Happy Leap Day

It's Leap Day!  We get an extra day once every four years, which coincidentally happens to be the Presidential election year and Olympic year.  (It was incredibly awesome to see this morning on the Today show an 84-year-old lady celebrating her "21st" birthday with a party hat and a beer!)

"Higher" is part of the Olympic motto and track & field is one of the biggest sports in the Olympics.  And there are plenty of images that immediately come to mind when you think of both track & field and the Olympics.  So, with this being Leap Day, it's only fitting that I celebrate some of the greatest leaps in history.

This list isn't just limited to track & field, either.  I mentioned it to someone at work today and he gave me a great suggestion--include dunks!  Basketball players are pretty high-flying, too, so that definitely works.  From Dr. J to Michael Jordan to Vince Carter literally jumping OVER Frederic Weis, there are plenty of examples of basketball players showing off their impressive ups, and they absolutely add some diversity to these rankings.  So, let's jump right to it...

10. Michael Jordan: His Airness contributed plenty of memorable moments over his career.  The selection could easily have been that ridiculous reverse jam over Patrick Ewing in the playoffs, but it's gotta be his performance in the 1988 Dunk Contest that takes the cake.

9. Javier Sotomayor: He's the only man ever to jump over 8 feet.  A couple years ago, Mutaz Essa Barshim and Bohdan Bondarenko both challenged his world record (I was there when they both jumped for it at the Adidas Grand Prix, and it was awesome), but neither has topped Sotomayor yet.

8. Julius Erving: I'm pretty sure the Slam Dunk Contest at the ABA All-Star Game was invented for Julius Erving.  It's been 40 years, and that dunk from the free throw line is still remarkable.

7. Jonathan Edwards: Just like Sotomayor is the only person in history to high jump over 8 feet, Edwards is the only person to go over 60 feet in the triple jump.  (And he actually did it twice in the same series at the 1995 World Championships.)  In the last 30 years, Christian Taylor is the only guy to even come close.  Fun fact about Jonathan Edwards: he's now a TV personality in Great Britain, and he hosts the IOC's host city announcements.

6. Yelena Isinbayeva: She's broken the world record so many times that it's hard to pick just one memorable jump.  But it's hard to top her winning the World Championship on home soil in Moscow in 2013, even though that wasn't one of her world record-setting jumps.

5. Vince Carter: The Olympic basketball teams made up of NBA stars were beginning to wear thin in 2000, and the U.S. almost lost a couple of times in Sydney.  But Carter still produced one of the most indelible images of the Sydney Games when he literally jumped OVER French center Frederic Weis, who had been a lottery pick by the Knicks a year earlier.

4. Dick Fosbury: Before Fosbury came along, people high jumped legs first.  Then he went over the bar head first and everything changed.  It was revolutionary at the time, but nowadays, you'd be hard-pressed to find a high jumper that doesn't use the "Fosbury Flop."

3. Mike Powell & Carl Lewis: It was one of the most memorable head-to-head duels in track & field history.  At the 1991 World Championships in Tokyo, the two rivals engaged in a competition for the ages.  Lewis, the greatest long jumper ever, had the best six-jump series in history--AND FINISHED SECOND!  He jumped further than the existing world record, but it didn't count because it was wind-aided (his best legal jump that night is the No. 3 mark all-time).  Instead, it was Powell that set the world record Lewis so badly coveted.

2. Bob Beamon: Powell broke the world record that had been set 23 years earlier at the Mexico City Olympics.  Before Bob Beamon came along, no one had ever jumped 28 feet.  He went right past that, leaping 29'2 1/2.  It's truly one of the most remarkable performances in sports history.  From that day on, shattering a world record at the Olympics has been referred to as "Beamonesque."

1. Neil Armstrong: No, this wasn't sports related.  It was only one of the most significant events in all of human history.  No one summed it up better than the man himself, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

Jaromir Jagr's Adjusted Stats

I saw something the other day about Jaromir Jagr and projecting how good his stats would be if he hadn't had so many interruptions during his career.  It's a fair question.  He's third all-time in both goals and points, but had all or part of five different seasons taken away for various reasons.  Where would Jagr ranked had he played a full NHL season in each of those years?

He's the only player old enough to have endured all three NHL lockouts.  He lost a half-season during the original lockout in 1994-95, then, like all of us, suffered through the lockout that cancelled the entire 2004-05 season.  As if that wasn't enough, he was there for Lockout 2.0 in 2012-13, too.  Lockout 2.0 came after his one season with the Flyers, which followed a three-year stint in the KHL.  So, adding it all up, Jagr has missed the equivalent of five full seasons during his NHL career (which is still 21 years long).

It's obviously an inexact science, but we can probably figure this out using some rough estimates.  Jagr went back to his Czech team during the 1994-95 lockout and scored 17 goals in 18 games.  He then played all 48 games for the Penguins and finished with 70 points (32 goals, 38 assists).  If he scored at the same rate over the course of a whole 82-game season, that would bring him up to 119 points (54 goals, 65 assists).

For 2004-05, it's tougher.  He played 49 games overseas that season, so those are the only numbers I have to work with.  He had 27 goals and 39 assists in those 49 games.  Averaging those totals over 82 games gives us 45 goals and 65 assists (110 points).

The missed numbers during the 2012-13 season are the easiest to figure out.  Jagr returned to HC Kladno in the Czech Republic for the first part of that season and played 34 games, the exact number chopped off the NHL schedule.  That means we can simply add his Kladno numbers (24 goals, 33 assists, 57 points) to what he did in Dallas and Boston that season (16 goals, 19 assists, 35 points).

So, adding in just the estimated numbers from the two missing half-seasons and the missing whole 2004-05 campaign, Jagr would have 91 more goals, 125 more assists and 216 more points.  That would bring his career numbers to 833 goals, 1230 assists and 2063 points.  He still doesn't touch Gretzky in assists or points, but would be only 61 goals behind the Great One.  And we haven't even factored in his time in Russia yet.

Speaking of his time in Russia, Jagr played three seasons for Avangard Omsk from 2008-09 to 2010-11.  The KHL season is roughly 50 games, so again we're doing some adjusting based on his goals/points per game.  In 2008-09, he had a line of 25-28-53 in 55 games.  Averaging that out over 82 games, Jagr's line would be 37-42-79.  In 2009-10, it was 22-20-42 over 51 games.  That averages out to 35-32-67 (an off year by Jagr standards).  During his final season in Russia, Jagr had 19-31-50 in 49 games.  That's obviously just over a point a game.  Overall, the averages came out to 31-52-83.

If those numbers had been put up in the NHL instead of the KHL, Jagr would be the NHL's all-time leading goal scorer.  Using those per-game numbers, he'd have 103 goals, 126 assists and 229 points over the course of 82 games.  And taking that, along with the lockout adjustments, Jagr would have career totals of 936 goals (44 more than Gretzky), 1356 assists and 2292 points.

This exercise was completely hypothetical, of course.  And I didn't take into account things like injuries.  But even accounting for that margin of error, it's clear that Jagr would be pretty close to the NHL's all-time record for goals (if he didn't already have it) if he hadn't had those five seasons taken away (although, three of them were by choice).

Of course, Jagr also has plenty of time to add to his existing totals.  We have no idea how much longer he plans to keep playing, but there are still a few teams he hasn't played for yet, so he's gotta try to get those out of the way before he hangs it up.  Besides, why quit now?  He's still performing at a high level, which is remarkable for a guy drafted in 1990 who made his NHL debut in 1991.  He's skating against guys who are literally half his age!

Jaromir Jagr is never going to claim a place alongside the Holy Trinity of Gretzky, Howe and Orr.  But there's no doubting his greatness either.  And I don't think there's any argument that he's the greatest European player in NHL history.

The Future of the Youth Olympics

Most of you are probably unaware of this, but the Winter Youth Olympics just ended in Lillehammer.  I don't blame you for not knowing.  The big show, of course, takes place later this year in Rio.  And NBCSN's coverage of the event was limited to hour-long nightly highlights.

From all accounts, the 2016 Winter Youth Olympics were a rousing success.  Unlike Sochi, it actually felt like winter and there was an abundance of natural snow.  And the atmosphere was just as great as it was during the spectacular 1994 Lillehammer Olympics.  (In a nice touch, the Opening Ceremony was on Feb. 12, the 22nd anniversary of the 1994 Opening Ceremony, and the Olympic cauldron was lit by Princess Ingrid Alexandra, whose father, Crown Prince Hakon did the honors 22 years earlier.)

The brainchild of former IOC President Jacques Rogge, the Youth Olympics are still young themselves (Lillehammer was just the second winter edition to go along with two summer versions), so they have plenty of time to grow.  And there are plenty of things about the Youth Olympics that make them worthwhile.  But National Olympic Committees are already showing dwindling enthusiasm about them and there is little to no media coverage, which, in turn, means little fan interest.

Innovation.  That's one of the Youth Olympics' biggest selling points.  It gives the IOC to try out some different events other than just what's on the regular Olympic program.  They're obviously the ones that have that "youth appeal" the IOC is so desperate for.  In fact, some events that were given test-runs at the Youth Olympics proved to be so popular that they were added to the Olympic program alongside the more traditional events.

Athletes still represent their countries, but there are a number of mixed-team events, too.  Sometimes there are even both.  At the 2014 Youth Olympics in Nanjing, the final event of track & field was an 8x100 meter relay where the teams were drawn at random, putting men and women from all different teams and all different events together.  (For example, you could have a female long jumper from Finland, a male hammer thrower from Japan, a female sprinter from Australia and a male distance runner from Canada all on the same team.)

As for the host cities, the Youth Olympics are intentionally smaller than the Olympics proper so that smaller cities/nations can still have the opportunity to host an Olympic event.  The first two summer versions were held in Singapore and Nanjing, while the 2018 edition is set for Buenos Aires.  And, as  a means of keeping costs down, cities aren't allowed to build any new venues for the Youth Olympics.  (Although, there's apparently no limit on the budget for the Opening Ceremony, seeing as Nanjing's was as unnecessarily over-the-top as you'd expect from any Chinese city.)

However, the Youth Olympics still haven't really picked up steam.  It's too early to say that it wasn't a worthwhile experiment, and they're not going to do away with Rogge's baby when he's still involved in the Olympic Movement.  But they've already tinkered with the event in hopes of making it more sustainable.

When the Youth Olympics started, they decided to hold them in the Olympic year, but the opposite season.  But the youth edition has inevitably been overshadowed by other events (Summer Youth Olympics are in the same summer as a World Cup, while the winter ones precede a Summer Olympics).  As a result, after the Buenos Aires Youth Olympics in 2018, the next edition won't be until 2023.  Maybe that will help increase the buzz around the Youth Olympics, which could use some if they're going to survive.

It's too early to say what the future might hold for the Youth Olympics.  Personally, I don't even know how I feel about them.  Are they really necessary in an already-crowded sports universe?  Is there enough of an audience for 14-17 year-old-athletes?  But at the same time, it's great for these young athletes to get this experience of a lifetime, and they're spreading the Olympic Movement both to new places and younger faces while giving new sports and events an Olympic platform that otherwise wouldn't be there.

Or maybe they just needed to go to Lillehammer.  The 1994 Winter Olympics were amazing.  They weren't exactly able to recreate those memories, but they did give the Youth Olympics an Olympic atmosphere.  They actually felt like they were a big deal.  We'll have to wait and see if that was the start of a trend or just chalk it up Lillehammer's magic touch.  One thing we do know for sure is that the Youth Olympics deserve a chance to grow.  And that's exactly what they're going to get.

Another Group of Death

Is there some sort of rule I don't know about where the U.S. automatically has to be placed into the toughest group possible in any sort of soccer tournament?  Or is this just FIFA's way of getting back as us for exposing the whole bribery thing?  Either way, we already knew it was going to be difficult for the U.S. to win the special Copa America Centenario on home soil.  Now it seems downright impossible.

We all knew that the Copa America Centenario was going to be a special event when they first announced it.  The United States and Mexico don't really gain much from playing only CONCACAF teams.  Everyone expects them to win, so any loss is a shocker.  And it'll negatively affect them.  Likewise, there are only 10 South American teams.  They probably get sick of playing each other.  It's nice for them to mix things up a little bit too, and to get the U.S. and Mexico in involved determines a true regional champion.  Even if it is a special, one-time-only event.

Having the event in the United States was a very smart idea, too.  Tons of major cities with big football stadiums that they'll be able to fill.  And the passionate fan bases of each national team will follow their teams and go to the games.

As is the case with all host nations in FIFA tournaments, the United States was seeded and automatically placed in Group A.  They also seeded Mexico, Brazil and Argentina.  No problems here.  That figured to be the most logical thing to do even before the draw was made.  The different pots for the draw were broken down logically, too.  The other four CONCACAF teams in one pot, the four best CONMEBOL teams in another, and the other four CONMEBOLs in the last group.

With Colombia, Chile, Uruguay and Ecuador all together in one pot, you knew that there were going to be at least one tough game for each of the four top seeds.  And you also knew that whoever drew Costa Rica wasn't going to be too happy, either.  Every soccer tournament has a "Group of Death," and whichever group Costa Rica ended up in would inevitably have that distinction.

So what do you know?  Who ends up drawing Costa Rica?  Well, that would be the hosts.  But not only is the highest-ranked unseeded CONCACAF team there, so is Colombia, the No. 8 team in the world.  And Paraguay, which is the best team in that second group from CONMEBOL.  Meanwhile, Brazil's Group B includes Ecuador, Haiti and Peru.  Mexico will have a tough time with Uruguay in Group C, but they're joined by a Jamaican side that's not very strong and Venezuela, the lowest-ranked team in the entire tournament.  Meanwhile, Group D is the second strongest behind Group A.  The opening game will be a rematch of the 2015 Copa America final between Argentina (No. 2 in the world) and Chile (No. 5).  Even if Panama and Bolivia aren't as strong, that game alone brings Group D up.

Argentina-Chile will be at Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, the same venue where a disappointing Super Bowl 50 was held.  The opening game of the tournament between the USA and Colombia will also be there.  So will a quarterfinal between the winner of Group C and the Group D runner-up, so it'll likely be Mexico or Uruguay against Argentina or Chile.  Basically, a venue pass (which is the only type of tickets you're able to buy right now) for Santa Clara is a pretty good deal.

Looking at the groups, Group A is the only one where the two quarterfinalists don't seem to be predetermined.  On paper, it'd be the United States and Colombia, but we all saw in the 2014 World Cup how dangerous Costa Rica can be.  Although, things usually don't go well for Costa Rica when they play their game at the U.S. in World Cup qualifying, so I'm not too  worried about that game.  I think the two biggest games, actually, will be the USA-Colombia opener and the final game between Colombia and Costa Rica.  The Americans play their two toughest games first, so, especially if they can beat Colombia, they could be in really good shape heading into the Paraguay game.  (That's the reverse of the World Cup, where the final game against Germany was the toughest one, but they already had the win over Ghana and the tie with Portugal.)

When the World Cup was in the United States in 1994, the U.S. was nowhere near as good as it is now, but got a win over Colombia in the second game, which is the reason they advanced into the knockout round.  This time, it's the opening game.  If you include the excitement of playing at home and the roar of that sellout crowd, I really like the American chances in that one.  Either way, I think the U.S. advances, but I definitely think at least a draw against Colombia is possible.  (If the U.S. finishes second in the group, their quarterfinal against likely Brazil is at Giants Stadium, so I'm actually kinda hoping for that.)

It's still way too early to make my predictions for the tournament,  I don't like the fact that the United States is in the Group of Death once again, but that might end up being a good thing in the long run.  And, frankly, winning this tournament seemed like a long shot anyway.  Not with Argentina, Brazil and Chile in the mix.  How do the U.S. and Mexico stack up against the true heavyweights of the region?  That's going to be the real test.

The Chase Is On

It's the third Thursday in February, which means Daytona is here.  And just like that, NASCAR's 36-race, 10-month odyssey to a championship begins.  And for NASCAR, this will be a year like no other.  For the first time, none of the Holy Trinity is an active driver (Jeff Gordon has moved upstairs to the booth), and there's a rookie on the pole.  Meanwhile, Tony Stewart is starting his last season as a full-time Cup driver, and he won't even be at Daytona!

As Kyle Busch showed us last year, though, you don't need to be at Daytona to win the Sprint Cup.  He actually didn't race until April in 2015, but dominated the rest of the season.  Kyle Busch was clearly the best driver on the Sprint Cup circuit last season.  Gordon might've been the sentimental favorite at Homestead, but the right guy ended up as the series winner.

What Kyle Busch's Sprint Cup victory proved, too, is that the Chase For the Championship works.  Under the previous points system, he would've been so far out of it because of those 10 missed races that winning the championship wouldn't have been something he'd even think was possible.  It still took NASCAR granting an exception to the rules that you have to enter every race for him to even have a chance last season, but giving it to him was the right move--in more ways than one.  Busch missed races because of injury.  He didn't deserve to be penalized for that.  Also, if the main criterion to qualify for the Chase is winning a race, and he was doing that repeatedly, why shouldn't he be able to go for the title?

I hope Kyle Busch's title last year was the start of a trend.  Because Tony Stewart deserves the same consideration in his final season.  Once Stewart comes back, if he's got a car good enough to win a race and he's a full-time driver, he should be eligible for the championship just like everybody else.

Stewart's pending retirement and Jeff Gordon's first year as a NASCAR commentator rather than a NASCAR driver mean the new generation of Sprint Cup stars is here.  And there's no more proof of that necessary than the fact that Chase Elliott is on the pole.  Elliott, the son of NASCAR Hall of Famer Bill Elliott, was tabbed by Jeff Gordon and Rick Hendrick to take Gordon's place in the No. 24 car.  They were looking for a ride to give this guy this season, and now we know why.  I have no idea how he's going to do in the actual race, but it sure looks like they made the right call by replacing Jeff Gordon with Chase Elliott.  He certainly looks like the real deal.

While Chase Elliott has already made a name for himself and established himself as the early front-runner for Rookie of the Year, the Chase for the Cup should be intense.  Kyle Busch is probably the best active driver in NASCAR, but Kevin Harvick is just one season removed from a championship of his own, and Jimmie Johnson has won six.  You know he's always going to be in the mix.  I also think this might be the year Dale Earnhardt, Jr., becomes more than just Dale Earnhardt's son and does something to justify his enormous popularity.  At the very least, I expect a good run from him at Daytona.  He always does well in restrictor-plate races.

Who else will be in the mix at the end?  You know the usual suspects will get their wins and get into the Chase, but who'll have the lasting power in September/October when it really matters?  There's always one surprise Championship contender.  It's really just a matter of who.  (For some reason, I think Carl Edwards might be that guy.)

Likewise, will new driver-owner and driver-crew chief relationships be beneficial or detrimental to the drivers?  That plays a much bigger role than some people might think.  And it often makes the difference between winning and losing a race, which in turn determines whether or not you get a spot in the Chase.

Perhaps what I'm looking forward to seeing the most, though, is who'll take the baton from Jeff Gordon.  He's been the Face of NASCAR for so long, and the job is now open.  It's there for the taking, and there are plenty of worthy candidates.  But whoever it is will have to earn it.

Times are a-changin' in the world of stock car racing.  The first season without Jeff Gordon since 1992 is also the last with Tony Stewart.  Meanwhile, we've got the most talked-about rookie since Danica Patrick sitting on the pole in NASCAR's biggest race of the year.  (And he won the Busch race.)

The time for hype is over, though.  Because, as Darrell Waltrip would say, "Boogity, Boogity, Boogity!  Let's go racing!"

Blowouts or Mercy Rules?

There's been a lot of publicity lately about a high school girls basketball game in Cleveland the other day that ended with a final score of 108-1.  While a 107-point blowout isn't good for anybody, it still beats what happened in another girls basketball game in Las Vegas.  The final score of that game was 51-2.  It could've been worse, but the winning team intentionally didn't score for the final 20 minutes of the game.  Why?  Because Nevada has a mercy rule where teams aren't allowed to win by more than 50 points.  And since they were trying to play by the rules, what resulted was NOT basketball.

You can see the video here.  Frankly, it's embarrassing.  I don't know which team it was worse for, either.  Is it worse for the team that's so uncompetitive that the other team has to try and find ways not to score?  Or is it worse to be on the winning team and go completely against your nature, just so the other team can feel better and the score looks more respectable?  Frankly, I don't see any winners in that situation.
I get the spirit of the rule, but who is it really helping?  In my opinion, it's more embarrassing when a team has to do that.  There's a difference between running up the score and simply being better than a team.  When you still have your starters in and you're pressing with two minutes left when you're up 30, that's running up the score.  When you're simply so much better than your opponent that the score is out of control early, what else are you going to do?  Short of stopping the game, there's very little that can be done to prevent such blowouts from happening when the talent level is so different.

Take the UConn women's basketball team.  They win every game by 40-something points.  Their first round game in the NCAA Tournament is usually over midway through the first half.  And have you seen the score of some of the U.S. Women's National Team's Olympic qualifying games?  They beat Puerto Rico 10-0 the other day!  That was Puerto Rico's senior national team, the best players on the island, and they were no match for the World Cup champions.  Yet you didn't have anyone calling out the U.S. for bad sportsmanship after that game.

Like it or not, blowouts happen.  Even at the highest level.  (You think the Denver Broncos weren't embarrassed after the Super Bowl two years ago?)  The unfortunate fact is that they're more prevalent at these lower levels, where the quality of teams is not always the same.  But coming up with ways to make scores less embarrassing doesn't do anything to help such situations.  In fact, it makes them worse.

If you have a larger school with more resources in the same league as a smaller school with fewer students, is that smaller school facing long odds?  Yes.  That's pretty much the entire plot of Hoosiers (one of my all-time favorite movies) in a nutshell.  If these blowouts happen regularly, there are really only two things that can be done to help level the playing field: reorganize the conference so that teams only face opponents they'll be competitive with, or leave things as-is and give them something to strive for.

The story of the Cal Tech men's basketball team is well-known.  Most of the time, they took the court knowing they were gonna get their butts kicked.  So what did they do?  They got better.  And that's happened for a lot of teams that used to be laughingstocks.

Unfortunately, there's no perfect solution to "prevent" blowouts.  With sports, especially at the high-school level, they're a fact of life.  That's what you get when teams that simply aren't on the same skill level are in the same town/region/conference.  No mercy rules or running clocks will do anything to stop that.

Do we see lopsided high schools scores more often than we probably should?  Yes.  Is it embarrassing for the players involved?  I'm sure.  But what happened in Las Vegas isn't the answer.  Everyone involved with that game should be embarrassed.  And I mean everyone.  Because it was unfair to ask the players to do that.  And the very fact that it happened is a problem.

Looking at the 2024 Logos

Wednesday was an important day in the 2024 Olympic bid race.  It was the day that the first bid books (which are the first real detailed documents discussing the city's plans) were due to the IOC.  All four cities submitted their documents in time, but three of them went a step beyond.  LA, Paris and Rome all revealed their official bid logos.  Still nothing from Budapest, but they've successfully squashed any attempts at a public referendum (which killed Hamburg's bid) so far, so it looks like they'll stay in the race until the vote.

We've learned a lot about the other three contenders and their vision for the Olympics, though.  Paris and Rome plan on using their iconic landmarks to provide the breathtaking backdrop of the Games, while any sporting venue you can think of in Southern California is included in LA's plan (but, interestingly, NOT the Rams' new stadium).

And the three logos that were released were all pretty cool, too.  Rome's is a stylized version of the Colosseum in the colors of the Italian flag.  Paris made the Eiffel Tower into a 24 (a company has claimed plagiarism because of the similarity to its logo, but unlike the Tokyo 2020 logo and that Belgian theater, there's enough of a difference here that I think it's OK).  The last to reveal its logo was Los Angeles, the City of Angels.  Naturally, the logo is an angel.  She's going towards the sun.

Why is the fact that the angel is going towards the sun significant?  Because the three cities revealed their bid slogans along with their logos, and LA's is "Follow the sun."  Paris, which had the incredibly stupid "Oui Paris" slogan when it lost to London for 2012, is going with the much better "The strength of a dream."  Rome has the worst slogan of the three--"The Italian art of the welcome."  Budapest, again, I don't know.  I'm sure we'll find out more details soon.

As for the three bidders that we do know stuff about, let's take a look...

LOS ANGELES

LA's bid includes mainly existing venues, some of which were used during the 1984 Games.  Some of them are fairly obvious (the LA Coliseum for Ceremonies and track & field, Staples Center for basketball, the Rose Bowl for soccer), while some seem kind of odd (swimming, diving and synchronized swimming at the new MLS stadium being built for LAFC, for example).  Their big one was beach volleyball in Santa Monica.  Sydney and Rio put beach volleyball on two of the most famous actual beaches in the entire world, while London gave us that ridiculously awesome temporary venue behind Horse Guards Parade with the London Eye in the background).  Beach volleyball as we know it was invented in Santa Monica in the 1940s.  It seems like the natural choice.

PARIS

I still view the Paris bid as the favorite.  They were viewed as the favorite for 2012 until London won in the final round of voting, and 2024 will be the 100th anniversary of the last time Paris hosted the Olympics.  On paper, this bid is better than the one for 2012.  Paris is taking the London approach to beach volleyball.  At the foot of the Eiffel Tower.  With 95 percent of the venues already existing or temporary, Paris is taking a very similar approach to LA in that regard (and that may be the wave of the future with Olympic bids).  And why not?  Because Paris has plenty of world-class venues that regularly host major events (the Stade de France, Roland Garros, the Champs Elysees), as well as a ton of great places to put temporary venues (not just beach volleyball at the Eiffel Tower, but equestrian at the Palace of Versailles, too).

ROME

Just like Paris, Rome has plenty of historic venues that they can use as an Olympic backdrop.  And they plan to use just about all of them.  The marathon finishing under the Arch of Constantine, which immediately brings to mind the image of a barefoot Abebe Bikila in 1960.  They'd also use the same Olympic Stadium from 1960 (and presumably not rebuild a brand new one on top of it like Tokyo's doing).  Beach volleyball?  How about the Circus Maximus?  And how cool would those medals ceremonies at the Colosseum be?  Rome's only proposed new permanent competition venues are the velodrome and a multi-sport venue, which is probably for what I call the "convention center" sports (several smaller sports are held at the same venue in every Olympics).

If I were picking a winner based solely on the bid books released today, I'd put Paris and Los Angeles in front, with Rome just a touch behind.  But there's still a long way to go.  They won't pick a winner for another 18 months.  A lot can happen between now and then.  What we do know, though, is that the 2024 Olympics will be pretty spectacular.  Wherever they end up being held.

A Survivor Athlete Season

The new season of Survivor starts tomorrow (I know, Steve Misevic and I are the only people who still watch Survivor, but bear with me for a minute) and former NBA player Scott Pollard is one of this season's castaways.  It started as a gimmicky thing, but the athlete being a part of the cast has become more than just something done for publicity.  In fact the athlete/castaway has become a regular part of the show.

Some of these sports personalities are more famous than others.  Some tried to hide their identities, thinking it would make them a target.  It didn't work for John Rocker, who was busted almost immediately, and got voted out primarily because of bigoted comments he made while he played for the Braves.  Jimmy Johnson knew there was no possible way he wouldn't be recognized, so he used that as part of his strategy ("I'm not going to win, so you might as well take me to the final").  But alas, Coach Jimmy didn't last very long on his season.

Then there's Gary Hogeboom, the former Dallas Cowboys quarterback who was the first athlete well-known to the viewers that appeared on Survivor.  He lasted until Day 30 and kept his identity hidden pretty much the entire time, only coming clean about his past as an NFL quarterback after he was voted out.  Gary actually made Survivor history as the first player to find and use a hidden immunity idol.

We've seen varying degrees of success for the athlete Survivors, too.  Miami Marlins President David Samson was the first person voted out when he was on the show, while Survivor: Africa winner Ethan Zohn was a pretty soccer player (Ethan got voted out early the next time he played, but that was because he was a former winner).

Obviously most of the athletes to appear on Survivor have been men, but there have been a few female athletes, too.  And they've had similar success.  Former WWE diva Ashley Massaro was the second voted out, while former Olympian Crystal Cox was part of the power alliance and ended up finishing sixth.

Believe it or not, there's been enough sports people in 32 seasons of Survivor that they could actually cast a whole nother season with just sports personalities that have already appeared on the show.  There have been 16, and dividing the tribes would actually be pretty easy.  Scott Pollard's the second NBA player.  There have been two MLB players (Jeff Kent and John Rocker), two longtime NFL players (Gary Hogeboom and Brad Culpepper), four women (thus each side gets two), etc.

So, of course, since I've been talking about this the whole post, you know I had to cast my own season using just the athletes/sports figures who've played Survivor.  My tribes are named after two great commissioners--Pete Rozelle and David Stern.

Stern Tribe
Scott Pollard (Kaoh Rong): 11-year NBA veteran
Jeff Kent (Philippines): five-time MLB All-Star
Jimmy Johnson (Nicaragua): two-time Super Bowl-winning coach, NFL On FOX broadcaster
Gary Hogeboom (Guatemala): 11-year NFL veteran
Crystal Cox (Gabon): 2004 Olympian, gold medalist (later stripped) in the 4x400 meter relay
Jean-Robert Bellande (China): professional poker player, won more than $2 million in his career
Kelly Bruno (Nicaragua): world record-holding amputee triathlete and runner
Ethan Zohn (Africa, All-Stars): winner of the third season; played goalie in the USL Second Division, founded Grassroots Soccer

Rozelle Tribe
Tyler Fredrickson (Worlds Apart): punter/kicker at Cal
David Samson (Cagayan): President of the Marlins
John Rocker (San Juan del Sur): six-year MLB veteran, pitched in 1999 World Series with Braves
Brad Culpepper (Blood vs. Water): nine-year NFL veteran, played in 131 games for the Vikings, Bucs and Bears
"Coach" Wade (Tocantins, Heroes vs. Villains, South Pacific): yes, I'm cheating a little bit by including Coach, one of the most popular Survivor players ever, but he was a D-III soccer coach for 13 years (hence the nickname)
Cliff Robinson (Cagayan): another one of the more recognizable names, a nearly 20-year NBA veteran and the 1992-93 Sixth Man of the Year
Taj Johnson-George (Tocantins): yes, this one's a reach, but I needed another woman, she's the wife of former Titans running back (and current Broadway star) Eddie George
Ashley Massaro (China): former WWE Diva

Since they're all athletes and they all (theoretically) know each other already, you know that wouldn't be a problem, and it would probably change strategies as a result.  As for who would win such a season, you'd have to think Coach and Ethan would be strong contenders.  But I'd also look out for Gary and Taj as dark horses.

Denver vs. Who?

Congratulations to the Broncos on winning Super Bowl 50.  And with that, we know where the 2016 NFL season will begin.  As the Super Bowl champions, Denver has earned the right to host the opening game on Sept. 8 (provided there isn't a Presidential Debate that night).  But who will they play?

Obviously, there are only eight possible teams that could visit Denver on Opening Night, but we also know that realistically it's less than that.  There are really only four teams coming to Denver in 2016 that are in the running to play on Opening Night--Indianapolis, Kansas City, New England and Carolina.  Each one is interesting for a different reason, but each one also presents a reason for the NFL not to choose it.

Let's start with Indianapolis.  The Colts weren't good this season, and there's no guarantee that they'll be much better next season.  Really the only reason to pick Indianapolis would be the Manning vs. Luck matchup.  But if Peyton Manning retires, like most people suspect, there goes your reason for the Colts to be Denver's Week 1 opponent.  I think it's safe to say that even on that off chance Peyton does return, Indy's out.

Kansas City was a playoff team in 2015 and is a division rival.  They've actually done a divisional showdown in the Kickoff Game only twice, both times when the Giants hosted as the defending Super Bowl champions (against Washington in 2008, against Dallas in 2012).  In this season's matchups, the Chiefs and Broncos played a really good game in Kansas City, then the Chiefs dominated the game in Denver when Peyton was pulled.  I expect the Chiefs to be good again next season, and both games against the Broncos will probably be worthwhile.  Except there's no cache in this one.  With a national audience watching, the NFL will want a sexier matchup than Chiefs-Broncos (which was a pretty good candidate for Thanksgiving night until the Broncos won the Super Bowl).

That leaves us with two--the Patriots and the Panthers.  I've got a feeling we're going to see either an AFC Championship Game rematch or a Super Bowl rematch.  While the Patriots might seem like the obvious selection, there are a couple things that might come into play.  If Manning retires, the Brady-Manning rivalry will be over.  That's always been the big selling point.  Likewise, the NFL's Deflategate hearing is scheduled for March.  It's possible that Brady will be re-suspended and miss the opener.  It'll still be a rematch of the AFC Championship Game, but a Broncos-Patriots matchup without either of the Hall of Fame quarterbacks is a much tougher sell.

So, if it's not the Patriots, the only realistic option left is the Panthers.  And, I have to admit, this is the most intriguing possibility.  They've never done a Super Bowl rematch in the opener, but, because of the interconference rotation and its predetermined home/away matchups, that possibility isn't always there.

This year they've got that chance, so why not take it?  MLB did.  They had the Mets at Royals Opening Day game set long before the two of them ended up playing in the World Series. It was sheer coincidence, but they wisely decided to run with it.  Mets-Royals will be the opening Sunday night game.  The NFL had that same lucky coincidence dropped into its lap.  Not only is the NFC South playing the AFC West next season, but the Panthers are visiting the Broncos!  We know it's going to be scheduled as a Sunday night game at some point, so why not just make it the opener?

Even if the Broncos are Peyton-less, the Super Bowl rematch is a very easy sell for both NBC (which will promote this game relentlessly during the Olympics) and the NFL.  It's also a chance to showcase the Panthers' stars like Cam Newton and Luke Kuechly and Josh Norman, which is something the NFL by and large failed to do in 2015 (despite going 15-1, the Panthers only had two national TV appearances during the regular season, a Monday night game against Indianapolis and on Thanksgiving in Dallas).  Sounds like a win-win to me.

Yes, they'd have to watch the Broncos raise their championship banner.  But you also know that the Panthers would also get plenty of extra motivation from that.  And after his performance in the Super Bowl (and after), you know Cam Newton wants to redeem himself.  Playing in one of the featured games of the NFL season, with a chance to exact some revenge on the team that beat them in the Super Bowl, would give him the opportunity to do just that.

If I had to guess, I'd say the Panthers will be Denver's opponent in the NFL Kickoff Game.  The Super Bowl rematch is too juicy to pass up, especially since you don't know if the matchup will be as worthwhile later in the season.  So, you heard it here first.  Mark it down in ink.  Panthers at Broncos in the 2016 NFL Kickoff Game on Sept. 8.

The Games Will Go On

As we hit the two-year-to-go mark until Pyeongchang 2018, it's less than six months until the Rio Olympics.  But all anyone can talk about is the Zika virus and how it's unsafe to go to Brazil right now.  There are even calls for the Olympics to be moved or cancelled.  What no one seems to realize is that we're way beyond the point where that would be an option.

I saw a Forbes article that made the whole "the Olympics should be cancelled" argument.  The ironic thing is that Forbes is a money magazine, yet they refused to look at the financial implications of why such a decision is impractical and impossible.  It's because of money that the Rio Olympics will go on as scheduled.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not making light of the Zika virus or any of the health concerns that people rightfully have.  Hope Solo, in fact, said that if she had a choice about going to the Olympics right now, she probably wouldn't go, primarily for health reasons.  That's her choice, and I don't want to downplay the threat that Zika poses.  But we have no way of knowing what things will be like in August.  For all we know, the crisis will be settled by then.  It's also worth keeping in mind that August is the Brazilian winter, when there are fewer mosquitoes.

Again, I'm not saying Zika shouldn't be taken seriously.  If people have legitimate concerns about their health and decide not to travel to Brazil as a result, that's a perfectly justifiable stance to take.  The World Health Organization and IOC are monitoring the situation, as is the Rio Organizing Committee, and all of sports federations are aware of what's going on, as well.  While it's impossible to say that traveling to Rio will be completely safe come August, you can bet these organizations will do everything in their power to make sure those who do make the trip to Brazil for the Olympics (which is a once-in-a-lifetime experience for most people) will be able to do so safely.

This is the latest black mark against Rio leading up to these Olympics.  When Rio was award the Games in 2009, Brazil was thriving economically.  Now the country is mired in recession (paying for both a World Cup and an Olympics probably didn't help) and has already had to drastically reduce spending.  There's also the polluted water in the sailing and rowing venues that Olympic organizers have vowed to clean up, yet still haven't, and are now pretty much out of time to do so.

But cancelling or moving the Olympics isn't the answer.  I forget who it was that said it, but the quote I saw regarding a possible cancellation was "only war has done that."  Likewise, it's impractical/logistically impossible to move the Olympics at this point.  Not with the amount of preparation Brazil has put in and the amount of money that's been spent over the last six-and-a-half years.

Rio's Olympic organizers have spent billions of dollars getting ready for the Games.  If they were to cancel the Olympics, though, it would cost billions more.  The IOC has a reserve fund (which runs into the billions) that serves to cover the Olympic Movement in the event an Olympics is cancelled.  That would be gone, too.  And that money would all go to legal fees.  Because there would be more than a few lawsuits stemming from a cancelled Olympics.  They've already started selling tickets, too, so they'd lose all of that revenue if they had to start issuing refunds, further putting a strain on the budget.

There are so many parties involved in putting on an Olympics.  You have the local organizing committee in the host country, the IOC, all of the international sporting federations, the sponsors.  Not to mention the broadcast partners.  Try telling NBC that it shelled out all this money to broadcast an Olympics that isn't going to happen, and they now have to find hours upon hours of replacement programming that won't come anywhere near the ratings an Olympics would deliver.

Most significantly, it would be incredibly unfair to the athletes.  The Olympics only come around once every four years.  These athletes have dedicated their lives for their shot at Olympic glory.  For some, Rio might be the last chance (or the only chance).  What are you gonna tell them when they find out their years of training were for nothing?  Sorry?

While there's every reason for people to be concerned about the Zika virus, cancelling or moving the Olympics is not the solution.  And those who think they should be are being incredibly short-sighted.  There's a lot more to consider, which is why the Games will go on.

The Rio Olympics will not and should not be cancelled or moved.  The torch will be lit as scheduled in the Maracana on August 5, and the attention will turn where it should--to the athletes and the competition.

Who Wins Super Bowl 50?

We've finally made it!  The Super Bowl's Golden Anniversary celebration is here.  For the third straight year, it's the two No. 1 seeds, and, for the first time ever, both starting quarterbacks were No. 1 overall picks.  Will MVP Cam Newton the Panthers complete the fourth 18-1 season in NFL history (keep in mind, only two of the previous three wanted to be 18-1), or will Peyton get that second title before (presumably) riding off into the sunset?

Carolina was installed as the favorites pretty much as soon as the Conference Championship Games ended, but I don't think this will be the Panthers blowout most people are expecting.  All season, I said that Denver was either going to end up in the Super Bowl or get knocked out early.  Well, now they're here, and it's because of that defense.  It doesn't have a catchy name, but it's the reason the Broncos are where they are.  For all the attention their offense gets, it's easy to see why the defense gets overlooked.  But that's the difference between this Denver team and the one that got its butt kicked two years ago.

The Broncos have done everything within their power to make this Super Bowl experience completely different from their last one.  As the designated home team, Denver had the choice of jersey color.  The orange jerseys have brought them nothing but bad mojo in the Super Bowl.  Denver's 0-4 in orange, and none of those games was particularly close.  As a result, they're wearing white.  Yes, it's a small thing.  No, it probably won't make a difference.  But it helps the Broncos psychologically, so there probably is something to it.

They're trying to erase the stink of Super Bowl XLVIII, but the fact that they were there could come into play, as well.  Sure, there are guys like DeMarcus Ware who've been added to the mix, but, for the most part, these are many of the same Denver players.  They've been here before.  Carolina hasn't.  Cam Newton played in a BCS National Championship Game at Auburn, but that's not quite the same thing.  I doubt the stage will overwhelm the Panthers.  But you know it won't be a problem for the Broncos.

In their first two playoff games, the Panthers got out to ridiculous starts.  Against Seattle, it was 31-0 before the Seahawks almost came all the way back.  The NFC Championship Game was never close.  They took it to the Cardinals from the opening whistle and didn't let up.

So, it'll be important for the Broncos to prevent (or at least withstand) that initial rush.  Carolina can do so many things offensively that they won't be able to shut them down completely.  What they'll need to do is limit the damage.  Cam Newton is significantly more mobile than both Ben Roethlisberger and Peyton Manning.  He's not going to just stay in the pocket, which puts the pressure on the pass rush to find a way to get to him.

For all the Panthers can do offensively, that defense is just as deadly.  Luke Kuechly and Josh Norman are All-Pros for a reason.  And they'll be just as big a part of the game as Cam and Co.  Because as much as Denver needs to hold the offense at bay, the onus is on the Broncos' offense to do something.  Basically, Peyton Manning has to be Peyton Manning, which is something he hasn't been in three previous Super Bowl appearances (even though he was the MVP in one of them).

But Denver's been counted out before.  How many people said they'd lose to Pittsburgh?  And they were...until the Peyton of old showed up in the fourth quarter.  Nobody gave them a chance in the AFC Championship Game.  They expected it to be a New England blowout.  Well, how'd that work out?  My point here is that the difference between this Broncos team is that defense.  The defense put Manning in a position to win, and he was great when he needed to be.

And that defense, I think, is going to be the biggest difference in this game.  Carolina's offense had a historic season, but they haven't faced a defense like this one all year.  It's why Denver beat Pittsburgh, and it's why Denver beat New England.

As they say, offense wins games, defense wins championships.  We've seen that come true in the Super Bowl before.  Tampa Bay-Oakland was the No. 1 defense vs. the No. 1 offense.  And the No. 1 defense won in a blowout.  Same thing with Broncos-Seahawks, when Seattle's No. 1 defense dominated.  I think this one will be closer, but the end result will be the same.

Denver's defense doesn't get nearly enough credit, but they're gonna lead their team to a title.  Peyton Manning goes out a champion.  Broncos 28, Panthers 20.

Football's 2016 Hall of Fame Class

We all know Brett Favre is getting voted into the Hall of Fame on Saturday.  Who'll join him is anybody's guess.  The Pro Football Hall of Fame voters did some housekeeping last year, finally voting guys like Charles Haley, Will Shields, Tim Brown and Jerome Bettis into Canton.  I have a feeling that trend might continue.

First, a take on Terrell Owens.  Mike Martz doesn't think he should be a finalist.  At least not over Torry Holy and Isaac Bruce.  Well, Mike Martz is wrong.  We only remember the end of T.O.'s career after he went crazy.  But when he was still participating in reality, he was damn good.  He'll get a bust in Canton sooner rather than later.  With that being said, however, I don't think he gets in this year.  Not when Marvin Harrison's been sitting there waiting.

Speaking of Marvin Harrison, this could be a year of nostalgia for those Super Bowl XLI-winning 2006 Colts.  Peyton's in the Super Bowl again and Tony Dungy is a fellow finalist.  (And don't get me started on the owner of those Colts, Jim Irsay.  He fired Peyton Manning four years ago, but is now saying Peyton "should" retire as a Colt.  If I'm Peyton, I say "screw you," take a knee on Sunday, get handed a trophy, then ride off into the sunset on a white bronco.)

I'm also not fond of Ken Stabler being one of the two senior candidates (which is almost guaranteed election).  He had a good career, but I don't think it was a Hall of Fame one.  It's long been a debate, and I think it was brought to the forefront after Stabler's unfortunate death over the summer.  Stabler, of course, is on that long list of football players who suffered from CTE.

Anyway, because Favre and Stabler are getting in, that doesn't bode well for Kurt Warner.  They aren't putting in three quarterbacks.  Likewise, it'll be TO or Harrison, not both.  I think they'll probably elect one of the offensive linemen, but the other two will have to wait.  And even though the list of finalists are heavily on one side of the ball, at least one defensive player (of which there are only three) will get the call.

Here are my five...

Brett Favre, Quarterback (1991 Falcons, 1992-2007 Packers, 2008 Jets, 2009-10 Vikings): Duh.  Do I really need to explain why Brett Favre is a Hall of Famer?  The committee will spend hours in the room talking about the other candidates, but it'll take them about 11 seconds to talk about/vote on Brett Favre.

Marvin Harrison, Wide Receiver (1996-2008 Colts): They're starting to clear up the wide receiver backlog, and Harrison is next in line.  I think he should be in already.  He's second all-time in receptions (to Jerry Rice), fourth all-time in receiving yards and ninth in touchdowns.  Manning to Harrison is one of the greatest QB-wide receiver pairings in NFL history.  It'd be only fitting to see Harrison elected to the Hall of Fame the night before Manning's (presumptive) final game.

Kevin Greene, Linebacker/Defensive End (1985-92 Rams, 1993-95 Steelers, 1996 Panthers, 1997 49ers, 1998-99 Panthers): Now that Charles Haley has gotten his long-overdue bust, the dominant defensive player of the late 80s/early 90s at the head of the "How isn't he in the Hall of Fame?" argument is Kevin Greene.  With the Rams returning to Los Angeles, I don't think this LA Rams great has to wait any longer.  He's the best defensive player on the list.  A member of the 1990s All-Decade Team, he was a three-time All-Pro (with three different teams!), had at least one sack for 14 straight seasons, and was third all-time with 160 sacks at the time of his retirement.

John Lynch, Safety (1993-2003 Buccaneers, 2004-07 Broncos): Warren Sapp and Derrick Brooks are already enshrined in Canton.  And Ronde Barber (and maybe Simeon Rice) will join them eventually.  So will John Lynch.  Hopefully this year.  Safety, as a whole, is a very underrated position, and Lynch was one of the very best at it during his career.  His numbers (26 interceptions, 13 sacks, over 1,000 tackles) don't necessarily scream "Hall of Fame."  But anyone who saw John Lynch play knows he belongs in Canton.

Joe Jacoby, Tackle (1981-93 Redskins): Deciding between Jacoby and Orlando Pace was a very difficult task.  Pace played more recently, was a No. 1 overall pick, and, on paper, has a more Hall of Fame-worthy resume.  But I'd love to see Jacoby get his due for his role on the Redskins' dynasty teams.  The "Hogs" are one of the most famous offensive lines in history, yet Russ Grimm is the only Hall of Famer in that group.  Joe Jacoby should be, too.  Although, since he's getting close to that point, I think, like Ray Guy, he'll end up having to wait until he becomes a senior candidate in a few years.

Now for the three senior/contributor finalists, who, once they get to this point, it's virtually rubber-stamping their names...

Ken Stabler, Quarterback (1970-79 Raiders, 1980-81 Oilers, 1982-84 Saints): Sorry, maybe it's because I never saw him play, but I don't think the Hall of Fame has been missing out without "The Snake."  Regardless, those who've advocated his candidacy for years will get their wish.  Stabler had a career winning percentage of .661 and led the Raiders to five straight AFC West titles, as well as a win in Super Bowl XI for the franchise's first title.  My only remaining question regarding Stabler and the Hall of Fame is if Junior Seau's daughter will be "interviewed" after they show his induction video.

Dick Stanfel, Guard (1952-55 Lions, 1956-58 Redskins): Stanfel also passed away over the summer, and his short career is probably why he isn't in Canton already.  This will sound crazy, but he anchored the Lions' dynasty in the early 50s.  Detroit went to three straight NFL Championship Games in his first three seasons and won back-to-back titles in 1952-53.  He was a First Team All-Pro in five of his seven seasons and was on the 1950s All-Decade Team.

Eddie DeBartolo, Owner (1977-2000 49ers): The contributor category is still brand new, so there's no way Eddie DeBartolo doesn't get elected.  And he should.  He was a finalist so many times before they created the contributor category that he's one of the reasons it was created.  He bought the 49ers in 1977, hired Bill Walsh in 1979, and won the first of five Super Bowls two years later.  The 49ers averaged 13 wins a year, won 13 division titles, went to the playoffs 16 times and played in 10 NFC Championship Games during DeBartolo's ownership.  Basically, he was the Robert Kraft of the 80s and 90s.

The Best and Worst of 1-49

As Super Bowl 50 gets closer, the reminiscing continues.  I can't wait to see what the NFL has in store for the Golden Anniversary party on Sunday.  What I've got in store today, though, is another list.  Well, two lists actually.

Everyone has their favorite Super Bowl, and selecting the best is a very subjective exercise.  Same thing with choosing the worst.  Last year's game was great.  Two years ago...not so much.  And there are a whole bunch that fall somewhere in the middle.

Over the course of the first 49, there were plenty of classic games and plenty of duds.  Narrowing it down to the 10 best and 10 worst wasn't easy.  Ranking those 10 in any sort of order is virtually impossible.  So I decided not to do it.  My top 10 and bottom 10 are listed in chronological order instead.

The 10 Best
Super Bowl III: Jets 16, Colts 7-Why is it an all-time great?  Because it legitimized the AFL and helped make the Super Bowl what it is.  In terms of quality, it's probably not in the top 10.  But you can't deny Super Bowl III's impact and importance.

Super Bowl X: Steelers 21, Cowboys 17-This was probably the first real "classic" Super Bowl.  It's the one where the NFL Films highlights shows the freeze-frame of Lynn Swann making that diving catch.  Steelers-Cowboys II three years later was pretty good, too.

Super Bowl XXIII: 49ers 20, Bengals 16-"Hey guys, ins't that John Candy?"  That's how Montana-to-Taylor started.  Eight plays and 92 yards later, the 49ers dynasty had its third championship.

Super Bowl XXV: Giants 20, Bills 19-We're also celebrating the 25th anniversary of Super Bowl XXV this year, so we've been hearing a lot about this classic recently.  From Whitney Houston's national anthem to Bill Parcells' genius game plan to poor Scott Norwood, Super Bowl XXV had it all.  It will always remain the closest Super Bowl ever.

Super Bowl XXXII: Broncos 31, Packers 24-After so many duds during the NFC's 13-year winning streak, Super Bowl XXXII was a refreshing (and at the time, rare) close game.  Green Bay let Denver take the lead so they'd get the ball back with more time, but the Broncos' defense came through and clinched the championship.  Two lasting images from this game--John Elway flipping head over heels for a first down and Pat Bowlen saying "This one's for John" as soon as he was handed the Vince Lombardi Trophy.

Super Bowl XXXIV: Rams 23, Titans 16-One of the most unexpected matchups in Super Bowl history was also one of the best.  The Rams took the lead on that 73-yard touchdown pass with like a minute and a half left.  It looked like the Titans would tie it and send it to overtime, though...until Mike Jones made that tackle on the 1-yard line as time expired.

Super Bowl XXXVI: Patriots 20, Rams 17-Back in 2002, people didn't hate the Patriots yet.  We actually thought it was cool that they had the lead on the Greatest Show on Turf.  It was tied at 17-17 when Tom Brady did what he always does for the first time, setting up Adam Vinatieri's game-winning field goal.  Vinatieri, of course, would kick the winning field goal on the final play of the game again two years later.

Super Bowl XLII: Giants 17, Patriots 14-All anybody could talk about going into Super Bowl XLII was how the 18-0 Patriots would finish off the "greatest season ever" and join the '72 Dolphins as the only undefeated champions in the Super Bowl Era.  Somebody forgot to tell the Giants, though.  David Tyree invented the helmet catch before Eli hit Plaxico Burress for the game-winner with 35 seconds left.  Four years later, they met in another classic, and the Giants did it again.

Super Bowl XLIII: Steelers 27, Cardinals 23-Topping Super Bowl XLII wasn't really possible, but Super Bowl XLIII came close to matching it.  Pittsburgh had that awesome 100-yard James Harrison interception return touchdown and led 20-7 before the Cardinals scored 16 unanswered points in the fourth quarter to take the lead.  No problem.  Ben Roethlisberger hit Santonio Holmes in the corner of the end zone (again with 35 seconds left) to make the Steelers the first team to win six Lombardi Trophies.

Super Bowl XLIX: Patriots 28, Seahawks 24-It was last year.  We all remember what happened.  The Patriots took the lead, but Seattle had a miracle catch and was on the 1-yard line with two chances to win the game, only to make the stupidest play call ever and lose it instead.

The 10 Worst
Super Bowl V: Colts 16, Cowboys 13-Jim O'Brien kicked one of three last-second game-winning field goals in Super Bowl history (and the only one by someone other than Adam Vinatieri).  It was an exciting finish to an otherwise terrible game.  There were 11 combined turnovers and people took to calling it the "Blunder Bowl."

Super Bowl VI: Cowboys 24, Dolphins 3-Super Bowl VI wasn't much better than the previous year's.  The Dolphins would famously go undefeated the next season, but in Super Bowl VI, the Cowboys held them to just 185 total yards and 10 first downs.  Miami scored just a field goal.  Of the 98 teams to play in a Super Bowl, 97 have scored a touchdown.  Only the '71 Dolphins didn't.

Super Bowl XVIII: Raiders 38, Redskins 9-Marcus Allen breaking through for a 74-yard touchdown is the indelible image of a completely unmemorable game.  The Raiders set records (since broken) for points and margin of victory in an absolute beat down of the defending champion Redskins.  It was also the AFC's last win until Super Bowl XXXII 14 years later.

Super Bowl XX: Bears 46, Patriots 10-How did the '85 Bears only win one championship?  They shut out both the Giants and Rams in the playoffs, so it was something of a minor victory when the Patriots took a 3-0 lead.  It wouldn't last, though.  The rout was so bad that they let William "Refrigerator" Perry score a Super Bowl touchdown.  (Thanks to my dad's VHS tape, this is the first Super Bowl I saw in its entirety.  My collection started here.  It's currently at 30.)

Super Bowl XXIV: 49ers 55, Broncos 10-Guess what jersey color Denver wore for this one?  I can't really blame the Broncos for getting blown out in this one, though.  The defending champion 49ers played the absolute perfect game in winning their fourth title in nine years.  As painful to watch as it was if you were a Broncos fan, watching the 49ers offense execute the way that it did was a thing of beauty.

Super Bowl XXVII: Cowboys 52, Bills 17-I think this one is the Super Bowl that changed people's perceptions of the Bills, who are finally getting their due as a great team 25 years later.  It was Buffalo's third straight loss and by far the worst.  Nine turnovers led to 35 Cowboys points, which just happened to be the margin of victory.  Dallas would've set a record for points scored if Don Beebe hadn't knocked the ball out of Leon Lett's hand.

Super Bowl XXIX: 49ers 49, Chargers 26-Five years after the 49ers' last title, Joe Montana was gone and Steve Young was the man in San Francisco.  He "got the monkey off his back" with as impressive an offensive performance as we've ever seen in a Super Bowl.  The rout was on early.  Young hit fellow Hall of Famer Jerry Rice for a 44-yard TD on the fourth play from scrimmage, the first of his six touchdown passes in the game.

Super Bowl XXXV: Ravens 34, Giants 7-For all of their memorable trips to the Super Bowl, the Giants would like to have this one back.  They played their worst game of the year against a Ravens defense that gave them no shot.  Kerry Collins threw five interceptions, and a kickoff return touchdown is the only thing that prevented them from being shutout.

Super Bowl XXXVII: Buccaneers 48, Raiders 21-If you're a fan of a defense, you probably loved Super Bowl XXXVII.  Because the Bucs' defense completely dominated the Raiders' No. 1 offense.  Rich Gannon threw five interceptions, three of which were returned for touchdowns, and was sacked five times.  It was 34-3 Bucs before the Raiders made it somewhat close, until two defensive touchdowns in the final 1:18 put a ribbon on it for Tampa Bay.

Super Bowl XLVIII: Seahawks 43, Broncos 8-Denver obviously hopes their Super Bowl experience in San Francisco is vastly different than the one they had two years ago in New York.  The opening snap went over Peyton's head for a safety and it only got worse from there.  To say the Seahawks beat the Broncos into next week and then some would be an understatement.

Peyton's Last Dance?

Brett Favre will be voted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame on Saturday.  His career ended on a Monday night in Minnesota in December 2010, when he was pile driven into the frozen ground by Bears defensive end Corey Wootton and suffered the last of his many concussions.

John Elway's Hall of Fame career ended a little differently.  He went out on top.  At the end of Super Bowl XXXIII in n January 1999, he took a knee and then was carried off the field after being named MVP, as the Broncos won their second straight title.  Seventeen years later, another Broncos quarterback has a chance to write a similar script.

Super Bowl 50 will most likely be Peyton Manning's final game.  While he hasn't come out and said it, Peyton has given all indications that this is it.  He even went so far as to tell Bill Belichick that this was his "last rodeo" at the end of the AFC Championship Game.  If that's not an indication he's leaning towards retirement, I don't know what is.  Win or lose, but especially if the Broncos win, Sunday's game will probably be the last time we see Peyton Manning on the field as an NFL quarterback.  Will his Hall of Fame career end the same way Elway's and Michael Strahan's and Jerome Bettis's and Ray Lewis's did?

I don't think this news (keep in mind, none of this is official, it's all purely speculation) surprises anyone.  There are a lot of people, myself included, who figured this would be Peyton's last year.  When he got hurt and benched in Week 10, some wondered if that was already the last time we'd ever see him on a football field in uniform.  Personally, I never thought Peyton Manning would go out that way.  If his season had ended against the Chiefs in Week 10, I bet Peyton Manning would've come back for another year.  After all, he's still under contract for 2016.  But the Football Gods had other ideas.

It's been clear for a while that Peyton's career has been nearing its end.  Some wondered if he'd ever be able to come back from the neck surgery that forced him to miss the entire 2011 season, which led to his being fired by the Colts.  Denver took a chance that he wasn't done, and the Broncos were rewarded for it.  He wasn't the Peyton Manning of old, but he was close.  Their offense put up points at a historic pace.  They went to a Super Bowl in his second year with the team (only to get humiliated by Seattle).  Last season he didn't look like himself in a playoff loss to, of all teams, Indianapolis.  As it turns out, he was playing through an injury for the final two months of last season.

The 2015 edition of Peyton Manning was nothing like past vintages.  He's no longer the best player on his team.  Instead of trying to outscore you, the Broncos were asking Manning to do just enough to win the game while the best defense in the league took care of the rest.  It was unlike anything we'd ever seen.  He'd turned into "Peyton Manning: Game Manager."  But the results were the same.  And there were still glimpses of the old Peyton (like that game-winning drive against the Steelers in the Divisional playoff).

Will his legacy be defined by Super Bowl 50?  Absolutely not!  Manning's not going to match Brady's four titles and three Super Bowl MVPs.  Hell, even his little brother has two rings and was Super Bowl MVP both times.  Yes, a 1-3 Super Bowl record looks a lot worse than 2-2.  But how many quarterbacks have started four Super Bowls?  (For the record, there are six others: Tom Brady, John Elway, Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana, Roger Staubach and Jim Kelly.)  And, don't forget, Peyton has already led his team to a championship.  Only 30 other quarterbacks in the Super Bowl era can make that claim.

So, no, Peyton Manning doesn't "need" to win Super Bowl 50.  But wouldn't it be the perfect ending of the story?  He gets benched, misses five games, returns as a backup only to enter in relief in the second half of the last regular season game, which his team wins to clinch home field advantage in the playoffs.  He leads a comeback win in the first playoff game, then gets back to the Super Bowl by winning the final matchup in a rivalry that defined a generation.  There's only one possible way for it to end.  Right?  Riding off into the sunset (I'm assuming on a white bronco) as a Super Bowl champion.

Manning could write the same ending as Elway, which would be only fitting.  Because there are so many parallels between them, and not just because they're both Broncos.  Elway lost his first three trips to the Super Bowl before rewriting the story with two wins at the end.  The last of those wins was 17 seasons ago, which just happened to be the rookie year of the No. 1 pick out of Tennessee.  Now Elway is Manning's boss.  He brought Peyton to Denver with one goal in mind--winning a Super Bowl.

When the Broncos upset the Packers in Super Bowl XXXII, Pat Bowlen famously said after he was handed the Vince Lombardi Trophy, "This one's for John."  Just picture the scene on Sunday night.  Orange and blue confetti is streaming down, and Elway says on the victory podium, "This one's for Peyton."