deserve the honor.  Which, while I don't agree with it, is a position I can at least respect.

As we saw throughout their decade on the BBWAA ballot, and again in the Eras Committee vote, Bonds, Clemens & Co. will simply never enough support to come anywhere close to the required 75 percent for election.  There are people who'll never vote for them no matter what.  There are those who will vote for them no matter what, even though they know it's essentially a burn vote.  There are also probably some who personally think they should be in, but strategically choose not to vote for them because they know they won't get in and want to support other candidates.

Their presence on the ballot, though, creates the same problem that we saw throughout their time on the BBWAA ballot.  The screening committee determined that Bonds and Clemens were worthy of at least consideration, even though they knew exactly how it would go.  Only eight names were placed on the ballot, and they were among those eight.  Because of that, two otherwise worthy candidates weren't on the ballot.  And, each member of the committee only had three votes.  So, any votes for Bonds and/or Clemens weren't votes for somebody else.  (Which would be a more relevant point had Carlos Delgado finished one vote shy of induction.)

Bonds, Clemens & Co. created ballot congestion on the main Hall of Fame ballot FOR A DECADE!  That ballot congestion is still being cleaned up.  Now that they've flipped over to the Eras Committee, they're only considered once every three years, so that alleviates the problem slightly.  As does the new rule that takes them out of consideration until 2031, when their names will appear on a Hall of Fame ballot for what will almost certainly be the final time.  Which, really, is a travesty.

I have no issue with the stipulation that they have to skip the next cycle if they don't get the requisite support.  After all, the BBWAA has, for years, had the rule that you need to get 5 percent of the vote to stay on the ballot, so putting in something similar for the Eras Committee does make sense.  (Although, I'd adjust it for the smaller sample size.  Requiring five votes seems like a lot, especially when there was only a total of 48 votes available to spread among the eight candidates.  Maybe you need three of the 16 votes to stay on?)  And, even though they change the committee members annually, it doesn't seem likely they'll suddenly have the support three years later. 

My problem is how, if they don't get five votes again the next time they appear on the ballot (whenever that is), they become permanently ineligible.  Particularly the "permanently ineligible" part.  Because that term should be reserved for those who aren't allowed to be on a Hall of Fame ballot for reasons other than not getting enough votes.  (And even Pete Rose isn't "permanently ineligible" anymore.  He'll almost certainly appear on the Eras Committee ballot in 2027.)

Although, maybe it's a good thing that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens will likely no longer be eligible for Hall of Fame consideration after 2031.  Because we'll at least know for certain something we all already understand intellectually.  It won't end the debate about them, but it will at least bring some closure and some clarity.  Whether you (or I) think they should be or not, neither one is ever getting into the Hall of Fame.

NFL Picks, Week 14

After a week full of upsets, we're primed for a Week 14 that features several big matchups.  Teams that are tied for the division lead meet in the AFC North and AFC South, first place is also on the line in an NFC North rivalry game, and the Sunday night game is basically for playoff elimination.  And no one can clinch this week, which is rare this late in the season.  It does mean we've got a great December's worth of games ahead of us, though.

Thursday Night: Dallas (Loss)

Seahawks (9-3) at Falcons (4-8): Seattle-There are four possibilities for the Seahawks this week.  They'll either be tied with the Rams for first, tied with the 49ers for second, it'll be a three-way tie, or, best of all, they'll be in sole possession of first.  They could even conceivably be the No. 1 seed in the NFC.  Every remaining game is that significant for all three NFC West teams.  Of course, all of the scenarios where the Seahawks control their own fate require a win over Atlanta.  Losing to the Falcons really isn't an option.

Bengals (4-8) at Bills (8-4): Buffalo-Just when we thought the Bengals were out of it, they go and dominate Baltimore on Thanksgiving night.  They've still got a long way to climb and probably need to win out to even think about the playoffs.  But there's still a chance.  The Bills, meanwhile, know their chances of catching the Patriots hinge on a win here.  If they don't beat Cincinnati, they know they're likely staring at a wild card.

Titans (1-11) at Browns (3-9): Cleveland-Game two of Shadeur Sanders as the Browns' starter didn't go quite as well as game one.  That's the difference between playing the Raiders and playing the 49ers for you!  Fortunately for Cleveland, the Titans are more Raiders than 49ers.  In fact, Tennessee is probably worse than the Raiders.  That should bode well for Shadeur to pick up win No. 2.

Commanders (3-9) at Vikings (4-8): Minnesota-Two playoff teams last season that have had very different experiences in 2025.  Washington's simply had too many injuries, while the law of averages caught up with Minnesota after the Vikings won so many close games last year.  They were obviously each expecting this matchup to have playoff implications.  Instead, they're both out of contention.  This is a chance, though, for J.J. McCarthy to show what he's got over the last month of the season.

Dolphins (5-7) at Jets (3-9): Miami-Miami hopefully won't wear those ridiculous black helmets they wore the first time they played the Jets.  Although, the Jets showed off their field design, which leads me to believe they'll be the ones wearing a ridiculous alternate uniform instead.  The Dolphins have won three straight and, while they're still well out of the playoff race, they've definitely got some positive momentum going.  They might just save Mike McDaniel's job yet.

Saints (2-10) at Buccaneers (7-5): Tampa Bay-Suddenly, the Bucs have some competition in the NFC South.  Their lead over Carolina (who's on their bye this week) is only a half-game, and, with a loss to the lowly Saints, they'll be tied.  Fortunately, Tampa Bay's still in the driver's seat.  Four of their last five games are against their division rivals (including both matchups with the Panthers).  Their first meeting with the Saints ended 23-3.  Don't expect this one to be much different.

Colts (8-4) at Jaguars (8-4): Jacksonville-If this game had been a few weeks ago, I'd say the Colts were the clear favorites in this one.  That was when they had a two-game lead and before their back-to-back losses to Kansas City and Houston.  The Jaguars, meanwhile, have won three straight to even up the division.  These two will meet again in Indianapolis in Week 17, but Jacksonville will have the edge heading into that one.

Steelers (6-6) at Ravens (6-6): Baltimore-At one point, Pittsburgh was 4-1 and had a 2.5-game lead in the division.  The Ravens were 1-5 then.  Baltimore is 5-1 since, with the only loss coming on Thanksgiving night against Cincinnati.  The Steelers, meanwhile, are 2-5 over that same span, including two straight defeats.  Suddenly, they're looking at being left out of the playoff field entirely.  Problem is, their momentum is going in the wrong direction.  And they'll be looking up at the Ravens for the first time all season after this one.

Broncos (10-2) at Raiders (2-10): Denver-The Patriots finally have their bye this week, so a win would move the Broncos up to the No. 1 seed in the AFC with four games left.  Those games are against Green Bay, Jacksonville, Kansas City and the Chargers, none of which are easy.  Which means they need to take care of business against the Raiders.  No excuses if they don't.  Especially because that could mean the AFC West is suddenly back in play.

Bears (9-3) at Packers (8-3-1): Green Bay-Chicago got its statement win on Black Friday against Philadelphia, and now the Bears aren't just in first place, they're the No. 1 seed in the NFC.  In order to keep it, they'll have to earn it.  Two of their next three games are against the Packers, who I still think are the best team in that division.  They've both got brutal remaining schedules, so this is an important game for both.  And the Bears will no longer be the NFC's No. 1 seed after it.

Rams (9-3) at Cardinals (3-9): Rams-Last week's loss at Carolina didn't just knock the Rams out of the 1-seed in the NFC.  It dropped them right back into a first-place tie in the NFC West.  Fortunately for them, they haven't played the Cardinals yet.  They can't get caught in a trap and look past Arizona, but they're far too disciplined for that.  I still think the Rams are the best team in the NFC, if not the entire NFL.  Last week's glitch shouldn't faze them.

Texans (7-5) at Chiefs (6-6): Kansas City-Kansas City's string of AFC West titles is all but over.  The Chiefs' main concern is keeping their string of playoff appearances alive.  Which makes the Sunday night game effectively a must-win.  Not only would a loss drop them to 6-7, they'd also have losses to all of the teams they're battling for a wild card.  Instead, they'll flip-flop Houston and still very much have a chance.

Eagles (8-4) at Chargers (8-4): Chargers-Have we learned something about the Philadelphia Eagles over the last two weeks?  The Cowboys had that big second half comeback, then the Bears totally shut them down.  Things won't get any easier with a Monday night trip to SoFi, where they'll face a Chargers team that wants to make a statement nearly as much as Chicago did.  If the Chargers want to be taken seriously not just as playoff contenders, but a team that can win in January, beating the Super Bowl champions would go a long way towards doing that.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 8-8
Overall: 123-71-1

Draw Reaction

That World Cup Draw Ceremony was...something.  And not in a good way.  That was bad even for FIFA.  After 90 minutes of mindless, tedious crap, they finally got on with the one thing people watching were actually interested in--the World Cup draw.  Once they finally got down to business, we found out who'll be playing who next summer.  Well, for the most part.  We, of course, still don't know the six teams that'll come out of the qualifying playoffs in March (which caused plenty of its own confusion during the draw ceremony).

And, I must say, the draw couldn't have worked out better for the Americans!  (At least the group play draw!)  Mexico also ended up with a pretty favorable group.  Canada, on the other hand, has their work cut out for them.  They might have to play Italy in their opening game!  And they're not the only ones with a difficult group.

Group A: Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, UEFA D (Czechia/Ireland/Denmark/North Macedonia)
El Tri should have no problem getting out of the group, regardless of who wins that European playoff.  If it's Denmark, they've got a great shot at the second automatic spot.  South Korea can't be counted out, either.  Except the Koreans got a little unlucky in that their group will play entirely in Mexico, so they won't have the crowd support from Korean-Americans.  South Africa, meanwhile, gets the honor of playing in the tournament's opening game--against Mexico at Azteca on June 11.

Group B: Canada, UEFA A (Wales/Bosnia & Herzegovina/Italy/Northern Ireland), Qatar, Switzerland
"UEFA A" was the Pot 4 team none of the Pot 1 teams wanted to see Wayne Gretzky pull out.  And it was his native land that ended up drawing the short straw!  Canada-Italy would be a great matchup to start the tournament, but it sure wouldn't be easy for the Canadians.  (Although, Canada was the lowest-ranked team in Pot 1, so in that way it worked out.)  This is all assuming Italy wins that European playoff, of course, but even if it's Wales or Northern Ireland, that's a difficult matchup.  So is Switzerland.  Fortunately, eight third-place teams advance to the knockout phase.  Canada may need to rely on that backdoor method.

Group C: Brazil, Morocco, Haiti, Scotland
Brazil-Morocco is an intriguing game to open group play.  Brazil, of course, is Brazil.  Morocco became the first African side ever to make the semifinals at the last World Cup and is the strongest of all the African teams.  That should be the first match at MetLife Stadium, too.  They're a clear top two, but Scotland can't be counted out.  And congratulations to Haiti on making it back to the World Cup for the first time since 1974!  The fact that they simply get to play Brazil will be such a source of national pride!

Group D: United States, Paraguay, Australia, UEFA C (Slovakia/Kosovo/Turkey/Romania)
In 1994, the United States played Romania at the Rose Bowl in its final game of group play.  The Americans' third game of group play in 2026 is again in LA, this time at SoFi Stadium.  For that reason, a part of me really wants Romania to win the UEFA playoffs--simply so that can be the third game again.  Regardless, this was about as much of a dream draw as the USA could've asked for.  Winning the group is not an unrealistic expectation.

Group E: Germany, Curacao, Ivory Coast, Ecuador
Curacao's first-ever World Cup game will be against Germany.  That's incredibly cool, but also has a chance of being incredibly overwhelming.  Germany has disappointed at the last few World Cups, but should get out of this group no problem.  Whether the Ivory Coast or Ecuador will join them (maybe both) is the real question.  That Ivory Coast-Ecuador opener could answer it.

Group F: Netherlands, Japan, UEFA B (Ukraine, Sweden, Poland, Albania), Tunisia
Whoever emerges from that UEFA playoff could really affect the complexion of this group.  Japan was the first team to qualify and is consistently the best team in Asia.  The Netherlands is one of the favorites.  It could be smooth sailing for those two if Albania somehow ends up being the fourth team in the group.  If it's Poland or Sweden, this group becomes that much more difficult.  Especially since Tunisia isn't exactly a pushover

Group G: Belgium, Egypt, Iran, New Zealand
Talk about an easy group!  Belgium should coast into the Round of 32!  Although, it's also an incredible opportunity for the other three teams, one of which has to finish second and advance to the knockout phase.  There was also a little stroke of luck with Iran ending up in Group G.  This group has two games in Vancouver.  Considering how difficult it might be for Iranian fans to get visas into the U.S., it certainly worked out well that Iran can play its last two games in Canada.  (They can also play their first game in Seattle and set up their base camp in Canada.)

Group H: Spain, Cape Verde, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay
Like fellow World Cup debutant Curacao, Cape Verde gets welcomed to the Big Leagues in a big way--World No. 1 Spain.  This ended up being a very favorable draw for La Roja.  Uruguay should be tough, but they'll likely both have clinched spots in the Round of 32 when they face each other in the last game (most likely in Houston).  Can Saudi Arabia pull another upset like they did against Argentina in Qatar?  If they do, that could get them into the Round of 32, as well.

Group I: France, Senegal, FIFA 2 (Iraq/Bolivia/Suriname), Norway
France went into the 2002 World Cup as the defending champions and dropped their opening game to Senegal.  Who'll be their opening World Cup opponent 24 years later?  Senegal!  And Norway was the Pot 3 team everybody was hoping to avoid--both because of how they rolled through qualifying and because of Erling Haaland.  This has definite "Group of Death" potential.  Those are three good teams!

Group J: Argentina, Algeria, Austria, Jordan
Maybe this one should be called "Group A" instead.  Although, the only non-A country in this group does start with J, so maybe Jordan isn't the odd man out after all!  Anyway, Argentina ended up with a group nearly as favorable as Belgium.  Austria's tough and was impressive in European qualifying, reaching its first World Cup since 1998.  I'd expect they'll finish second in the group.

Group K: Portugal, FIFA 1 (DR Congo/New Caledonia/Jamaica), Uzbekistan, Colombia
Pretty Boy will be 41 and playing in his sixth World Cup next summer.  As Alexi Lalas said during the draw show, he'll suck all the energy out of Group K, which he most likely will.  I'm not sure this group will be the cakewalk for Portugal that many expect, though.  Colombia is No. 13 in the world and made the final at the 2024 Copa America, which was played in many of the same stadiums as the World Cup will be.  I wouldn't be surprised if Colombia wins the group.

Group L: England, Croatia, Ghana, Panama
When Colombia was drawn into Group K, leaving just Croatia in Pot 2 (and, thus, automatically in Group L), the faces of the English and Croatia contingents immediately fell.  That was certainly not the opening game either team wanted.  Croatia's the only top 10 team that wasn't in Pot 1, so one of the other top teams was gonna end up stuck with them in their group.  It certainly won't be easy going for an English side that many think is good enough to win the World Cup.  Throw in Ghana and a Panama team that obviously plays in the United States often and is very comfortable in the stadiums that will be used for the World Cup and that's three tough games for both European squads.  (It's also hilarious that England could play games in both Boston AND Philadelphia in the Summer of 2026!)

Who's Hall Headed?

Baseball's Winter Meetings always begin with the announcement of the results of the Era Committee's Hall of Fame vote.  With no sure-fire first-ballot candidates on the BBWAA ballot, there's a chance, albeit slim, that they won't elect anyone.  Which means the Contemporary Baseball Era Committee could provide us with the only new Hall of Famers in the Class of 2026.  Unless they also pitch a shutout, which is unlikely but certainly possible.

This ballot, frankly, is fascinating.  Because when Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens exhausted their eligibility on the BBWAA ballot, it shifted the issue of their Hall of Fame candidacy over to the Era Committee.  They're both on the ballot, and they brought the controversy surrounding their candidacy with them.  The writers fell into two camps: The Pro Bonds & Clemens Camp and the No Bonds & Clemens Camp.  Very few changed their minds about either.  They either voted for them every time or didn't vote for them every time.

How will the Era Committee view them?  It's a much smaller sample size, and it consists of eight Hall of Famers, some of whom were their contemporaries, as well as eight executives and media members.  You'd have to think that even with the smaller sample size, the opinion on Bonds and Clemens will still be split.  And, because of that, they almost certainly won't get the 12 votes required for induction.

Here's where things get tricky, though.  How many votes will Bonds and Clemens get?  Because each voter only gets four.  So, however many they get obviously won't go to somebody else.  And will that be enough to keep any of the other candidates out?  Their presence on this ballot will end up causing the same headaches their presence on the writers' ballot did for 10 years.

They also changed the rules this year and made it so that any player who doesn't receive at least five votes is ineligible for the ballot the next time their era comes up (in this case, for the 2029 induction class).  If they don't receive five or more votes twice, they're ineligible for future ballots.  This is both good and bad.  It weans out those who clearly have no chance of getting in.  But the whole point of Eras Committees is to give these players a second look, and voting patterns change, as do the way players' careers are viewed.

So, operating off the assumption that Bonds and Clemens won't have enough support, who, if anyone, has the best chance of getting in?  It might be two long overlooked stars from the 1980s.  Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly are exactly the type of player that Eras Committees are designed to give a chance at the Hall of Fame.  And this could very well be their year.  Or at least one of them.

Let's start with Dale Murphy.  He played 15 years for the Braves during an era when they were pretty bad (his last year in Atlanta was 1990...the year before their dominant run began).  But that doesn't change the fact he was one of the best players in the National League in the 1980s.  Murphy won back-to-back MVPs in 1982-83 and five straight Gold Gloves in center field.  He was also a four-time Silver Slugger.

Mattingly was one of the best players in the AL during that same time frame.  He spent his entire career with the Yankees, but didn't play in the postseason until his last year.  (Although, it should be noted, the Yankees weren't exactly bad during that era.  They had the best record in the American League for the 80s.  They just didn't finish in first and it was before the wild card.)  Anyway, Mattingly won nine Gold Gloves, three Silver Sluggers and an MVP.  Not to mention how highly regarded he was throughout baseball as more than just a player.  And the committee knows first-hand that his career was cut short due to injuries.

Harold Baines was controversially elected to the Hall of Fame in 2019.  Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly were both better than Harold Baines.  So, if that's the benchmark we're using, they both belong in the Hall of Fame, as well.  I don't think even the Baines supporters would dispute that.

Two other "newcomers" transitioning over from the BBWAA ballot for the first time are Gary Sheffield and Jeff Kent.  I had them both among my 10 throughout their decade on the main ballot.  Kent was one of the elite second basemen in the game during his prime and hit the most home runs ever by anyone at the position (351).  Sheffield, meanwhile, hit 500 home runs, a statistical threshold that used to mean almost guaranteed induction.

The last two players on the ballot are Carlos Delgado and Fernando Valenzuela.  Delgado, to me, is very similar to Fred McGriff, another first baseman who got his long-overdue election a few years ago.  He's also similar to Jose Ramirez in that he was consistently good for a remarkably long amount of time.  Delgado holds so many Blue Jays franchise records and hit more home runs, 473, than any other Puerto Rican-born player.

Fernando Valenzuela took the Majors by storm in 1981, when he was both the Rookie of the Year and Cy Young winner for the Dodgers' World Series championship team.  He passed away just before the 2024 World Series, and the Dodgers have won both World Series since then.  Fernandomania will always be a great, fun chapter in baseball history.  It doesn't make him a Hall of Famer, though.  Especially not in an elite group like this.

Of the eight players on the ballot, there are six I would say I'd want to vote for.  And my "no" on Delgado definitely isn't firm.  I'm just not as solid a "yes" on him as I am for Bonds, Clemens, Mattingly, Murphy, Kent and Sheffield.  But, since the voters are limited to four votes apiece, I've got to drop two.  Those two are Jeff Kent and Gary Sheffield.  Leaving me with a final ballot of Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy.

As I mentioned at the top, I highly doubt either Bonds or Clemens gets in.  Which leaves Mattingly and Murphy.  And I've really got a feeling that Dale Murphy will be elected.  If he does, just imagine how nuts it'll be if Andruw Jones gets in, too.  That would be a lot of Braves Gold Glove centerfield defense making its way to Cooperstown in July!

16 Groups of 3

When FIFA first announced that the 2026 World Cup was being expanded to 48 teams, the plan was to have 16 groups of three and 80 games total.  That would've featured one European team in each group, eliminating the two-European-team groups that UEFA really doesn't like, and seen the top two teams in each group advancing to the knockout stage.  Those plans changed significantly after the 2022 World Cup and its outstanding final group day that included several thrilling sets of simultaneous matches.  The result was an updated format with 12 groups of four playing 104 total games and eight third-place finishers advancing to the knockout round.

There was some criticism to the groups-of-three format, primarily related to the uneven number of teams.  Without simultaneous games, it would've left the possibility of shenanigans regarding advancement.  It would also have created some unfair situations regarding rest.  Some teams would go an extended period between games, while others wouldn't start until much later in the tournament and have to play eight games in a much shorter period than teams who got more rest by playing earlier.  So, FIFA decided that groups of four were better.

Let's not kid ourselves about the fact that FIFA saw the dollar signs, too.  An expanded tournament already meant more games.  There were 64 games at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.  They were originally set to have 16 more than that in 2026.  Now, it'll be 40 additional games.  That's 40 additional sold out stadiums (or, 24 more than there otherwise would've been).  Don't think that was lost on them.

Changing back to groups of four, ultimately, was probably the right call.  But it fundamentally altered the way this World Cup would play out.  For starters, there will have to be four groups with two European teams.  That's something UEFA wanted to avoid.  That's the primary reason why Europe has 16 teams and no possibility of more.  The whole idea was one in each group, which is obviously impossible now. 

It also brings back the complicated math of a separate table ranking the third-place teams against each other.  There are 495 possible combinations of third-place teams advancing to the knockout round.  The six group winners scheduled to face a third-place team in the Round of 32 all have five possible opponents depending on those combinations.  Even the third-place teams have multiple possible opponents in the Round of 32 (except for Groups L & K, whose third-place finishers would only face the winner of the other should they advance).

This is nothing new for FIFA, of course.  But there's no denying that the straightforward two teams from each group advancing to the knockout round was easier for everyone.  Likewise, the third-place teams can go to any number of Round of 32 games, giving them varying days of rest, especially compared to their group-winning opponents.  (Although, some would argue that's a consequence of finishing third in your group.)

Just as significantly, it changed the seeding.  By only have 12 groups instead of 16, that knocks four teams from being in Pot 1 down to Pot 2.  Likewise, it knocks four teams from Pot 2 into Pot 3.  And, it, of course, adds a Pot 4, which includes the six teams that we still don't know.  Four of those six teams are European.  And two of those are Italy and Denmark!  If they do get in, that'll make for at least two extremely difficult groups!

The pots are set for the World Cup Draw on Friday.  The teams were seeded based on their FIFA World Rankings, and the pot breakdown ended up like this:

Pot 1: United States (co-host), Mexico (co-host), Canada (co-host), Spain (1), Argentina (2), France (3), England (4), Brazil (5), Portugal (6), Netherlands (7), Belgium (8), Germany (9)
Pot 2: Croatia (10), Morocco (11), Colombia (13), Uruguay (16), Switzerland (17), Japan (18), Senegal (19), Iran (20), South Korea (22), Ecuador (23), Austria (24), Australia (26)
Pot 3: Norway (29), Panama (30), Egypt (34), Algeria (35), Scotland (36), Paraguay (39), Tunisia (40), Ivory Coast (42), Uzbekistan (50), Qatar (51), Saudi Arabia (60), South Africa (61)
Pot 4: Jordan (66), Cape Verde (68), Ghana (72), Curacao (82), Haiti (84), New Zealand (86), UEFA 1, UEFA 2, UEFA 3, UEFA 4, FIFA Playoff 1, FIFA Playoff 2

We'll see what happens once the draw ceremony is complete, but there will be some potentially deep groups.  Which I guess was sort of the point.  While there will likely still be some blowouts should, say, Curacao end up in the same group as France, that will, theoretically, be mitigated by the better teams not being as spread out.  It also creates the potential for some extremely competitive matchups (just picking random teams from Pots 1 & 2, we could get, say, Colombia vs. England, in the group stage).

These pots are drastically different than what they would've been had they stuck with the original plan of 16 groups of three.  This is how those pots would've broken down:

Pot A: United States (co-host), Mexico (co-host), Canada (co-host), Spain, Argentina, France, England, Brazil, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Croatia, Morocco, Colombia, Uruguay
Pot B: Switzerland, Japan, Senegal, Iran, South Korea, Ecuador, Austria, Australia, Norway, Panama, Egypt, Algeria, Scotland, Paraguay, Tunisia, Ivory Coast
Pot C: Uzbekistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Jordan, Cape Verde, Ghana, Curacao, Haiti, New Zealand, UEFA 1, UEFA 2, UEFA 3, UEFA 4, FIFA Playoff 1, FIFA Playoff 2

Croatia, Morocco, Colombia and Uruguay obviously would've benefitted the most had they stuck with the 16-group format.  They would've been seeded in Pot 1 and avoided any of the other top teams until the knockout phase.  (Likewise, the other top teams would've avoided them.)  It also would've allowed the European teams to all be separated, with eight in Pot 1 and four each in Pots 2 & 3.  And there still would've been some good matchups with those European playoff teams (meaning potentially Italy and/or Denmark) automatically having to be put in groups with the non-European countries from Pot 1.

Would the groups in this format be as deep across the board as the 12 groups of four will?  Probably not.  But they would be more balanced.  That, ultimately, would've been the biggest benefit to sticking with 16 groups of three.  Although, the trade-off would've been some weaker groups with really only one strong team and potentially more blowouts, as well as the possibility of inconsequential final games.

I never entirely bought into that position, however.  With groups of three, teams would only be playing two group games.  And, with two teams from each group advancing, somebody playing in that final game would be guaranteed to have something to play for.  Even if the group winner (or last-place finisher) was already decided, that second spot in the knockout stage (or who'd be the group winner) would be at stake in the last game.

Ultimately, FIFA decided that 12 groups of four would be better than 16 groups of three.  And the draw promises to create multiple difficult groups.  Whether that's better or worse, we won't find out until the summer.  But, one thing's for sure.  It'll create a vastly different tournament than 16 groups of three would have.

NFL Picks, Week 13

I give the NFL credit for their Thanksgiving/Black Friday slate this year.  Sure, Lions-Packers is a fairly common and pretty safe matchup, and they knew that the Cowboys game would probably be the most-watched game of the season, so putting the Chiefs, another popular TV draw, opposite them pretty much guaranteed that.  Ravens-Bengals was a bit of a miss, but that looked like a good one on paper before the season, so I get why they picked it.

It's with Bears-Eagles where they really got lucky, though.  Because Chicago's actually good this season, the Black Friday game has some pretty serious playoff implications.  As do all three on Thanksgiving.  I can't remember the last time that was the case with all of the standalone games on Thanksgiving Weekend.  It certainly hasn't happened in the three years since the Black Friday game was added.

Packers (7-3-1) at Lions (7-4): Detroit-This is a HUGE game for Detroit, even moreso than for Green Bay.  That's because the Packers won the first meeting back in Week 1 and already has a half-game lead over the Lions.  So, a Green Bay victory would make it a game-and-a-half with a season sweep (which would be pretty irrelevant anyway because of the Packers' tie).  Anyway, a loss really puts the Lions' playoff chances in danger.  Instead, they jump back ahead of Green Bay in the standings.

Chiefs (6-5) at Cowboys (5-5-1): Kansas City-Had the Chiefs not pulled off that comeback against the Colts, they'd be under .500 and looking at missing the playoffs entirely.  They're still on the outside looking in, but it's suddenly much more realistic that they'll make a run and get in.  Same thing with Dallas after scoring 24 unanswered points to beat Philadelphia.  The NFC East is even still in play for the Cowboys.  So, just like the early game, this one will seriously impact the playoff race.

Bengals (3-8) at Ravens (6-5): Baltimore-Thanks to their own five-game winning streak and the Steelers pissing away a two-and-a-half-game lead, the Ravens have battled all the way back and are now tied for first place...with both games against Pittsburgh still on the schedule!  A full-strength Bengals team could present a challenge for them.  But this isn't a full-strength Bengals team.  Baltimore should keep rolling heading into that matchup with the Steelers next week.

Bears (8-3) at Eagles (8-3): Philadelphia-Even though their lead in the NFC East is still somewhat comfortable despite the loss to Dallas, the Eagles saw their seeding impacted big time.  Another loss on Black Friday would drop them back another spot, behind the North-leading Bears, and give Chicago the tiebreaker.  Of course, the Bears will also have the benefit of knowing the Packers-Lions result, and they have to win themselves to maintain their division lead.  So, like I said, the Black Friday game ended up being a real treat.

49ers (8-4) at Browns (3-8): San Francisco-Cleveland is sticking with Shadeur Sanders at quarterback after getting that win over the Raiders.  Now he'll start at home for the first time against a team that's much better than Las Vegas--the 49ers.  San Francisco earned a pretty dominant win of its own on Monday night against Carolina and finally gets its bye next week (fun fact: the last four teams to have their bye--the Panthers, 49ers, Giants and Patriots, played each other in the Monday night games last week and this week).  They can't get caught in a trap like the Packers did when they visited Cleveland earlier this season, though.

Jaguars (7-4) at Titans (1-10): Jacksonville-Losing last week in Arizona could've been disastrous for Jacksonville.  Instead, the Jaguars found a way to pull it out in overtime to stay in the top AFC wild card spot.  With so many good wins already under their belts, they get an easy one this week with the Titans.  They can't get caught looking ahead to the Colts next week, though.  There's definite potential of this being a trap game.

Texans (6-5) at Colts (8-3): Indianapolis-Don't look now, but here come the Texans.  I'm not saying Houston will definitely leapfrog the Colts and Jaguars and defend as AFC South champions.  It sure looks like a much more realistic possibility now, though.  Especially if they win this one and get within a game.  The Colts sure showed us a lot last week, however.  Yes, they lost in Kansas City.  But the Colts showed that they're for real.  They're the team to beat in that division.

Saints (2-9) at Dolphins (4-7): New Orleans-There isn't really any logical reason why I'm picking the Saints here.  I just think this is one of those rare opportunities New Orleans has to actually win a game.  Which really says more about Miami than New Orleans.  Coming off a bye, against a two-win team at home, and I'm still not picking the Dolphins (who've actually won two straight).

Falcons (4-7) at Jets (2-9): Jets-Ditto about the two-win Jets.  Atlanta at home is one of the few chances left where the Jets could pull it out.  Especially with how confusing and frustratingly inconsistent the Falcons have been this season.  It really depends on which Atlanta team shows up.  If it's the good Falcons, the Jets will suffer the same fate as the Bills.  If it's the bad Falcons, we could see the third Jets win of the season.

Cardinals (3-8) at Buccaneers (6-5): Tampa Bay-Suddenly, Tampa Bay's got company atop the NFC South.  The Bucs still have a half-game lead, but that's only because Carolina hasn't had its bye yet.  This is the start of a three-game homestand that's paramount for a Tampa team that's lost three in a row.  All three should be wins, which will keep them in the driver's seat.  If not, things will really get interesting in the division they've owned for the past several years.

Rams (9-2) at Panthers (6-6): Rams-For the past few weeks, I've been thinking the Rams are the best team in the NFC, if not the entire NFL.  They did nothing to disprove that opinion on Sunday night.  Now they go to Carolina to face a pesky Panthers team that plays very well at home.  They won't make it easy.  In fact, I expect this to be a fight.  In the end, though, the Rams are the more talented team and will find a way to pull it out.

Vikings (4-7) at Seahawks (8-3): Seattle-Last year, Sam Darnold played for Minnesota and the Vikings went 14-3.  This year, the Vikings are 4-7 and sitting in last place.  Darnold's in Seattle and has the Seahawks staring down a playoff berth.  I'm not saying he's the entire reason both teams' fortunes have flipped.  Of course he isn't.  But is he a factor?  Absolutely.  And Darnold's current team should beat his former team to keep pace with the Rams.

Bills (7-4) at Steelers (6-5): Pittsburgh-Very few people, if any, thought this matchup would end up becoming a must-win for both teams.  Yet, that's what it feels like.  The Steelers have been in freefall, completely giving away their AFC North lead.  The Bills, meanwhile, are in danger of watching the Patriots (who never seem to lose anymore) run away with the AFC East.  Buffalo has struggled on the road, especially.  Which is why I'm going with the Steelers here.

Raiders (2-9) at Chargers (7-4): Chargers-Everyone seems to forget this because it's been so long since they've played a division game, but when the Chargers got out to that 3-0 start, all three wins were against AFC West opponents.  That's a huge thing to keep in mind with three of their last six as the division rematches.  They enter this one two games behind the Broncos, which can easily be made up.  Especially against the Raiders, who are so anemic on offense they just fired their offensive coordinator.

Broncos (9-2) at Commanders (3-8): Denver-Speaking of the Broncos, coming off their bye, they visit the Nation's Capital on Sunday night.  Everything I said earlier about Minnesota also applies to Washington.  This certainly isn't how the Commanders expected to follow up their run to the NFC Championship Game last season.  As for Denver, they know as long as they keep winning, it doesn't matter what the Chargers and Chiefs do.  The Broncos maintain their two-game division lead.

Giants (2-10) at Patriots (10-2): New England-We wrap up Week 13 with the Giants visiting the Patriots on Monday night.  They played two outstanding Super Bowls against each other back in the day, but they're going in opposite directions this season.  Mike Vrabel has the Patriots cruising towards the playoffs.  The Giants (and their fans) know there's only five more games before they can be put out of their misery.  New England becomes the first team in the NFL to get to 11 wins, then finally gets a week off (which, honestly, might kill their momentum).

Last Week: 10-4
Overall: 115-62-1