NFL Picks, Week 1

We've made it to the start of another NFL season.  And the league is celebrating by having a primetime game on four of the next five nights.  Although, they've already said no Week 1 Friday night game in Brazil next season.  Not because they don't want to.  Because they can't since Labor Day is later next year.  When will the Australia game end up getting scheduled then?  Something to ponder for the 2026 season.

Anyway, the season kicking off means the first installment of my weekly picks.  For those of you who aren't familiar with the rules, I don't care about the spread.  I just pick straight winners.  Your record isn't determined by whether you cover the spread or not.  The picks will also not normally include the Thursday night game.  I'll still pick it, but won't post my picks for the rest of the week until the weekend.  Week 1 and Thanksgiving are the only exceptions.  So, with all that out of the way, here we go...

Cowboys at Eagles: Philadelphia-For the traditional NFL Kickoff matchup involving the Super Bowl champion, they opted for the Cowboys as the opponent.  Dallas is a huge draw, so it makes a lot of sense.  Especially since it's been a while since the Eagles and Cowboys have played each other in Week 1.  I'm curious to see how the Cowboys look, but, frankly, this isn't the best matchup for them to start the season.  The Eagles may be the defending champs, but they have a brutal start.  They need a win here.

Chiefs vs Chargers: Kansas City-Last year, the Eagles began the season with the long trip to Sao Paulo, won, and carried it all the way to a Super Bowl title.  I'm not saying the team they beat in February will follow the same script.  No one would be surprised if they did, though.  And, if they do, the Brazilian fans would've gone 2-for-2 in seeing the eventual champion's first win of the season in Week 1.

Buccaneers at Falcons: Atlanta-It sounds crazy, but this game could go a long way in determining who wins the NFC South.  The Falcons swept the Bucs last season, but gave away the division by dropping their last two games, and Tampa Bay took full advantage.  While some might argue that Tampa is the better team, Atlanta has a lot to prove after last year's collapse.  The fact that they're playing at home against a team they beat twice last season certainly works in their favor.

Bengals at Browns: Cincinnati-Remember last season, how FOX made Cowboys-Browns the Week 1 national game for Brady's debut broadcast and neither team came anywhere near the playoffs?  This season, they didn't make that mistake.  The Battle of Ohio is in the 1:00 window.  Joe Burrow is back and a lot of people believe the Bengals are a potential playoff team.  This is their first chance to show if that faith in them is warranted or not.  Although, even if they do win (as they should), there will still be questions.  Their opponent is Cleveland, after all.

Dolphins at Colts: Miami-Call me crazy, but I like the Dolphins in this one.  I can't really explain why.  I just feel like this is the type of game that the Colts lose and it ends up costing them a playoff berth.  It'll probably be close the entire way, then either Miami makes a late field goal to win it or Indianapolis misses a field goal down by two.

Raiders at Patriots: Las Vegas-Both teams have new head coaches, Pete Carroll in Las Vegas and Mike Vrabel in New England.  They're both looking to get off to a good start under their new head coach.  The Patriots have much further to go, while the Raiders' problem is that they're in the same division as three really good teams that made the playoffs last season.  If they want to keep pace with the Chiefs, Chargers and Broncos, they need to take the opener.

Cardinals at Saints: Arizona-Arizona has a chance to be a sleeper team this season.  The Cardinals went 8-9 last year and will be that annoying team nobody wants to play.  New Orleans gets first crack at them.  Unfortunately for the Saints, they don't match up well with Arizona.  Well, frankly, they don't match up well with anybody, but the Cardinals are an especially bad matchup.  Arizona picks up the season-opening road win.

Steelers at Jets: Pittsburgh-When they made the schedule, they had no idea Aaron Rodgers would sign with Pittsburgh.  It just worked out that way.  His Steelers debut will be on the road against the team for whom he played the last two seasons.  You can't make this stuff up!  Maybe Rodgers will give Jets fans a chance to see what they didn't while he was wearing their uniform.  Look for Pittsburgh to start the season with a win.

Giants at Commanders: Washington-This is perhaps the most fascinating of all the Week 1 matchups.  The Giants lost a lot of one-score games last season because of poor quarterback play.  Now they've got Russell Wilson as he looks to revive his career.  The Commanders won a lot of one-score games, especially down the stretch, and carried that momentum all the way to the NFC Championship Game.  Now there are expectations on them.  Can they live up to them?  And how will the new-look Giants fare against an opponent they feel they can beat?

Panthers at Jaguars: Jacksonville-My guess is these two are playing each other in Week 1 to celebrate the 30th anniversary of their coming into the league together.  Of course, they've had different levels of success since both reaching their respective Conference Championship Game in Year 2.  The Panthers have been to two Super Bowls.  The Jaguars are one of four teams to have never played in one.  Don't expect that to change this season.  Although, they're better than Carolina and playing at home, so they should at least start 1-0.

Titans at Broncos: Denver-Denver couldn't have asked for a better matchup to open the season.  The Titans aren't supposed to be very good, and they know it.  They also know they have a really tough stretch after opening with two AFC South opponents.  AFC West teams need to beat AFC South teams.  Should Denver falter here, it could end up costing them in the long run.

49ers at Seahawks: Seattle-Everything that could go wrong did for San Francisco last season.  Seattle, meanwhile, finished 10-7 and only missed the playoffs on a tiebreaker.  That didn't stop them from making some big time changes, bringing in Sam Darnold and Cooper Kupp.  You've also got a 49ers team that has all of those guys who missed time due to injury last season back.  Will they play like the 49ers of two years ago?  Or will the Seahawks hold them off and get the early division win?

Lions at Packers: Green Bay-These are possibly the two best teams in the NFC.  I know the Eagles and Rams would have something to say about that, but this NFC North matchup was a great selection as the national game.  We'll know more about both teams after they meet again on Thanksgiving, but whoever wins will get that early advantage.  In the NFC North, that could end up being huge.  Expect that advantage to go to Green Bay.

Texans at Rams: Rams-Matthew Stafford is expected to start for the Rams, who started 5-6 last season only to finish 5-1 and win the NFC West title.  They also won a playoff game and were the only team that was competitive against the Eagles in the playoffs.  So, they've got a lot of confidence heading into 2025.  As they should.  The Rams won't get off to a slow start this year.

Ravens at Bills: Buffalo-The NFL really likes giving the Ravens a tough road game against the team that beat the in the playoffs the previous season in primetime in Week 1.  Last season, it was a trip to Kansas City, and they ended up losing by two.  This season, they return to the scene of their two-point Divisional Playoff loss in Buffalo.  Yes, it's Week 1.  But it's not a stretch to say this game is big for both teams, who could easily meet in the playoffs again.  And, if they do, the Bills will have the tiebreaker because of their Week 1 head-to-head victory.

Vikings at Bears: Minnesota-Wrapping up an opening week that features eight divisional matchups, the Vikings begin the J.J. McCarthy Era in Chicago on Monday night.  The entire NFC North is playing each other, so Minnesota will go into this one knowing either the Lions or Packers already lost.  With how tight this division is projected to be among all three of those teams (who all made the playoffs last season), that's a huge advantage.  So is playing the Bears.

2025 NFC Preview

Can the Eagles repeat?  Can the Lions finish the deal after last season's playoff loss?  Can the Rams, who are built to win now, do just that?  Are the Packers for real?  Are the Vikings?  And how do the Commanders follow up last season's shocking run to the NFC Championship Game?  Those are just the questions about last year's playoff teams.

There are plenty of questions surrounding the rest of the NFC, too.  How will Dallas rebound after missing the playoffs last season and inexplicably trading Micah Parsons?  Will the 49ers continue their trend of either missing the playoffs or making the NFC Championship Game?  How much better will the Giants be after a 3-14 record that was the result of bad luck as much as being a bad team?  And who will win the NFC South?

While the AFC has three top teams and everybody else, the NFC is much more wide open.  There are easily half a dozen teams that can realistically think Super Bowl.  I'm not even sure winning the division is imperative either.  It'll be helpful, obviously, but look at what happened last year.  The Lions were the 1-seed and went one and out, while Washington won two road games to get to the NFC Championship Game.  Now the Commanders have the burden of expectations, though.

NFC East: No team has repeated in the NFC East since the Eagles' run of division dominance 20 years ago.  Philadelphia's in a position to break that string, although the other three teams in the division will certainly have something to say about that.  I do think the Eagles are the division favorites, but that's mainly because Washington and Dallas both have something to prove.  The Commanders have to back up what they did last season, while the Cowboys want to show everyone that last season was the anomaly.

Although, the Micah Parsons trade did nothing but add more questions.  It certainly didn't do anything to improve the Cowboys.  In fact, I think it knocked them from being a solid playoff contender to a team staring at a 7-10 or 8-9 season.  And, while still the worst team in the division, the Giants will be much improved.  They not only have an actual quarterback now, they have two!  They don't need the Seattle Russell Wilson.  They just need him not to be the Denver Russell Wilson.  Even that would be an improvement, though.  Are they a playoff team?  No.  Will they be 3-14 again?  Also no.

NFC North: Minnesota had perhaps the worst luck in the league last season.  The Vikings went 14-3 and were a wild card team who lost in the first round of the playoffs!  It was enough for the Lions to propose a rule change that playoff seeding be based strictly on record.  Of course, that was a once-in-a-generation type of situation.  And Minnesota also vastly overachieved last year.  I'm very curious to see how the J.J. McCarthy Experience will go, too.

Meanwhile, the expectations on the Lions aren't quite as high entering this season, which could be a good thing.  They're still really good and legit Super Bowl contenders, but they may not even win the division.  That's because I think the Green Bay Packers are the best team in the NFC North.  Especially now that they've added Parsons, one of the best pass rushers in the league.  And the Bears will be a good last-place team.  They'll be 6-11, mainly because of their division record.

NFC South: Tampa Bay's been on a run of division titles over the last few seasons.  But that has as much to do with how bad the other three teams are rather than anything about them.  Much like the AFC South, the NFC South has two bad teams in Carolina and New Orleans.  Which leaves us with just Atlanta to challenge the Bucs at the top.

I feel like a broken record, regularly expressing confidence in the Falcons only to see them fizzle out late in the season with a playoff berth in their grasp.  Yet, here I am, picking them to win the NFC South yet again.  Call me crazy, but I think no quarterback controversy and being committed to Michael Penix Jr. will make a big difference.  If not and Atlanta falls apart down the stretch again, expect 3rd- or 4th-seeded Tampa Bay to lose at home in the wild card round again.

NFC West: Consistency has been the Rams' trademark really since Sean McVay took over as head coach.  Last season, they weren't great, yet they still won the division and a playoff game.  This year, they make a big change at wide receiver.  Cooper Kupp is out and Davante Adams is in.  Frankly, that's not really a significant difference at all.  They'll keep doing what they're doing and Matthew Stafford will have a lot of passing yards.

Seattle, now with Sam Darnold at quarterback, is a team worth watching.  The Seahawks will either be really good and make the playoffs or finish 6-11.  I'm not sure which.  And how can the 49ers not bounce back after having players miss more games due to injury than anyone else last season?  Especially since the benefit of finishing last is getting to play all the bad teams the following year.  Let's not forget that Arizona went 8-9 last season, either.  The Cardinals could easily emerge as a sleeper playoff team.

In the AFC, it wouldn't be a surprise if all four of last year's division champions repeat.  In the NFC, it wouldn't be a surprise if all four are different.  I do see the Eagles and Rams defending, but the North and South will change hands.  Green Bay's the best team in the North, so the Packers win that division.  In the South, meanwhile, I've got Atlanta. 

As for the wild card teams, the Lions get one.  Unless something completely catastrophic happens, there's no way Detroit doesn't make the playoffs.  I'm also gonna go out on a limb (although, probably not too far of one) and say San Francisco ends up back in the postseason.  The third wild card, meanwhile, goes to the Vikings, who just edge out Washington, Seattle and Dallas for the final spot.

A lot of projections have either the Eagles or Lions winning the NFC title.  I don't think enough people are looking at the Rams as seriously as they should.  Or the Packers, for that matter.  That could easily be your NFC Championship Game matchup, though, with the Rams winning and facing the Bills in the Super Bowl.  And, call me crazy, but this finally may be the year for the Bills.

2025 AFC Preview

The more things change in the NFL, the more they stay the same.  Everyone loves to praise the NFL for its parity, which is true to an extent.  Yet the same teams continually find themselves at the top year after year.  That's what I expect to happen in the AFC, where the four teams that won their division last season can easily do it again.  They're simply the best teams in their respective divisions.

That doesn't mean it's a guarantee, of course.  The AFC West now has four coaches who've taken teams to the Super Bowl and could easily be the best division in football.  Nobody in the AFC South is good, so that division is extremely wide open.  Then you have the unknowns like how Aaron Rodgers will do in Pittsburgh and how Cincinnati will bounce back after consecutive seasons of missing the playoffs.  The Bengals are the only AFC team to win a postseason game against Kansas City in the past six years, so they might be the only team standing between the Chiefs and a fourth consecutive Super Bowl.

Of course, there are plenty of other teams who'd like to take that shot.  The Bills have been itching for that shot and came oh so close last season.  Then there are the Ravens, the third team in that little round robin at the top of the AFC.  It really would be shocking if anyone outside that triumvirate is representing the conference in San Francisco in February.

AFC East: For years, the AFC East was the exclusive domain of the Bradicheck Patriots.  That has since shifted to Josh Allen's Bills.  And there's no reason to think they won't add another division title this season.  Miami is the only team that has a chance at being even remotely competitive, but the Dolphins are likely looking at fighting for a wild card at best.  They simply aren't as good as the Bills.

Neither are the Jets and Patriots.  New England should actually be improved this season.  I don't think the Patriots would've fired Jared Mayo if Mike Vrabel hadn't become available.  Vrabel is the guy Robert Kraft really wanted, and I think he'll get them back to contention soon.  Just not this year.  And the obsession with putting the Jets in primetime is mercifully over now that Aaron Rodgers is in Pittsburgh.

AFC North: Speaking of Pittsburgh, they do the same thing every year no matter what veteran who fizzled out elsewhere is playing quarterback.  Mike Tomlin finishes just above .500 each season and is either in the mix for or snags a wild card.  Don't expect things to be any different this year.  The only change was swapping Russell Wilson for Rodgers.

Are the Steelers better than the Ravens, though?  No.  I'm not even sure they're better than the Bengals (even though Cincinnati might be the most overrated team in the league).  If everything goes right, Cincinnati can win the division.  Even if it doesn't, they'll be that team nobody good wants to play late in the season.  Especially if they're out of it.  Cleveland is also in the AFC North.  Yeah, that's about all I've got for the Browns!

AFC South: In the AFC South, it's really just a matter of who'll be the least bad.  And that really comes down to just the Texans and Colts.  On paper, Houston is the better team.  And the only one that has any chance of beating the top teams.  Their spot at the top of the division is by no means guaranteed, though.  The margin between them and the Colts really isn't that big, so Indianapolis winning the division wouldn't be that big of a surprise.

Jacksonville or Tennessee winning the division, meanwhile, would be a surprise.  The Jaguars will at least be worth watching now that they've added Travis Hunter and plan on letting him play both ways.  The Titans used the No. 1 pick on Cam Ward, who isn't anything close to a franchise quarterback.  They're fortunate that the Browns are still in the league.  Because it's gonna be another long year in Tennessee.

AFC West: All four AFC West teams are capable of making the playoffs.  Three of them made it last year, and Pete Carroll could be the same type of difference maker in Las Vegas that Sean Payton was in Denver.  With that being said, it took Payton two years to get the Broncos going.  The Raiders are a little further ahead than where Denver was when Payton took over, but the AFC West is also a lot stronger.  So, while they'll be significantly better than the afterthought they've become in recent years, it still might be a stretch to say the Raiders don't finish last again.  (Although, last place could mean 8-9 or even 9-8.)

I'm also curious to see if the Chargers and Broncos can keep it going after last season's playoff appearance.  More significantly, can either of them challenge the Chiefs?  Or is it a situation where, by mid-November, they know they're battling for a wild card?  And, let's be honest, that's probably the best they can hope for.  Last season, everybody said the Chiefs would have a "down" year and they finished 15-2, which included a Week 18 loss in Denver when they didn't care at all.  So, yeah, just like the Bradicheck Patriots, the Chiefs are on top until somebody knocks them down.

So, like I said, the more things change, the more they stay the same.  The Bills, Ravens and Chiefs should all win their divisions again.  The only question is the South, but you'd still have to consider Houston to be the favorites.  That's the only division where somebody different winning it wouldn't be a surprise.  Which leaves the battle for the wild cards.

And those wild cards should all come out of either the North or West.  The Chargers should get one.  Even if they drop off a little, they're still one of the seven best teams in the AFC.  Simply because of what we've come to expect from them every year, I'll say the Steelers make it back, as well.  But Denver's wild card will go to Cincinnati instead.  The Bengals will be the only new AFC playoff team.

Ultimately, though, it'll come down to those same three teams at the top.  Kansas City, Buffalo and Baltimore.  The Chiefs have been to three straight Super Bowls.  The record is four straight.  What team holds that record?  The Buffalo Bills.  What team will prevent Kansas City from equaling it?  The Buffalo Bills.

The End of Grand Slam Track?

When Michael Johnson announced the creation of Grand Slam Track, he touted it as a "game-changer" and "the next big thing" in the sport.  Johnson had good intentions.  With the promise of big prize money, a number of big-name stars signed on.  They all went into it thinking Grand Slam Track would work.  As they unfortunately found out, it didn't.  And Grand Slam Track's inaugural 2025 season will likely also be its last.

There were originally four meets on the Grand Slam Track schedule.  The first, in Jamaica, was sparsely attended.  The crowds at the second, in Miami, weren't much bigger.  The third meet in Philadelphia was reduced from three days to two.  The fourth meet in LA, meanwhile, never happened.  Because of financial issues, most notably the failure to pay the athletes their prize money, that meet was cancelled.  Unless they can figure something out, the 2026 season won't happen.  (Translation: the 2026 season won't happen.  Grand Slam Track is as good as dead.)

While the failure to pay prize money and appearance fees is by far the biggest issue, the financial struggles go back even further.  As of last month, Grand Slam Track still owed the City of Miramar (outside Miami) for the facility rental.  That meet was at the beginning of May!  Johnson has vowed that all prize money and appearance fees will be paid out, but it has been reported that the circuit owes more than $13 million.  I'm not sure where or how they'll find the funding to cover that.  (Although, when it comes to prize money and appearance fees, they'd better find it somewhere!)

To his credit, Johnson took responsibility for Grand Slam Track's financial struggles.  He acknowledged that they might've gotten a little overzealous and spent too much off the bat.  Then, one of the major creditors dropped out after the Jamaica meet, which only made matters worse.   Throw in the lack of ticket sales and the lackluster TV ratings and it shouldn't be a surprise that they had financial problems.  As every start-up does.

Grand Slam Track was always going to be a tough sell.  Track & field is a niche sport, so you're already working with a limited audience.  Then they took out the "& field" part.  Distance races were included, but even within Grand Slam Track, they were treated as afterthoughts.  It was essentially a circuit of sprint meets.  Which, as it turns out, isn't as appealing in reality as it is on paper.

I'm a fan of the sport and, theoretically, a part of their target audience.  But my interest in Grand Slam Track was limited at best.  And the one meet I did watch on TV, quite frankly, I found pretty boring.  Part of that was because the quality of the broadcast simply wasn't very good.  But I think the bigger reason was the amount of dead time.  I don't know what the atmosphere was like for those attending the meet live, but the races only lasted anywhere from 10 seconds to a few minutes.  And, with no field events going on, there was literally nothing for a few minutes until the next race.  How is that supposed to fill a three-hour broadcast?

Contrast that to the Diamond League, the top-level global track & field circuit.  Diamond League meets are two hours long, and those two hours are packed with action.  The first race is already on the track when the broadcast comes on the air.  The next one is ready to go as soon as they come back from commercial, etc., etc.  And, while that schedule doesn't include every event at every meet, it runs the whole range from short sprints to longer distance.  With field events going on the entire time and taking the stadium's full attention between races.

Diamond League meets are never boring.  I'm a fan of the sport, and I found Grand Slam Track boring.  If even people who enjoy the sport find the product boring, that's a problem.  And how is it supposed to appeal to the casual fan then?  If people who like track & field are turning it off, what chance do you have of getting people who aren't hard-core fans to stick around?  The intention was to grow the sport, but the format didn't achieve the desired effect.

Another problem Grand Slam Track ran into was resistance from the athletes.  They did a great job of getting big names like Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone, Gabby Thomas and Kenny Bednarek to sign on as the series headliners, and the whole idea was that a handful of "racers" would compete at every meet against a rotating group of "challengers."  And they'd all race twice on the weekend, once in their primary event and once in a second event (the hurdlers raced an open 100 or 400 meters, for example).  Except that twice a weekend requirement, including once in their off event, turned off a lot of potential Grand Slam Track participants.

Personally, I think it was a mistake to focus so much on the shorter races.  I get it.  The sprints are exciting.  And there were some great individual performances during the Grand Slam Track season (Melissa Jefferson-Wooden may have made herself the favorite for the World Championships in the women's 100 after dominating Grand Slam Track).  But they also alienated so many athletes and a good portion of the audience by not including certain events.  They indirectly said "we don't care about you" by determining those events not important enough to be a part of the circuit.

That even extended to a group who was included--the Long Distance group.  At the first two meets, the Long Distance group ran both a 3000 and a 5000.  However, Grand Slam Track later decided that four 10-plus minute races per meet were too much and took too long, so, when Philadelphia was cut from three days to two, the Long Distance events were also trimmed from two to one per gender.  And, since they were only competing in one race, they'd have their prize money cut in half.  That's not what any of these longer-distance runners signed up for.  (Grant Fisher's best event is the 10,000, how does running one 3K benefit him at all?  Especially when he's only getting half the prize money of everyone else?)

The biggest problem, of course, was that Grand Slam Track simply didn't generate enough revenue.  They went in with big expectations.  Expectations that, as it turns out, were too high.  As the attendance and lackluster TV ratings proved, there simply wasn't enough interest.  Whether it's because of the format or not, it really doesn't matter.  Had they drawn the crowds and TV audiences they thought they would, Grand Slam Track wouldn't have had financial trouble and been able to pay the athletes their prize money and appearance fees on time.  They'd also likely be planning for the 2026 season.

Was it worth a shot?  Absolutely.  But I think the failure of Grand Slam Track proves something else that's very important.  Track & field is a niche sport for a reason.  There's nothing wrong with being a niche sport.  There's also nothing wrong with wanting to expand beyond that niche.  However, you need to get the buy in from those who are part of that niche to have any chance of success.  And Grand Slam Track simply didn't have that.  Which, ultimately, led to its demise.

You also don't know if it'll work if you don't try.  Michael Johnson had an idea that enough people found worthwhile to try.  Would the format have succeeded had they handled the finances better?  Perhaps.  But, even if it had lasted beyond those three initial meets, you had a feeling Grand Slam Track would've eventually suffered this fate regardless.  As Michael Johnson & Co. found out, the sports market is simply too saturated.  They deserve credit for a gallant effort, but this really did feel inevitable (even if it's not official yet).

The 2026 Schedule

The 2026 MLB schedule is out, and it features the earliest domestic opener in history--Yankees at Giants on March 25.  It'll be the first standalone opener in nearly a decade.  The thing that's interesting about it, though, is how we have no idea what network it'll be on.  Will the Wednesday night game end up on NBC as a part of their yet-to-be signed deal to take over Sunday Night Baseball?  Or will it be on existing TV partner TBS (which has a weekly Tuesday game) or FOX (which does Saturday nights and some Thursdays)?

That isn't the only significant standalone game on the 2026 schedule.  The Field of Dreams Game returns for the first time since 2022, with the Phillies taking on the Twins (not the Mets, as was erroneously reported).  The date hasn't been announced, but the first two were on FOX on a Thursday night, so that would lead you to believe it'll be August 13.  Which, if it is the date, likely indicates that something else isn't happening.

Ever since the first Little League Classic, they've announced the next year's teams during the broadcast.  This year, they didn't do that.  They still haven't announced the participating teams.  Of course, the Little League World Series and Little League Classic have always both been on ESPN.  With Sunday Night Baseball likely leaving ESPN, that left you wondering how/if that relationship will continue.  I don't see any reason for it not to, and the Little League Classic is one of the best ideas MLB has had in years, so it would really be a big loss if they don't have one.  Maybe they're just waiting for their new TV partner to sign on before announcing the matchup.

If they do end up playing a Little League Classic in 2026 (which I sure hope they do), they have plenty of intriguing options among the other 14 series that weekend.  The choices are always somewhat limited because the teams need to be playing somewhere close enough to Williamsport for it to be a reasonable trip.  Keeping that in mind, there's one series that stands out and would be perfect--Red Sox at Pirates.  Boston is always a draw and Pittsburgh has Paul Skenes.  Frankly, it seems like such an obvious selection (assuming there's a game).

So far, the return of the Field of Dreams Game is the only special event on the 2026 MLB schedule.  More could be added, of course.  But things like the Speedway Classic and the game at Rickwood Field were announced well in advance.  A London series was initially planned, but the Premier League schedule didn't work out for it to happen.  Tottenham Hotspur ends the season at home, so they wouldn't have enough time to convert the stadium.

No other international games (not including Toronto, obviously) are currently on the schedule, although there are talks for the Padres and Diamondbacks to play two games in Mexico City in April.  With the World Baseball Classic being played during Spring Training, it makes sense that they aren't playing any games in Japan.  That would've required teams starting the regular season early, which they can't do with players participating in the WBC.  As it is, the final of the World Baseball Classic is only about a week and a half before the Yankees-Giants opener.

With America celebrating its 250th birthday next year, the All*Star Game is set for Philadelphia.  The Phillies can't be home on the 4th of July, however, because a World Cup round of 16 team is being played in Philadelphia that day.  The Nationals will play their traditional 4th of July 11 AM home game, though.  Against the Pirates.  The Pirates, meanwhile, will be home (along with the Yankees and Dodgers) on all three days celebrating MLB legends (Roberto Clemente Day-Sept. 15, Jackie Robinson Day-April 15, Lou Gehrig Day-June 2).

Next year is also the 25th anniversary of 9/11.  MLB will mark that somber occasion by having the Yankees play the Mets at Yankee Stadium.  The other Yankees-Mets matchup will be during "Rivalry Week," something that started this season and appears to be an annual thing moving forward.  From May 15-17, 11 sets of interleague partners will meet.  The other matchups that weekend are in-state rivals (Pirates-Phillies, Rangers-Astros) or the teams that are left and somewhat close to each other (Blue Jays-Tigers, Diamondbacks-Rockies).

Although their move to Las Vegas won't be official until 2028 at the earliest, the A's will get a sneak peek at their new home with a pair of series in June.  They'll play a homestand there against the Brewers and Rockies from June 8-14.  I'm not surprised by this at all.  For one, it exposes fans in Las Vegas to the team.  For another, there have been plenty of complaints about playing in a Minor League ballpark in Sacramento.  Of course, they'll be playing at another Triple A stadium in Las Vegas, but it makes sense to establish their presence in the market before the official move.

As for the other team that's spending 2025 in a Minor League ballpark, the Rays will start next season with three straight road series.  Their return to Tropicana Field is scheduled for April 6 against the Cubs.  That seems to have obviously been intentionally to give them a little more time to work on the repairs at Tropicana Field.  Hopefully it's enough.  Because I'm not sure what their backup plan is, and Steinbrenner Field was intended only to be a one-year situation.

Another interesting quirk that they had to deal with while making the 2026 MLB schedule was the World Cup.  Four teams--the Rangers, Royals, Phillies and Mariners--have stadiums that share parking lots with football stadiums that are hosting World Cup games.  They obviously couldn't make all of them play on the road for the entirety of the World Cup, so they had to come up with something.  What they came up with were scheduling oddities we wouldn't see if not for those conflicts.

On June 19, the United States has a World Cup game in Seattle.  That's right in the middle of a Mariners homestand.  So, the Mariners and Red Sox will play a rare scheduled doubleheader (in a stadium that has a retractable roof) on June 20.  There are nine World Cup games at Jerry World, more than any other venue.  Two of those dates--June 17 and July 3--fall in the middle of a Rangers home series.  So, they'll have a random off day before the final game against the Twins and after the first game against the Tigers.

Kansas City also has two World Cup games that are during Royals home series.  Interestingly, one of those series is against the Cardinals, and it's their only home series sandwiched between road trips.  The I-70 series will get a Saturday off day on June 20 before wrapping up on Sunday, June 21.  Then they'll play a Saturday-Sunday-Monday series against the Phillies to accommodate the World Cup on July 3.  The Phillies also have one home game being moved because of a World Cup game.  They'll play the Mets on Thursday-Saturday-Sunday, with the World Cup game on Friday, June 19.

To go along with the early Opening Day, the regular season also ends early next season.  September 27.  Of course, the season usually ends on the last Sunday in September, so that's just a result of the calendar.  But it also means the World Series won't dip into November.  Assuming they keep the same playoff schedule as this season, Game 7 would be on Halloween Night.  And that could be the last baseball game for a while.  Since a lockout looms after the season.

An All-New US Open

This year's US Open is full of change.  The mixed doubles tournament is already complete.  This year, they tried a new format with 16 teams (made up primarily of singles players) in a quick, two-day format.  Mary Joe Fernandez and the McEnroe brothers loved it.  They were praising the USTA for being innovative and predicted that we'll see it at the Australian Open in January (which we probably will since the Australian Open likes to copy the US Open).

I still consider it a slap in the face to mixed doubles.  Sure, they had the spotlight and a sold out Arthur Ashe Stadium for the final.  But it was also treated like somewhat of an afterthought--played before the tournament actually starts!  And recruiting the singles players to play with a $1 million prize (that they don't need) at the expense of doubles specialists (who very much do) was such an insult!  That's why I found it so satisfying that Sara Errani and Andrea Vavassori--two actual doubles players--won the title.

The other big change, of course, is the schedule.  The US Open has become the third Grand Slam to go to a Sunday start.  It doesn't really change much.  All it does is spread the first round over three days instead of two.  But, it also gives the USTA an opportunity to sell five extra sessions' worth of tickets (day and night on the two main stadiums, grounds passes on the outer courts).  So, it really shouldn't be surprising.  Expect the US Open overall attendance record to be broken.

On the men's side, there's a clear favorite in World No. 1 and defending champion Jannik Sinner.  He's the best hardcourt player in the world and has won four of the last seven Grand Slam tournaments.  Sinner is a five-hour epic French Open final loss away from going for a calendar-year Grand Slam.  Although, let's not pretend luck hasn't been on his side.  He was down two sets to Grigor Dimitrov at Wimbledon when Dimitrov got injured and had to retire.  We can only guess what would've happened had Dimitrov been able to finish, but Sinner obviously doesn't win the title if he loses that match.

Anyway, sometimes luck is on your side.  And I'm not taking anything away from him.  Because Sinner sailed in his final three matches.  Although, he's only played once since Wimbledon and had to retire in the final of Cincinnati, then withdrew from the mixed doubles tournament.  So, is Sinner completely healthy?  An injury may be the only thing that can neutralize him and give somebody else a chance.

Maybe it'll be one of the Americans.  John McEnroe made a bold prediction that this US Open could be where we see the 22-year drought end for the American men.  Taylor Fritz became the first since Andy Roddick to even make a Grand Slam final last year, and that momentum has carried into 2025, with at least two Americans reaching the quarterfinals at the previous three Grand Slam tournaments.  Ben Shelton (Australian) and Fritz (Wimbledon) have both been Grand Slam semifinalists this year.  Between those two, Frances Tiafoe and Tommy Paul, there's plenty of reason to be optimistic for a long run.  A title run, though?  That's a lot to expect.

Tiafoe, Fritz and Shelton are all in a loaded bottom half of the draw, along with Novak Djokovic and Carlos Alcaraz.  Former champion Daniil Medvedev and former finalist Casper Ruud reside on the bottom half of the draw, as well.  This is the section where the first round is split between Sunday and Monday, which works out well with all the big names.  And whoever comes out of this section will have earned it.

Joining Sinner on the top half of the bracket, meanwhile, is Alexander Zverev, who had that shocking first-round loss at Wimbledon.  He was a finalist in Australia this year, but he got thumped by Sinner.  That could be Zverev's problem here.  Unless there's an upset, he'll have to beat Sinner just to make the final.  That first career Grand Slam title we've been waiting for may have to wait.

If Sinner doesn't win, Alcaraz has to be the guy.  He's looking for redemption after that shocking second-round loss last year, but, don't forget, he won the title as a 19-year-old in 2022.  Djokovic, meanwhile, hasn't won a Slam since he tied the record with his 24th in 2023.  He's ceded the title of best hardcourt player in the world to Sinner.  Even he'd admit that.  And, you'd have to think his best chance to get No. 25 is at Wimbledon, not here.  But do you want to count Novak Djokovic out of any tournament?  There's a reason why he only plays the Grand Slams at this point in his career.

Meanwhile, it's been a very interesting Grand Slam season on the women's side.  Three different American women have made Grand Slam finals this year, with Madison Keys (Australian) and Coco Gauff (French) winning titles.  The final streak is actually at four with four different women, stretching back to Jessica Pegula a year ago.  Can that run possibly continue?  If it does, Emma Navarro could be a candidate as that fifth different finalist.

There are two other reasons why this year has been interesting for the women.  Iga Swiatek is a clay court star.  She was given no chance to win Wimbledon.  Not only did she win Wimbledon, she dominated!  She only lost two total games in the semifinal AND final, including a 6-0, 6-0 victory for the championship.  That was Swiatek's first title of the year and shot her back up to No. 2 in the world.  She already made the final here in mixed doubles and is definitely one of the top contenders.

Another of the top contenders is defending champion and World No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka.  (Sidebar: How had I not seen or even known about the pictures of Sabalenka looking absolutely stunning in that red dress at last year's championship photo session until like two days ago?!)  Anyway, Sabalenka made the final at both the Australian and French Opens, losing to Keys and Gauff, then she lost to Amanda Anisimova (who had the match of her life!) in the Wimbledon semifinals.  So, she enters the US Open looking for her first Grand Slam title this year.  Like I said, this season has been funky!

Sabalenka's been fine as long as you keep the Americans away from her.  Unfortunately, there are so many Americans who figure to go deep in the draw that it'll be tough for her to avoid them all.  She could potentially face Pegula or Navarro in the semis, then Gauff or Keys in the final.  Although, Swiatek may be able to help her out there.  With the way Swiatek has been playing all summer, that's not a crazy thought.

While I'm tentatively labeling Swiatek as the "favorite" on the bottom half of the women's draw, it's very tentative.  Because the bottom half of the women's bracket is as loaded as the bottom half of the men's.  Four former US Open champions, Swiatek, Gauff, Naomi Osaka and Venus Williams, who it's so great to see back at the US Open, even if it for a farewell.  Plus, two other Grand Slam champions (Keys and Sofia Kenin) and two other Grand Slam finalists.  If the seeds hold, we could get a rematch of the Wimbledon final in the quarters.  We could also get a fourth-round matchup between Gauff and Osaka, with the winner set to potentially face Keys in the quarters (then Swiatek in the semis).  

That's where I think Sabalenka has an advantage.  Her draw is much easier.  It's not a cakewalk by any means.  But, I'd much rather be in the top half of the women's draw than the bottom half.  And that, I think, will pay dividends for Sabalenka later in the tournament.  While the heavy hitters on the bottom half are beating the crap out of each other, she can take advantage of her draw and save some bullets for the later rounds, where, if she's lucky, she won't lose to an American.

With the way this year has gone, it would be almost fitting to see the American women make it 4-for-4 in Grand Slam finals.  It is the US Open after all!  However, I'm not sure that's in the cards.  Like Sinner, Sabalenka is the best hardcourt player in the world.  She'll prove it by defending her title and avoid going all of 2025 without winning a Grand Slam.

SEC Going to Nine

After years of talk and speculation about when/if it would happen, the SEC announced today that it's going to a nine-game conference schedule for football.  The coaches had actually been the ones pushing for it, so you know they're not gonna be too upset, even if it means fewer 70-3 wins over Mercer.  And it'll make everyone else happy, too.  ESPN gets eight more SEC conference games, the Big Ten can stop whining about the SEC playing one fewer conference game than them, and the in-state rivalry games against ACC teams (which had been the sticking point) won't be affected.

Strength of schedule is a key component considered by the College Football Playoff selection committee.  The SEC had already put in a provision that you must play one non-conference game against the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 or Notre Dame.  Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Louisville are all in the ACC, so that provision was already being met by their in-state rivals anyway.  What it does mean for the SEC schools, really, is replacing a guarantee game (at home) with another conference game.  Which obviously means (likely) eight additional losses, which is one thing they won't like.

While it's been a topic of discussion for a while, the timing of this isn't a coincidence.  ESPN is launching its direct-to-consumer streaming service very soon.  One of ESPN's biggest properties is SEC football.  They just got eight more SEC conference games for that service.  Yes, they traded 16 non-conference games for them, but people would much rather see Alabama-Texas than LSU-Lamar, so is that even really a loss?

This makes a lot of sense for the SEC schools for a lot of reasons.  The first and most obvious is that it means they'll play everybody else in the league at home at least once every four years.  Under the division structure, they'd play the same teams every year and sometimes go more than a decade with a team from the other division not visiting their stadium.  More than 10 years without playing a conference opponent at home!  That's just absurd!

From a competitive standpoint, there was some inherent unfairness in that.  Teams like Mississippi State would have to play Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M AND Mississippi every year while maybe not playing Vanderbilt.  On the flip side, Georgia's opponents in the SEC East included Vanderbilt, South Carolina and Kentucky.  I know it's the SEC and everyone is good, but even the best leagues have teams at the bottom.  Likewise, Alabama's a Top 10 team every year, so they weren't exactly the easiest opponent for SEC West teams.

Frankly, they probably should've done this last year when Texas and Oklahoma joined the SEC.  I know they were talking about it then.  Because setting up a nine-game schedule with 16 teams is actually pretty easy.  They'll play three permanent opponents (which may not necessarily be permanent), while the other 12 will be six on, six off.  I thought it would be a two-year cycle, but it looks like the six they play and the six they don't play will flip every year.  So, they're playing everybody at least once every two years, which is actually much better.

Three permanent opponents preserves the big rivalries, too.  They couldn't just do one permanent opponent.  Because some schools have more than one rival they want to play annually.  And, seriously, how could you decide between Oklahoma and Texas A&M for the permanent rival of Texas?  LSU would also like to play both of those schools annually, as well as probably Alabama.  Florida-Georgia and Florida-Tennessee, etc.  So, figuring out two permanent opponents for each team is actually pretty easy.

Not every team necessarily has a third natural rival, though.  That's why having that third "permanent" opponent possibly change isn't a bad idea.  You aren't touching Auburn-Alabama or Georgia-Florida.  That's obvious.  But, it's very easy to envision them basing that third "permanent" matchup on games they want to make sure happen every year.  That could mean Alabama-Georgia, then, if Georgia and Texas are the two best teams, you swap that out for Georgia-Texas.  I like that they're giving themselves some flexibility on that.

The expanded College Football Playoff and the emphasis on strength of schedule are key points here, too.  The SEC was hesitant to add a conference game when it was four-team playoff because a second loss (even to a Top 5 opponent) would kill your playoff chances.  And the SEC is guaranteed to have a collective eight additional losses starting next season.  That's offset, though, because the committee values a road loss to a good team more than beating up on an FCS team at home now.

I do feel somewhat bad for those FCS or lower-level FBS teams who'll likely end up getting dropped from SEC schedules as a result.  For a long time, I was a big critic of guarantee games.  But they're a vital source of revenue for the team receiving that guarantee.  Traveling to Arkansas to lose by 40 (or more) is worth it for the exposure.  And because of the impact it has on their budget.  The money brought in from guarantee games is one of the biggest sources of funding for those Athletic Departments (not just the football programs).

What's interesting, though, is how every SEC team except for Mississippi State only had three non-conference games scheduled for next season, allowing them to make this change effective in 2026.  Whether the nine-game conference slate was already in the works and was only just made public today, I don't know.  But the fact that they all had an open weekend where another conference game could be inserted seems to be more than a convenient coincidence.  And I'm sure the SEC will work the dates so that they can all still play their ACC rival in the final game like they always do.

You have to think the disagreement with the Big Ten over the composition of the College Football Playoff moving forward came into play here, too.  The Big Ten's big issue was how not everybody was playing the same number of conference games.  That's no longer the case, at least in regards to the SEC.  The ACC is sticking with eight conference games for now, but don't be surprised if they add a ninth soon, too.  And, don't forget, the ACC has the scheduling agreement with Notre Dame, which is an ACC school in every other sport.  However, the ACC is much less of a factor in the Big Ten's stance than the SEC was.

Now that they've eliminated a major sticking point, this likely means the College Football Playoff will, indeed, expand beyond 12 teams.  And it'll probably be closer to the SEC/Big 12/ACC's preferred format with five automatic bids and the rest at-large.  The Big Ten's whole thing about wanting a guaranteed number of bids per conference was obviously self-serving, but their stance was based on having that additional conference game the SEC didn't have.  Can't make that argument anymore!

So, while not overly surprising, this is still a positive development across the board.  The SEC had been thinking about it for a long time.  Now they finally pulled the trigger.  The nine-game SEC schedule that was seen as inevitable will soon become a reality.  Which is a win for all involved (even if eight teams will end up with an extra loss).