Monday, March 18, 2024

MLB 2024 (NL West)

With the Dodgers and Padres starting the season this week in Korea, I had to change the order of my annual MLB preview.  I normally start with the AL East and end with the NL West.  But, since it's two NL West teams playing a week before everybody else, it wouldn't make sense not to start there.  Especially since the NL West is one of the easier divisions in all of baseball to forecast.

The Dodgers certainly flexed their financial muscle over the winter, committing half a billion dollars to Shohei Ohtani and Yoshinobu Yamamoto.  They scored both of the two biggest free agents, basically solidifying their status as both a World Series favorite and one of the most hated teams in baseball for the next decade.  Although, being a World Series favorite in March doesn't guarantee you anything in October.  The Dodgers, in fact, have lost in the Division Series to another NL West team in each of the last two years.

Last year, it was the Diamondbacks who knocked them off en route to a surprise World Series appearance.  It would be foolish to think they can finish ahead of the Dodgers over the course of 162 games, but as they proved last year, all you need is get a wild card, then anything can happen.  And Arizona will definitely be in the wild card mix.  I think the Giants will, too, especially now that they've landed Blake Snell.

San Diego lost 60 percent of its starting rotation, so they traded Juan Soto to the Yankees for every young starting pitcher they had (and could use right about now).  They knew that they had no chance of re-signing Soto, so it was a good move for the future.  As for the Rockies, they can't be as bad as they were last season.  Can they?

1. Los Angeles Dodgers: Only one team can boast a 1-2-3 of Mookie Betts, Freddie Freeman and Shohei Ohtani.  So, yeah, their lineup is pretty good!  The whole plan to have Betts play second (or is it short?) regularly is interesting, but who am I to question Dave Roberts?  He sure seems to know what he's doing.  And it freed up right field for Jason Heyward, so I can see the thought process behind it.  So, add Betts to the list of Dodgers utility guys (which now again includes Kike Hernandez).  What Hernandez's return gives them more than anything is depth, which they lacked last year.  They're even talking about having Ohtani play the outfield (I'll believe it when I see it).

I haven't even talked about their pitching staff yet.  A staff that doesn't even include Ohtani!  Even without him, the Dodgers have like seven starting pitchers (eight when Kershaw returns).  So, they're actually well-equipped to handle the inevitable pitching injuries for a change.  As much as I love Brusdar Graterol and Blake Treinen, I can see them adding a closer at the deadline.  Because, who we kidding?  A lot needs to go wrong for this team to not be playing in October!  And even then, they'll still be one of the six best teams in the National League.
Projected Lineup: Mookie Betts-SS, Freddie Freeman-1B, Shohei Ohtani-DH, Will Smith-C, Max Muncy-3B, Jason Heyward-RF, Teoscar Hernandez-LF, Gavin Lux-2B, James Outman-CF
Projected Rotation: Yoshinobu Yamamoto, Tyler Glasnow, James Paxton, Bobby Miller, Walker Buehler
Closer: Blake Treinen
Projected Record: 102-60

2. Arizona Diamondbacks: No one saw the Diamondbacks coming last season.  That certainly won't be the case this year.  And, while it might be a stretch to say another World Series run is in the cards, they return essentially the same team, so a return trip to the playoffs isn't out of the question.  Not by a long shot.  Especially since I'd argue that they might even be a little better with Eugenio Suarez at third and Joc Pederson (who continues making his way through the NL West) DHing.

And they've got one of the best 1-2 combos atop the rotation in Zac Gallen and Merrill Kelly.  Of course, you need more than two starters, which is what ultimately cost them in the World Series.  Eduardo Rodriguez gives them that third starter this year, and they'll also get a full season out of Brandon Pfaadt.  The rotation depth will be a key, and they especially need Gallen and Kelly to stay healthy.  The bullpen, anchored by closer Paul Sewald, is definitely one of their biggest strengths.
Projected Lineup: Corbin Carroll-RF, Ketel Marte-2B, Christian Walker-1B, Eugenio Suarez-3B, Lourdes Gurriel Jr.-LF, Joc Pederson-DH, Alek Thomas-CF, Gabriel Moreno-C, Geraldo Perdomo-SS
Projected Rotation: Zac Gallen, Merrill Kelly, Eduardo Rodriguez, Brandon Pfaadt, Tommy Henry
Closer: Paul Sewald
Projected Record: 88-74 (Wild Card)

3. San Francisco Giants: It took almost the entire winter, but Blake Snell has finally signed!  He'll be a San Francisco Giant for the next two seasons.  So, now they have both last year's Cy Young winner and runner-up atop their rotation.  That'll certainly change their outlook big time!  Especially because their rotation was looking very thin behind Logan Webb.  What they do boast, however, is a first-rate closer in Camilo Doval!

They sure look like a team that'll need to win games 3-2.  Because their offense isn't as strong as their pitching.  Although, it's definitely gotten better.  After striking out on free agent after free agent over the past few years, they finally landed a big fish in Korean center fielder Jung Hoo Lee.  They've also added Jorge Soler and Matt Chapman, which makes their lineup much deeper than it's been in recent years.  I still think they're missing something.  But getting Snell was huge!  And that could be the difference between the Giants making the playoffs or not.
Projected Lineup: Jung Hoo Lee-CF, Michael Conforto-LF, Matt Chapman-3B, Joey Bart-C, Jorge Soler-DH, Mike Yastrzemski-RF, LaMonte Wade Jr.-1B, Thairo Estrada-2B, Marco Luciano-SS
Projected Rotation: Logan Webb, Blake Snell, Kyle Harrison, Jordan Hicks, Alex Cobb
Closer: Camilo Doval
Projected Record: 86-76

4. San Diego Padres: After a few years of going all-in and getting nothing to show for it, the Padres went the other way this offseason.  They knew they wouldn't be able to keep Snell or Soto, so they got younger and reloaded instead.  They still have their superstars, too.  So, even without Soto or Trent Grisham, their lineup still includes Manny Machado, Xander Bogaerts and Fernando Tatis Jr.  They also think very highly of Jose Azocar, who takes Soto's place in the outfield.

One of their goals in the Soto trade was to acquire starting pitching.  They sure got it in the form of Michael King (whose inclusion was the holdup), Randy Vasquez and Jhonny Brito.  They also snagged a pitcher that the Yankees wanted in Dylan Cease.  So, their rotation actually isn't that bad.  It's certainly better than most people initially thought it would look.  The window isn't completely closed on the Padres.  Other than their NLCS run in 2022, they haven't really put together a whole season with this group.  If they can do it this year, they could surprise.
Projected Lineup: Ha-Seong Kim-2B, Xander Bogaerts-SS, Fernando Tatis Jr.-RF, Manny Machado-DH, Jake Cronenworth-1B, Jurickson Profar-LF, Jose Azocar-CF, Graham Pauley-3B, Luis Campusano-C
Projected Rotation: Yu Darvish, Joe Musgrove, Dylan Cease, Michael King, Randy Vasquez
Closer: Robert Suarez
Projected Record: 73-89

5. Colorado Rockies: Simply put, there isn't a lot of talent in Colorado.  There's really no way to sugarcoat it.  Last season, the Rockies lost 100 games for the first time in franchise history, and it wouldn't be a surprise if they do it again this year.  Not losing 100 is a much more realistic and attainable goal than making the playoffs.  Because this team doesn't have a chance of competing in this division. 

Kris Bryant used to be a star, and he's the closest thing the Rockies have to one.  The Kris Bryant who plays in Colorado is a shadow of the Kris Bryant who played in Chicago, though.  Yes, Elias Diaz was the MVP of the All*Star Game last year.  And Ryan McMahon isn't bad.  But this team is a far cry from the Todd Helton-Larry Walker days.  Kyle Freeland and Cal Quantrill are decent, but that's really all I've got to say about the pitching staff.
Projected Lineup: Brendan Rogers-2B, Ryan McMahon-3B, Kris Bryant-1B, Nolan Jones-LF, Charlie Blackmon-RF, Ezequiel Tovar-SS, Elias Diaz-C, Elehuris Montero-DH, Brenton Doyle-CF
Projected Rotation: Kyle Freeland, Cal Quantrill, Dakota Hudson, Austin Gomber, Ryan Feltner
Closer: Justin Lawrence
Projected Record: 61-101

Sunday, March 17, 2024

Joe (Women's) Bracketology, 2024

Women's college basketball has never been hotter!  I'm not saying that just because Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese are the two biggest stars in the sport right now (men or women).  They're certainly a big part of it, and the show they put on in last season's National Championship Game was something else!  The women took that well-deserved Sunday afternoon on ABC showcase and ran with it, and this season has been an exceptional display.

Clark and Reese continued to be the story in 2023-24, but so did South Carolina.  Dawn Staley's team was undefeated heading into the NCAA Tournament last season, when they lost to Clark & Iowa in an outstanding Final Four game!  South Carolina enters the NCAA Tournament again (although, not without some controversy) and will be the clear No. 1 overall seed for the second straight year. 

Iowa's a clear No. 2 overall.  Although, because they're sticking with that ridiculous two Regional format, they and South Carolina will both play the second weekend in Albany.  The other Regional site is in Portland, where two Pac-12 teams will be the No. 1 seeds.  Whether it's USC 3/Stanford 4 or the other way around doesn't really make much of a difference.  They're likely both 1-seeds and they're both going to the Western regional site.  The only difference is one will get South Carolina in the Final Four and the other will get Iowa.  

It's actually been a bit of a banner year for the Pac-12 in its swan song.  UCLA's also a Top 10 team, and it's looking like they'll have five teams hosting in the first weekend, with Oregon State and Colorado likely joining those three.  For comparison's sake, the Big Ten should have three first/second round hosts, but no other conference will have more than two.

The major conferences have all had solid years.  As a result, the tournament field should be very top-heavy with major-conference teams.  Gonzaga (which might host the opening weekend) could be the only mid-major team that gets an at-large bid...and that's only because they lost to Portland in the WCC Championship Game!  If not for that Gonzaga loss, it's very possible that all 36 at-large bids would've gone to just six conferences.  (It'll be interesting to see how next season's conference realignment affects that.)

With all that in mind, making a mock women's bracket is much easier than making a mock men's bracket.  That's always the case, especially now that all of the conference tournaments in the major conferences are over before the men's tournaments start.  They don't have the chaos that happened on Saturday on the men's side.  There are no teams playing themselves in or knocking somebody out in the final days before Selection Sunday...although I'm sure that doesn't make the wait feel any shorter for the bubble teams.

They also get significantly more time on Sunday to finalize the bracket.  The men's games don't end until less than an hour before the Selection Show.  Meanwhile, there are only a handful of women's games, all in one-bid leagues, and they're all done by mid-afternoon, well before the Selection Show, which is after the men's.  That would be great for building the suspense if there was any, but, like the men, the top teams in the women's bracket seem pretty set.

Also, I'm sorry, but the two Regional site thing is beyond stupid!  There are four Regionals, but only two sites?  Why?  It must be cheaper, which is the only conceivable reason I can think of why they do it.  Because it certainly doesn't do anything to grow the game.  You would think they'd want to spread it around and go to more places, especially since the first weekend is played on campus.  They've already announced the sites for 2025 and 2026.  I sure hope this two-Regional experiment, which is in its second season, is done after that.

My other big gripe with the two Regional format is that it's beyond confusing!  Even when they went from naming them by region to naming them by site, there were still four distinct Regionals!  Heck, they even gave the Regionals different names when the entire tournament was in San Antonio in 2021!  Now, we get "Albany 1" and "Albany 2," as if that clarifies anything!

So, in my bracket, we're rectifying that problem.  Only one Regional will be named after the site.  The other in that location will get the "East" or "West" distinction.  Which means South Carolina gets "East," Iowa gets "Albany," USC gets "West" and Stanford gets "Portland."  As for the whole bracket, here it is...

EAST
Columbia: 16-UT Martin/Presbyterian at 1-South Carolina (1), 8-North Carolina vs. 9-Princeton
Bloomington: 13-Cal Baptist at 4-Indiana, 5-Kansas State vs. 12-Missouri State
Corvallis: 14-Portland at 3-Oregon State, 6-West Virginia vs. 11-Mid Tennessee
South Bend: 15-Norfolk State at 2-Notre Dame, 7-Mississippi vs. 10-Maryland

PORTLAND
Stanford: 16-Jackson State at 1-Stanford (4), 8-Iowa State vs. 9-Michigan State
Spokane: 13-Eastern Washington at 4-Gonzaga, 5-Syracuse vs. 12-Chattanooga
Raleigh: 14-Rice at 3-NC State, 6-Utah vs. 11-Marquette/Texas A&M
Austin: 15-UC Irvine at 2-Texas, 7-UNLV vs. 10-Auburn

ALBANY
Iowa City: 16-Sacred Heart/Holy Cross at 1-Iowa (2), 8-Florida State vs. 9-Alabama
Boulder: 13-South Dakota State at 4-Colorado, 5-Oklahoma vs. 12-Fairfield
Los Angeles (UCLA): 14-Kent State at 3-UCLA, 6-Duke vs. 11-Green Bay
Baton Rouge: 15-Maine at 2-LSU, 7-Creighton vs. 10-Miami

WEST
Los Angeles (USC): 16-Texas A&M-Corpus Christi at 1-USC (3), 8-Nebraska vs. 9-Mississippi State
Blacksburg: 13-Florida Gulf Coast at 4-Virginia Tech, 5-Baylor vs. 12-Richmond
Storrs: 14-Drexel at 3-Connecticut, 6-Louisville vs. 11-Vanderbilt/Michigan
Columbus: 15-Marshall at 2-Ohio State, 7-Tennessee vs. 10-Kansas 

As I noted earlier, the only real difference between the No. 3 and No. 4 overall seeds for the two Pac-12 teams is which one gets South Carolina and which gets Iowa.  Since I gave USC the higher seed, it's the Trojans against their future conference rivals in the Final Four, while the other matchup pits South Carolina against Stanford.  That's assuming, of course, all four 1-seeds get to Cleveland, which is far from a certainty.  Not with how strong the women's game has been this season!

Would people love to see the clear top two teams--South Carolina and Iowa--meet for the National Championship?  Of course!  And there's certainly a very strong possibility that will happen.  It wouldn't be shocking if it didn't, though.

Saturday, March 16, 2024

Joe (Men's) Bracketology, 2024

When I first started putting my "final" bracket together last night, it didn't look like this.  Purdue was my No. 1 overall seed.  They no longer are.  Fortunately, the 1- and 2-seeds all seem to be pretty set, so all I had to do there was switch which part of the bracket each region was.  I didn't actually have to move any teams around or take anybody out who I had in.

Then Arizona and Washington State both lost in the Pac-12 semis.  I had Colorado in the field, but in the First Four.  They can't go to Dayton if they're a conference champion, though, which means somebody had to get dropped into the First Four to make room for Colorado/Oregon as an AQ.  Then New Mexico, who I didn't even have making the tournament, won the Mountain West Tournament, which did knock somebody out.  Same with NC State winning five games in five days to pull off the shocker in the ACC.  Sorry, Mississippi State and South Florida!

The upsets in the Pac-12 and Mountain West were also bad news for the mid-major bubble teams.  Because I don't see any way either Indiana State OR Richmond gets in now.  Especially now that either UAB or Temple is getting the American's AQ.  So, that's a fourth team losing its spot entirely and another being relegated to the First Four because of conference tournament upsets.

Every other conference tournament remaining is either a one-bid league or both teams are already safely in, so that shouldn't impact who gets into the field.  Seedings?  Sure!  But all the bids have already been stolen.  It's just a matter of who steals them.

Purdue losing did have a bit of an impact on my bracket, but it was very minor.  As the No. 1 overall seed, I had the Boilermakers facing a First Four winner.  Now that they're not, that TBA 16-seed goes to Brooklyn to face UConn instead.  Which could actually be a good thing for Purdue.  They've lost to small schools from New Jersey (Saint Peter's and FDU) in the last two years.  New Jersey-adjacent Wagner figures to be headed to Dayton.  This way, Purdue can avoid them.  (And maybe the committee will throw them a bone and also keep Seton Hall and Saint Peter's away!)

Heading into Championship Week, the only real question was who would get the fourth 1-seed.  That was answered pretty quickly when Tennessee lost.  Although, with UConn in the East, Houston in the South and Purdue in the Midwest already set, whoever got the last 1-seed was getting sent out West regardless...and Arizona will be the No. 2 seed in the West, where the Regional is in Los Angeles!  So, ending up as a 2-seed might've put Tennessee in a better position (although, now they have to play UConn in Boston, so maybe not).

That's always an element of the bracket that I find fascinating.  They try to keep teams close to home, but it doesn't always work out in a nice, clean way.  Somebody has to travel regardless.  That's especially true this year since a majority of the first weekend sites are in the same general area of the country, and they also can't put Creighton in Omaha or Gonzaga in Spokane!

It's also interesting to see which lower-seeded teams end up having less travel.  BYU, for example, will probably be a 5-seed.  Do you send them to Salt Lake City, where they'll effectively have home-court advantage against a 4-seed in the second round?  (It's also worth noting that Salt Lake City is a Thursday/Saturday site, so it's one of only four BYU can go to!)  Likewise, do you put Washington State in Spokane as a 5-seed against a 4-seed that will definitely be traveling?

Before moving on to the bracket, a note on my bubble teams.  I had Seton Hall safely in, but those AQ bid-stealers has pushed them down to the point where I've got them headed to Dayton against Oklahoma, whose bye went to the Pac-12 winner.  The other First Four game is Michigan State, who can thank NC State for their extra NCAA Tournament game, against Texas A&M, who not only got in, but jumped over a couple teams, with that SEC Tournament run.

And with that, it's bracket time.  Since UConn's my No. 1 overall seed, that means it's East vs. West and South vs. Midwest in the Final Four.  Not that it makes any difference, but I have Houston as No. 2 overall (despite getting blown out by Iowa State!), with Purdue dropping to No. 3 overall.  That order could easily be reversed, though.  Either way, the defending National Champions are the clear No. 1 heading into the Big Dance.

EAST (Boston)
Brooklyn: 1-Connecticut (1) vs. 16-Wagner/Montana State, 8-Nebraska vs. 9-Texas
Omaha: 5-South Carolina vs. 12-VCU, 4-Kansas vs. 13-McNeese State
Pittsburgh: 6-Saint Mary's vs. 11-Oklahoma/Seton Hall, 3-Duke vs. 14-Akron
Memphis: 7-Nevada vs. 10-Colorado, 2-Tennessee vs. 15-Saint Peter's

WEST (Los Angeles)
Charlotte: 1-North Carolina (4) vs. 16-Stetson/Howard, 8-Boise State vs. 9-Northwestern
Pittsburgh: 5-BYU vs. 12-Grand Canyon, 4-Auburn vs. 13-UAB
Spokane: 6-Wisconsin vs. 11-New Mexico, 3-Baylor vs. 14-Colgate
Salt Lake City: 7-Gonzaga vs. 10-St. John's, 2-Arizona vs. 15-South Dakota State

SOUTH (Dallas)
Memphis: 1-Houston (2) vs. 16-Grambling, 8-Colorado State vs. 9-Drake
Brooklyn: 5-Washington State vs. 12-Vermont, 4-Illinois vs. 13-Yale
Charlotte: 6-San Diego State vs. 11-James Madison, 3-Kentucky vs. 14-Morehead State
Indianapolis: 7-Clemson vs. 10-TCU, 2-Marquette vs. 15-Oakland

MIDWEST (Detroit)
Indianapolis: 1-Purdue (3) vs. 16-Longwood, 8-Dayton vs. 9-Florida Atlantic
Spokane: 5-Texas Tech vs. 12-Samford, 4-Alabama vs. 13-Charleston
Salt Lake City: 6-Utah State vs. 11-Michigan State/Texas A&M, 3-Creighton vs. 14-Western Kentucky
Omaha: 7-Florida vs. 10-NC State, 2-Iowa State vs. 15-UC Davis

As for the conference breakdown, the Big 12 has been the strongest basketball conference in the country for the past few seasons, and that was the case once again this year.  I've got nine Big 12 teams in the field, including conference newcomers Houston and BYU (as well as soon-to-be Big 12 members Arizona and Colorado).  The SEC is next with seven, followed by the Big Ten and Mountain West with six each and the Big East with five.  The ACC gets four and the Pac-12 three, while the last three at-large bids go to the American, Atlantic 10 and West Coast Conference.

They call it March Madness for a reason.  We saw plenty of madness during Championship Week.  You can bet even more is in store once the Big Dance begins.  If these conference tournaments are any indication, we've got a heck of an NCAA Tournament coming up!

Thursday, March 14, 2024

Everything's Already Done

NFL free agency is always weird.  We already know who's getting cut and who's singing or being traded where like a week beforehand, and it all becomes official within the first few hours of the league year starting.  (Meanwhile, baseball season starts in two weeks and Blake Snell, last season's Cy Young winner, remains unsigned.)  I get that it's all because of the salary cap and teams need to make their decisions before the Draft, but it really does take a lot of the suspense out of it.

Although, I guess the one good thing about it is that it keeps the conversation going and gives people a chance to start talking about some new-look teams and familiar faces in new places.  It seems inevitable that some of them won't work out (a la Russell Wilson to Denver).  While others were actually probably better for the player's former team.  And, let's not forget, every team knows what they want to do in the Draft next month, so this was all just setting the stage for that.

What's always fascinating, too, is how so many moves are interconnected.  One signing has such a trickle-down effect.  You sign someone, so you release the guy who's already on the roster, so he ends up going somewhere else, and they cut or trade their incumbent to make room.  We've already seen that a lot this offseason, starting with the aforementioned Russell Wilson.

Wilson in Denver didn't work out, so the Broncos released him after two dreadful seasons.  He's signing with Pittsburgh, which means Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph needed a new home.  He's headed to Tennessee along with former Cowboys running back Tony Pollard and former Jaguars wide receiver Calvin Ridley.  The Jaguars, meanwhile, traded for Mac Jones to be Trevor Lawrence's backup, with Jacoby Brissett returning to the Patriots as the backup for whatever quarterback they end up drafting.

Jamies Winston has spent his entire career in the NFC South with Tampa Bay and New Orleans.  Now, he's off to Cleveland to backup DeShaun Watson.  Which, presumably, solves the Browns' quarterback situation.  Although, Joe Flacco, who resurrected his career in Cleveland, now heads to the QB Retirement Community that is Indianapolis.  How the guy from Florida the Colts drafted last year works into this equation, I don't know.

Tyrod Taylor is staying in New York, but going from blue to green.  Should the Jets go on a deep playoff run and Vice President Rodgers has to leave the team to begin his duties in Washington, it'll be Tyrod Taylor under center!  (Neither of those things will actually happen, but it's still funny to think about.)  Drew Lock is taking his place with the Giants, while Sam Darnold is off to Minnesota (more on that in a second) and Marcus Mariota will add the Commanders, who will almost certainly draft a quarterback No. 2 overall, to his list of teams.

Perhaps the biggest quarterback move of all, though, is one that very few people saw coming.  Kirk Cousins is headed to Atlanta on a four-year, $180 million deal with $100 million guaranteed.  He's since said that he can see himself ending his career with the Falcons.  Last season, they needed an elite quarterback desperately, so this could be the thing that puts them over the top in a crowded NFC South.  Likewise, the Vikings are suddenly nowhere near close enough to the Lions and Packers to be considered a serious contender in the NFC North.

Now, let's talk about the running backs.  One running back in particular.  After eight years in Tennessee, Derrick Henry is a Baltimore Raven.  Suddenly, the Ravens have a running game.  And they didn't just get one of the best running backs in football, they got a work horse.  Lamar Jackson doesn't have to do it all by himself anymore.  It sounds weird to be talking about the team that hosted the AFC Championship Game being flawed, but the Chiefs exposed those flaws, which the Ravens have now addressed.

With Jason Kelce retiring and the tush push likely being outlawed, Philadelphia figures to take a step back this season.  The Eagles did address their running game, though, going in-division to snag Saquon Barkley away from the Giants.  Giants fans weren't happy about Saquon's decision to leave, but the money they save was re-invested very well.  The much cheaper Devin Singletary is their new featured back.  They were able to bring in two offensive linemen.  And, to top it all off, they swung a trade with the Panthers for Brian Burns, giving them a second elite pass rusher to put opposite Kayvon Thibodeaux.

Joe Mixon wanted out of Cincinnati.  He got his wish and was traded to the Texans.  Austin Ekeler, meanwhile, signed with the Commanders, who are seemingly remaking their entire roster.  Washington is also bringing in longtime Seahawks linebacker Bobby Wagner to shore up their defense.  The Commanders are like the Bears.  It'll take a lot for them to become good again, especially in the NFC East.  But now that their ownership situation is settled, they're at least making the effort to put a competitive team out there this season.  Whether it'll work is an entirely different question.

Meanwhile, over in the NFC North, the interdivision inbreeding continues to run rampant.  The Packers upgraded at running back by signing former Raider Josh Jacobs to a four-year deal.  So, where did Aaron Jones, who's been Green Bay's starter for the past few seasons, go?  Minnesota!  And D'Andre Swift, who was jettisoned by the Eagles when they signed Barkley, is now in Chicago.

I haven't really touched on the defensive guys yet, and that's because there haven't been many big-name defensive players who've changed teams.  I've noticed a bit of a shift in philosophy over the past few seasons.  NFL owners and GMs are more willing to part with offensive talent.  It's not that they think they're expendable.  Rather, I think they just figure they can get similar production from a cheaper alternative, so it's not worth paying the massive contract.  On the defensive side, though, they're more willing to pay up and keep somebody they know can be a difference-maker.

Take the Chiefs.  The only things they've done so far are lock up Chris Jones (for five years) and Jrue Tranquill (for three), while tagging L'Jarius Sneed.  Now, I have no idea how much credence to put into those rankings that just came out that placed Clark Hunt towards the bottom as one of the worst owners in the league.  So, maybe free agents don't want to go there (which is a crazy thought in its own right because of the Chiefs' success and the chance to play for Andy Reid, but I digress).  But the guys who are already there are clearly happy, and Kansas City is happy with them, so why not continue the good thing you've had going for six years?

There are a lot of players in the NFL, and there's been a lot of movement in the first few days of free agency.  There figures to be more, too.  But the amount that gets done in early March truly is staggering!  It's a lesson that MLB could take.  Their season starts a lot sooner than football season!  There's no reason free agent football players should know where they're playing in 2024 before free agent baseball players.

Sunday, March 10, 2024

Who Got Better at the Deadline?

Heading into the NHL Trade Deadline, there were only a handful of teams that could legitimately be considered Stanley Cup contenders.  Now that the deadline has come and passed, I'm not sure if that list has actually grown or not.  But what I do know is that some teams absolutely put themselves in a better position to make a run into June...or beyond.

One team that's absolutely set itself up for "beyond" is the defending champion Vegas Golden Knights.  Frankly, I'm not entirely sure how Vegas is able to continually add big names with their big contracts, yet somehow still stay under the salary cap (Mark Stone can't be making that much money!).  This year, they did it again, adding Noah Hanifan (to give them four top-pair defensemen) and making the shocking last-minute move to get Tomas Hertl, who has six years remaining on his contract, from San Jose.

Vegas is currently in a fight just to make the playoffs, and the Knights' chances of getting in certainly improved.  And the Stanley Cup Playoffs are as much about getting in as anything else, so I'm not counting them out if they get there.  But they know that even if they do, they're still not as good as Vancouver, Colorado or even Winnipeg.  With Hanifan and Hertl in the mix beyond the final six weeks of this season, though, they're poised to remain among the top teams in the West next season and beyond.

Another team that made itself better at the Deadline was the Golden Knights' Stanley Cup Final opponent last season--the Florida Panthers.  The Panthers were already one of the best teams in hockey.  Adding Vladimir Tarasenko to a roster that already included Sam Reinhart, Aleksander Barkov, Matthew Tkachuk and Carter Verhaeghe made them that much better.  They also added a bottom-six forward in Kyle Okposo.  The Panthers didn't need to do much, but the moves they did make firmly established them as one of the favorites to come out of the East.

It'll by no means be easy for the Panthers to return to the Stanley Cup Final, though.  Because they're not the only team in the East that got better.  In fact, two of the teams they defeated in the playoffs last season also set themselves up for another deep postseason run.  Those teams are the Carolina Hurricanes and Boston Bruins.

Carolina has been chasing the Rangers in the Metropolitan Division all season.  Their chances of catching them went up as soon as they won the Jake Guentzel sweepstakes (the Rangers were also in on Guentzel).  They also took a flier on Evgeny Kuznetsov, whose career in Washington came to an unceremonious end.  If they get the version of Kuznetsov who helped the Capitals win the Cup in 2018, he and Guentzel are exactly the type of players who'll fit in seamlessly with the Hurricanes.

The Bruins, meanwhile, got Pat Maroon, so they might as well just cancel the playoffs and give Boston the Cup right now!  I kid, obviously, but the three-time Cup winner is a good addition.  They could've used someone with his toughness last season, when they got upset by the Panthers.  They're also likely thinking about a potential first-round series with Toronto, where somebody like a Pat Maroon could definitely make an impact.

That leaves the New York Rangers.  For weeks, the Rangers have made it known that they needed a top-line right wing and a third-line center.  They got the third-line center in Alex Wennberg, but the trade for a top-line right wing never materialized.  They watched Guentzel go to Carolina, and Anaheim's asking price for Frank Vatrano (who was previously a Rangers Deadline acquisition a few years ago) was too high, so they ended up with Jack Roslovic of the Blue Jackets instead.  No offense to Jack Roslovic, but he's not exactly who they were looking for.  Especially with the Panthers and Hurricanes both getting better.

I do get Rangers GM Chris Drury's thought process here.  He wasn't leveraging the team's future by trading away multiple prospects and/or draft picks (not to mention a high-upside NHL player in Kaapo Kakko) for a rental.  So, Drury was keeping the 2024-25, 2025-26 and 2026-27 Rangers in mind, while also betting that the 2023-24 team, which was already pretty good, is still good enough to make a Cup run with the pieces he did add.  This is the exact opposite approach than the Rangers used the last two seasons, when they made the splashy trades for Tarasenko and Patrick Kane.  Neither of those seasons ended with them lifting the Stanley Cup, so why not try it this way?

Out West, meanwhile, it wasn't just Vegas making moves.  Like the Rangers, Colorado didn't make a big splash.  The Avalanche did make some minor trades, though, improving their depth.  There's also rumblings that they'll get their captain, Gabriel Landeskog, who's been out all season due to injury, back for the playoffs.  That would be just as big an addition as anybody they could've traded for.

Everybody in the West will be chasing Vancouver, though.  The Canucks' didn't do anything at the Deadline.  Because they didn't need to!  Which is because they didn't wait until the Deadline.  They struck first and got Elias Lindholm at the All*Star Break, so he's been a Canuck for a month already!  Like the Panthers and Golden Knights, they were already damn good and got a whole lot better!  The Canucks don't have to worry about making the playoffs.  They're thinking Stanley Cup, which is why they struck early to land Lindholm.

Then there's Edmonton.  We already knew the Oilers have loads of talent.  That talent is top-heavy, however.  So, they addressed their depth, bringing in Adam Henrique (another Rangers target), among others.  While it makes them deeper, does it make them deep enough?  I'm not sure.  My guess is probably not.  They do seem better equipped to make a deep playoff run than they did even a week ago, though.

Only one team will end up winning the Cup.  Obviously.  So, at least seven of the eight teams I've mentioned will be disappointed at the end of the season.  And I didn't even talk about teams like Toronto, Tampa Bay, Dallas and Winnipeg.  All of them can also make a legitimate case as a Stanley Cup contender, as well.  Because, don't forget, the Stanley Cup Playoffs are sometimes just as much about who has a hot goalie as anything else.

With that in mind, it wouldn't surprise me if none of these teams end up even playing for the Cup!  Look at the Panthers last year.  They only got in because Pittsburgh lost to Chicago in the last game of the season, and nobody had them beating the Bruins.  Let alone winning the East!  If I had to bet, though, it would be one of the contenders who made themselves better at the Deadline who end up hoisting the Stanley Cup in June.

Saturday, March 9, 2024

Full Gender Equity In Paris

On International Women's Day, the IOC made the most apropos announcement it could.  And it was an announcement that was a long time coming.  For the first time in Olympic history, there will be full gender equity this summer at the Paris Games.  After women made up a mere 34 percent of the athletes at the 1996 Games in Atlanta, just 28 years later, half of the Olympic athletes will be women.

It's fitting that this will happen in Paris, too.  It was 124 years ago in Paris that women competed in the Olympics for the first time.  While the 1896 Games featured 43 men's events and no events for women, 22 women took part in 1900.  There were women's events in golf and tennis, and some women also participated in the sailing competition.  They made up 2.2 percent of the athletes...which would actually be the highest percentage until a whopping 2.5 percent of the athletes were female at the 1920 Antwerp Games.

That number was up to 4.4 percent the last time Paris hosted a century ago.  Women competed in track & field for the first time four years later in Amsterdam, and the percentage of female athletes at the Olympics finally jumped over 10 percent in 1952.  The 20 percent barrier was broken in Montreal in 1976, and the amount of women athletes has gone up incrementally since then, peaking at 47.8 percent in Tokyo before finally hitting the 50 percent barrier this year.

While this will be the first time in Olympic history that the athlete distribution is even, it won't be the first time at an international multi-sport event.  That distinction belongs to the 2018 Commonwealth Games, where the number of men's and women's events was also equal.  At the 2022 Commonwealth Games, meanwhile, there were more women's events for the first time ever at a major international competition.

We won't know the exact splits until the Olympics get closer and countries name their national teams.  So, it's possible that it won't be an even 50-50.  There may even end up being more women than men, as was the case with the American team in Tokyo.  Regardless, the fact that we're even talking about it is huge.  And it shows how far women's sports have come.

There will be 329 medal events in Paris.  The distribution isn't fully balanced, but it's close--157 men's events, 152 women's events, 20 mixed events.  Of the 32 sports, 28 will have full gender parity and one of the four that doesn't--rhythmic gymnastics--is a women's-only sport (a maximum of two men per team will be eligible to compete in artistic swimming, the other previously women's-only sport, for the first time in Paris).

Distribution won't necessarily be the same at the sports where it is equal, either.  In soccer, for example, the men's tournament includes 16 teams, while the women's tournament is only 12.  Likewise, in water polo, it's 12 men's teams and 10 women's.  But, that's balanced out by having more quota places for women in other sports (such as rhythmic gymnastics and artistic swimming).

Not only that, but the IOC will be continuing a tradition that started in Tokyo.  Each nation will be allowed to select two flagbearers for the Opening and Closing Ceremony--one man, one woman.  Every country is also being encouraged to have at least one male and one female athlete.  Whether that actually happens remains to be seen, but it's clear what the goal here is.  As is the message that's being sent.  Women aren't just a part of the show.  They're the stars.  And they deserve the equal billing they're getting.

And, make no mistake, women will be THE stars!  Katie Ledecky.  Simone Biles.  Sydney McLaughlin.  And that's just on the American team!  There will be plenty of international women taking their star turn in Paris, too, from Femke Bol to Ariane Titmus to the Chinese divers.

Women will be showcased at an Olympics like never before--and not just because of the roughly equal athlete ratio.  For the first time, the final event of the Games, taking place just hours before the Closing Ceremony, will be the women's marathon.  And the marathon course is inspired by the 1789 Women's March on Versailles, a key moment in the French Revolution.

Frankly, this has been a long time coming.  And not just because the percentage of female participants has been trickling upwards at every Olympics since World War II.  The IOC has been very deliberate in adding women's events (sometimes dropping men's events and replacing them with women's events), but they haven't done that just to increase women's participation.  They've done it because more women are involved in sports than ever before all over the world and they wanted to make sure that representation is proportional.  So, really, it was just a matter of time until the number of female participants/events was equal.

This will obviously be the biggest stage where women's participation has been growing, but it's far from the only major sporting event where we've seen it.  Last year's Women's World Cup was the largest ever, a 32-team spectacle that was far and away the best tournament in history.  And the biggest star in college basketball (men's or women's) right now is Caitlin Clark.  Women's sports have never been bigger, so it's only fitting that we'll see them equally represented at the Olympics for the first time while on such a high.

If you think it's stopping in Paris, you've got another thing coming!  The IOC will make sure of it.  As IOC President Thomas Bach said in the announcement, "Our commitment to gender equity does not end in Paris.  We will continue to pave the way for women and work with our stakeholders.  The IOC will continue to lead and use the power of sport to contribute to a more equal society."

As Beyonce declared, "Who runs the world?  Girls!"  We'll see that on full display at the Paris Olympics.  Men and women may be fully sharing the Olympic stage for the first time, but no mistake whose show it'll really be.  Paris 1900 is when women first competed at the Olympics.  At Paris 2024, they won't just make up half the competitors, they'll be the stars.

Tuesday, March 5, 2024

Return of the Kickoff

A little over a month ago, Devin Hester was elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.  He was the first player voted into the Hall of Fame who was primarily a kick returner.  It also seems pretty likely that he'll be the last.  Because the kickoff return, one of the most exciting plays in football, has been all but eliminated from the game.

Hester was responsible for one of the most famous kick returns in history.  He took the opening kickoff of Super Bowl XLI to the house, the first time in Super Bowl history that the opening kickoff was returned for a touchdown.  Ten years earlier, Desmond Howard was named Super Bowl MVP after returning a kickoff 99 yards for a score in the Packers' 35-21 victory.  A kick returner winning Super Bowl MVP is unheard of in today's NFL!  So is three touchdowns on three consecutive plays, but that's exactly what happened in Super Bowl XXXV between the Ravens and Giants.  After Baltimore returned an interception for a touchdown, back-to-back kickoffs were returned for scores.  The craziest 36 seconds in Super Bowl history.

In Super Bowl LVIII, there were 13 kickoffs in nearly five full quarters of play.  None of them were returned.  Thirteen kickoffs, 13 touchbacks.  Not exactly the most thrilling thing to watch!  All because the NFL, in trying to make kickoffs safer several years ago, rendered them basically obsolete.

Fortunately, what happened in the Super Bowl may prompt a change.  When the kickoff rules were changed, it was in the name of player safety.  The play was deemed "too dangerous," so they set out to limit them.  Limiting the number of kickoffs returned in a game soon turned into every kickoff being a touchback, though, so that's not exactly the solution, either.  The Super Bowl simply highlighted a problem that's been brewing for a while.  Touchbacks may be safer, but they're awfully boring.  And if every kickoff's gonna result in a touchback anyway, why even have them then?

While it may not seem like it, the league isn't interested in completely removing the kickoff from the game.  That's what makes this such a difficult balancing act.  They want the kick return to be safer, but fans want to actually see kicks returned.  So, it looks like another rule change may be on the horizon.  Although, this time, it might actually encourage returns.

Last year, they implemented a rule change that would make any kickoff fair caught inside the 25-yard-line a touchback that's brought out to the 25 (it's also annoyed me to no end ever since they moved the touchback on kickoffs that it only comes out to the 25 on kickoffs, but to the 20 on all other touchbacks...why not just make all touchbacks come out to the 25?).  The result was only 22 percent of all kickoffs last season being returned, including none in the Super Bowl.  That's far too low.

So, after the Super Bowl, the NFL tasked special teams coordinators with creating a rule that both increases the chances of a return and maintains an acceptable injury rate.  They met last week at the Combine and came up with something that's very similar to a rule that was used last season in the XFL.  Now it'll go to the competition committee, where it'll need 24 of 32 votes to pass.

Under the proposed rule, the kicking team would line up at the receiving team's 40-yard line, with the receiving team lining up five yards away at their own 35.  And none of them are allowed to move until after the ball is touched.  That would eliminate the high-speed collisions that are often the cause of collisions.  The only exceptions are the kicker and returners.  The kickoff would still be from the 35, while the returners would theoretically have more room to run.

Here's where it gets interesting, though.  And where it would make the likelihood of an actual return much higher.  The ball needs to land within a "target zone" (presumably between the goal line and the 25).  If it does and rolls into the end zone, the touchback would come out to the 20.  If it goes into the end zone in the air, though, it's treated the same as a kickoff out of bounds and is placed on the 40.

Another play that has all but gone by the wayside due to recent rule changes is the onside kick.  The Saints essentially won Super Bowl XLIV because of their surprise onside kick to start the second half.  Trailing 10-6 at halftime, New Orleans recovered the onside kick and scored a touchdown to take its first lead of the game.  A thrilling moment on the biggest stage that has been essentially legislated out of the game entirely.

With all of the rule changes, recovering an onside kick has become nearly impossible.  Only five percent of all onside kicks were recovered by the kicking team last season.  It's gotten so hard to recover an onside kick, in fact, that there are some people advocating for getting rid of it entirely and instead giving the offense a chance to attempt a fourth-and-long play.  If they convert it, they keep possession.  While that's a gimmick I hope is never actually put into effect, the fact that it would probably yield a higher success rate than the current onside kick rule is telling.

They're also attempting to address the onside kick in the same kickoff proposal, although this one is a little less popular.  First, teams would only be allowed to attempt an onside kick when trailing in the fourth quarter.  So, in other words, they can only attempt one when everybody already knows it's coming.  They would need to declare it, as well, which removes any surprise factor.  The one benefit for the kicking team, though, is that they'd be allowed to line up in a 6-4 formation instead of 5-5.  The inability to "stack" one side is one of the main reasons why the onside kick success rate is so low, so that theoretically would give the kicking team a better shot at a recovery.

Whether either part of the proposal will have enough traction to pass is really the question.  I can easily see enough owners who are at least willing to try something getting on board.  And, if they look at the XFL's numbers, that's even more of a reason to get behind the changes.  During the 2023 XFL season, 93 percent of all kickoffs were returned and there were zero concussions.  So, it would definitely achieve the goal of once again making the kickoff return a part of the game while also not causing injuries.

The NFL also deserves some credit here.  It took them a while, but they finally realized that the kickoff, once one of the most exciting plays in football, has become one of the most boring.  And they want to do something about it.  With rules changes that, I must admit, don't sound too bad on paper.  Rules changes that they know would work.