NFL 100 Defense

We're less than a week from the start of the NFL's 100th season.  To celebrate, I'm choosing the ultimate all-time team.  The best player ever at each position.  That's it.  A super-exclusive list that's bound to cause some debate.

Yesterday, I named the 13 players on offense.  Today it's time for those on the defensive side of the ball.  There have been some great defenses in NFL history.  The Steel Curtain, Doomsday, the Monsters of the Midway, the Fearsome Foursome, the Purple People Eaters, the No-Name Defense.  But, having cool names doesn't necessarily mean that those defenses necessarily provided anybody to this squad.

I'm also naming my punter and coach today, so it'll be 13 total selections.  As for the defensive positions, I'm going with the traditional 4-3, so nose tackles were considered with defensive tackles and middle/inside linebackers were considered together, as well.  And, once again thanks to Shades for both the inspiration and the contributions/input.  Now on to the team...

Defensive End: Reggie White-Was there a better pass rusher ever?  Reggie White is the prototype of what you're looking for in a defensive end.  And not to mention the fact that he might just be the best free agent signing in history, launching the Packers' rebirth from oblivion back to Super Bowl champions.  He played 15 years and was an All-Pro in 13 of them, including eight straight First Team selections.  And let's not forget the two Defensive Player of the Year nods a decade apart!

Defensive End: Deacon Jones-They invented a stat because of him!  That's all you need to know about Deacon Jones.  He made up the term "sack"and unofficially had 173.5 of them in his career (the sack wasn't an official statistic until 1982).  I think the "Fearsome Foursome" nickname was coined mainly because of him.  Because Deacon Jones was scary!

Defensive Tackle: "Mean" Joe Greene-His name seems incomplete without "Mean" at the front, doesn't it?  For all the great players on that Steel Curtain defense of the 70s, he stands above the rest.  Greene is on the shortlist of the best defensive players in NFL history.  It's not a coincidence that drafting him in 1969 helped set the Steelers on that run of four Super Bowl titles in six years.  Plus, he was the star of the greatest Super Bowl commercial ever!  "Thanks, Mean Joe!"

Defensive Tackle: Merlin Olsen-Earlier in the month, I made a Hall of Fame case for Rosey Grier as an underrated and overlooked member of the Rams' Fearsome Foursome.  He didn't get enough credit because he was standing next to Deacon Jones and Merlin Olsen!  Jones is the one who got the headlines, but Olsen was consistently great throughout a 15-year career.  He made 14 consecutive Pro Bowls, was a First Team All-Pro five straight times, and was named to the All-Decade Team for both the 60s and 70s.

Outside Linebacker: Lawrence Taylor-Duh!  As easy and obvious a selection as any on the list.  LT redefined the outside linebacker position, and he's right at the top of the list of greatest players in history.  At all positions, not just defense.  Among defensive players, he's pretty near a consensus No. 1.  He was the MVP in 1986.  A freakin' linebacker was MVP of the entire league!  A defensive player hasn't won it since.  He's also considered one of the "most feared" and "most intimidating" players in league history.  Just ask Joe Theismann.

Outside Linebacker: Jack Ham-A second member of the Steel Curtain.  I guess that defense was pretty good.  And, in the interest of full disclosure, I didn't know which Jack (Ham or Lambert) played on the outside and which was the middle linebacker.  Fortunately Shades was there to help me out!  On a defense that also included Mean Joe Greene, Ham managed to snag Defensive Player of the Year honors in 1975.

Inside/Middle Linebacker: Dick Butkus-This was arguably the hardest position to choose of them all.  There have been so many great middle linebackers in NFL history.  But none was better than the original, Dick Butkus.  Butkus.  The name itself is bad ass!  He had a reputation similar to that of Jones and LT.  In that you didn't want to mess with him.  And George Halas himself (you know, the guy who founded the league!) called Butkus "the gold standard by which other middle linebackers are measured."  So, really, how could I pick anybody else?

Cornerback: Deion Sanders-Sadly, I couldn't find a good Cowboys picture of Deion.  With all due respect to Jim Thorpe, Prime Time just might be the best athlete with a bust in Canton.  Don't forget, he played football and baseball simultaneously for a few years.  He eventually had to pick one, and I think he made the right decision.  Because in addition to being the best cover corner the NFL has ever seen, he could also play receiver and return kicks.  Deion also owns the distinction of being the only man to play in both the Super Bowl and the World Series.

Cornerback: Rod Woodson-After some back-and-forth about who would join Deion at corner, I settled on Rod Woodson.  His 17-year career included a stint at safety towards the end, but in his prime, Woodson was right up there with Deion as the top two corners in the game.  He had eight interceptions in a season twice and finished his career with 71.  Woodson holds the NFL record with 12 career pick-6's, and he also recovered 32 fumbles.  That's about more than just being in the right place at the right time.

Free Safety: Ed Reed-Speaking of being in the right place at the right time, didn't it seem like Ed Reed always was?  It's incredible how every time the Ravens needed a big play, he made one.  Reed had at least seven interceptions in a season five times, and he has the two longest interception returns in NFL history (107 and 106).  He also holds the record for postseason interceptions (9).  Fittingly, he and Ray Lewis, the two greatest players in franchise history, both played their final game for the Ravens in Super Bowl XLVII.  Guess who had an interception in the Baltimore win?

Strong Safety: Ronnie Lott-Yes, I cheated a little bit by putting Ronnie Lott at strong safety, but he played both almost an equal amount of time so I feel OK about it.  He's right up their on those "greatest defensive players of all-time" lists.  And, let's face it, as good as Montana, Rice and the offense were, the 49ers don't win four Super Bowls in the 80s without Ronnie Lott.  He led the league in interceptions twice (finishing with 63), was an eight-time All-Pro and 10-time Pro Bowler.  And Lott's also one of those rare players to appear on two different All-Decade Teams.

Punter: Ray Guy-You know my feelings on Ray Guy.  It's ridiculous that it took as long as it did for this "Guy" to be inducted into the Hall of Fame.  Because there's absolutely no debate about who the greatest punter in history is.  You can debate the merits of the position all you want (which is why his Hall of Fame induction took so long), but there's no question about Ray Guy.  He was a football player.  Period.  And his value to the Raiders was obvious.  When he finally gave an enshrinement speech in Canton, he said "now the Hall of Fame has a complete team."

Coach: Vince Lombardi-For all the great coaches to have roamed NFL sidelines over the years, only one has the championship trophy named after him.  He never had a losing season, had a career winning percentage of .728, and only lost one playoff game in his coaching career (which was his first one, the 1960 NFL Championship Game).  The Packers would go on to win five NFL championships and the first two Super Bowls over the next seven years.  That standard of excellence, and doing it with class, is what made him such a great leader of men.  It's a legacy that so many try to live up to...while also trying to win a trophy with Lombardi's name on it!

NFL 100 Offense

As we get set for the NFL's 100th season to kick off next week and all the hoopla surrounding the celebration, I figured I might as well get into the act, too.  My buddy Shades posted his list of the 100 Greatest Buffalo Bills yesterday, which inspired me to move up this post that I was planning on doing at some point anyway.

There have been a lot of great players in the NFL over the past 100 years, but who are the absolute best of the best?  This is obviously a very subjective exercise, but that's exactly what I'm gonna try to do.  Today I unveil the 11 players that make up my all-time offense, as well as the kicker and kick returner.  Tomorrow, it'll be the defense.  (Thanks to Shades for the input on some of the selections.)

And, no, I don't expect you all to agree with my choices.  That's kinda the whole point.  Especially since I'm limiting it to a starting lineup at each position.  So, for all the Hall of Famers who've been immortalized in Canton, this is the absolute best of the best.

Quarterback: Tom Brady-Quarterback was perhaps the most difficult position to choose, and I'm not getting into the GOAT debate about Brady right now.  But the numbers, the longevity and all the winning actually made this a fairly easy choice.  As much as anybody who doesn't live in New England loves to hate the Patriots, it's impossible not to respect what they've done.  And Brady has been right at the heart of it.  He's one of only two active players on my list, but it's obvious he's headed to Canton as soon as he's eligible (although, he does need to actually retire for that to happen).

Running Back: Walter Payton-"Sweetness" was the appropriate nickname for Walter Payton.  He was just a special football player and held virtually every NFL rushing record at the time of his retirement.  He also only missed one game in a 13-year career.  It says something about how much people respected Walter Payton that Mike Ditka publicly stated his biggest regret was not getting Payton a touchdown in Super Bowl XX.  It says even more that the NFL's Man of the Year Award is named in his honor.

Fullback: Jim Brown-All those records that Payton broke previously belonged to Jim Brown, one of the first true "greats" of the NFL.  He was an eight-time All-Pro, three-time MVP, and is widely considered to be among the handful of greatest players in NFL history.  The team was actually named after founder Paul Brown, but you'd be forgiven for thinking the Cleveland Browns were named after Jim.

Wide Receiver: Jerry Rice-Duh!  Perhaps the easiest and most obvious of the 26 selections.  He isn't just the gold standard for wide receivers, he stands so far above the rest that there isn't even a comparison.  It's Jerry Rice, then everybody else fighting for second.  Even in this pass-happy era, his receiving records will stand for a long time.

Wide Receiver: Raymond Berry-Choosing the other wide receiver was much more difficult.  But I went way back to the guy who really helped redefine the position into what it is today.  He was Johnny Unitas' favorite target, and they were one of the best QB-receiver tandems in NFL history.  Berry's 631 career receptions don't seem like a lot today, but he was the premier receiver of his era.

Tight End: Tony Gonzalez-The tight end position has evolved over the years.  In the past, they were used as blockers for the run game.  Now, they're essentially another wide receiver (just bigger).  Tony Gonzalez was at the forefront of that evolution.  He's got more receptions than anybody but Jerry Rice and was just as dominant towards the end of his career in Atlanta as he was during his prime in Kansas City.

Tackle: Anthony Munoz-Offensive linemen are difficult to judge.  But there's very little debate that Anthony Munoz is one of the greatest in history.  He played in 11 consecutive Pro Bowls and was named First Team All-Pro nine times in 13 seasons (and Second Team All-Pro twice).  He also missed just three games over his first 12 years, which is pretty remarkable for an offensive lineman.

Tackle: Forrest Gregg-Munoz's first head coach with the Bengals joins him at tackle.  Vince Lombardi said that Gregg was "the finest player I ever coached," and he played in a then-record 188 consecutive games over 16 seasons.  He was also a seven-time All-Pro and won five championships blocking for those great running backs on Lombardi's Packers.

Guard: Larry Allen-Emmitt Smith is the NFL's all-time leading rusher, and his offensive line deserves a lot of credit for that.  And Larry Allen was the best member of that line.  I don't even think there's much of a question that he's the best guard in NFL history.  He was on TWO All-Decade Teams (1990s and 2000s), played in 11 Pro Bowls, and was named First Team All-Pro seven consecutive times (including once at tackle).

Guard: Gene Upshaw-Before he was the long-time head of the NFLPA, Gene Upshaw was a Hall of Fame guard for the Raiders.  Perhaps the most impressive feat during his 15-year career spent entirely in Oakland was the fact that he started Super Bowls in three different decades.  He and Art Shell were constants on the offensive line throughout the Raiders' run of greatness in the 70s.

Center: Jim Otto-Yes, Otto spent the majority of his career in the AFL (in fact, he played in every one of the Raiders' games during the AFL's 10-year existence).  But, he also played five seasons in the NFL after the merger.  And, the NFL acknowledges the AFL's history, so an Otto selection is completely justified.  He's also one of the most dominant players ever play center.  Plus, the 00 thing is just cool.

Kicker: Adam Vinatieri-My only other active player is the NFL's all-time leading scorer.  Adam Vinatieri has been at it a long time, which has contributed to the scoring record, but his Canton resume has nothing to do with his longevity.  The two last-second game-winning field goals in three years at the start of the Patriots' dynasty sealed it long before he went to Indianapolis, where he won another Super Bowl ring.  Vinatieri's rookie year was 1996, so he's been kicking in the NFL for nearly a quarter of the league's 100 seasons.

Kick Returner: Gale Sayers-You knew I had to find a way to get Gale Sayers on there.  His proficiency as a running back was impressive in its own right, but it's nothing compared to how electric he was on kickoff returns.  He averaged over 30 yards per return for his career and had six kickoff return touchdowns (including two in one game)!  Too bad he only played seven years.  Because there could've been so many more.

Opening It Up to the Best

Yesterday during the US Open, the ESPN commentators made a good point about one of the amateur players in the field.  He's supposed to be headed to Baylor in January (which they agreed was a good idea), which means he isn't allowed to collect any of his US Open prize money if he wants to stay eligible to compete in the NCAA. 

Darren Cahill thinks that's silly and offered an interesting solution.  He can't take the money and play in college.  No one is arguing that should be allowed.  But they shouldn't have to just surrender it, either.  Which is why Cahill's suggestion makes a lot of sense.  He said that any prize money college players win should be put into a trust that they can't touch until they turn pro, but will give them the available funds necessary to launch a pro career.

Then I got to the tennis center for the night session, bought a program, and started skimming through it before the matches started.  And in the program was an article talking about how open tennis came into being 51 years ago, and how the US Open was at the forefront of that revolution.  If the event hadn't been opened up to professionals, there's no way the US Open ever would've become the spectacle that it is today.  Not even close.  So, these two weeks are a celebration of what it took to make that happen.

And some of the details in that story got me thinking.  It's impossible to imagine the world today without professional sports.  But that wasn't always the case.  For a long time, people (many of whom were looking out for their own self-interest) were so concerned with protecting the idea of "amateurism" and thought that making sports a professional career would somehow ruin them.  Needless to say, they were wrong.

Just think about how different sports would be if athletes still had to make that choice.  They could either remain amateurs, compete at Grand Slam tournaments or in the Olympics, and try to figure out how to play the sport they loved while still finding a way to pay the bills.  Or, they could turn pro and actually make money for playing their sport (and earn endorsements), but not take part in any of the prestigious events that people actually care about.

In 2019, that obviously sounds ridiculous to even think about.  Especially when you consider the total prize money at the US Open is $57.2 million, with the men's and women's singles winners each receiving $3.85 million (first-round losers got $58,000 [aka more than the average Americans' annual salary] just for showing up).

Of course, the reason the USTA is able to offer that ridiculous amount of prize money is because the US Open generates so much revenue it's not even funny.  More than 800,000 people attended the tournament in 2018, and a record 68,000 people were there for 2019 Opening Day on Monday.  It's typically the highest-attended annual sporting event in the world.  Why?  Because people want to see the best tennis players in the world.  And if they wouldn't be showing up in droves for an amateur-only event.

It's weird to be talking about this as if all of these details weren't already obvious.  But we have the benefit of having seen it in action for so long.  This is also a vastly different time.  Sports wasn't big business in the 60s.  Although, it took some other sports much longer to come around than tennis did.

Much like Grand Slam tennis, the Olympics long held firm on its amateurism stance.  Even though it was exploited as an obvious sham by the Eastern European nations, the IOC had the same notion about professionals.  As oxymoronic as it sounded, the Olympics, where the best athletes in the world compete for their nations, weren't a place for professionals.  Why should the athletes who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of an Olympic medal get paid for it?  Crazy talk!

We're obviously long past the days where the Olympics were only contested by "amateur" athletes.  Next year in Tokyo, we'll see the absolute best athletes in the world, many of whom are well-known, highly-compensated professionals.  And that's how it should be!  I honestly can't even picture anybody else in the Olympics (or Grand Slam tennis).

I really don't know what that would look like.  I'd imagine it would be competition similar to the NCAA Championships (which is great in many sports, but not nearly what you see at the professional level).  But would that be able to draw the public's interest?  Maybe.  But certainly not to the same extent.  So, in a way, it's almost the complete opposite now.  The Olympics, in many ways, feel they need the pros in order to be considered legitimate.

They knew this in 1992, which is one of the many reasons why the Dream Team is so transcendent.  They knew this in 1998, when they had the first Olympic hockey tournament featuring NHL players, and they knew it 20 years later, when they had one without them.  When baseball got dropped from the Olympics, it was partially because Major Leaguers couldn't play in the middle of the season.  It worked the other way, too.  The Atlanta Olympics helped launch the WNBA, and the WNBA has provided the members of the U.S. women's basketball team ever since.

Amateur sports aren't going anywhere.  That's how athletes get started.  But if they're good enough for their chosen sport to become their profession, they need some incentive.  Which brings me back to Darren Cahill's thoughts about the student-athlete "trust."  In an individual sport like tennis or golf or track, give it a shot.  See how you do at the elite level.  But instead of surrendering any prize money, save it for later.  This way you keep your college eligibility, but still have a way of funding your professional dreams (and I'd argue that they should be able to pay coaches, trainers, etc. out of that money regardless).

Will that ever happen?  Most likely not.  But the fact that we're talking about giving amateurs that option shows how long sports have come.  Because for a long time, it was the other way around.  You could either compete for the love of the game or for the money.  Now it's easy to do both.  Which is why "professional athlete" is usually at or near the top of anybody's list of dream jobs.

A Record-Setting US Open In Store

I wasn't planning on going to the US Open this year.  Then the draw came out and they had Maria vs. Serena on Opening Night (with Roger in the other match).  So...yeah, things changed.  Maybe I'll get a chance to see the new Armstrong Stadium, too.

In other Serena Williams-related US Open news, Carlos Ramos, the chair umpire from last year's women's final, won't be doing any of her (or Venus') matches this year.  Smart move by the USTA.  That whole situation was just ugly last year.  I'm not saying Serena wasn't wrong in the way she acted, but he was worse.  And he's the reason the whole thing got out of control.  So, let's just stay away from the possibility of history repeating itself entirely.  There are enough matches in the tournament that he can still be assigned to plenty without having to deal with Williams vs. Ramos II.

Serena, meanwhile, once again heads into the US Open as the favorite on the women's side.  She's made back-to-back Wimbledon finals and, of course, was the finalist here last year.  But she's still sitting on 23 career Grand Slam titles, one short of Margaret Court's all-time record.  It would be fitting if she gets it at the US Open, too.  Especially since this year marks the 20th anniversary of her first Grand Slam title at the 1999 US Open.

Although, as usual, there are a ton of women who can win this thing.  Let's start with Naomi Osaka, who followed up her victory last year by winning the Australian Open.  She definitely feels like she has something to prove after her early exit at Wimbledon, too.  Then there's Ash Barty, who won the French Open, and Wimbledon champion Simona Halep.  Those three are the 1-, 2- and 4-seeds, so they understandably have high expectations.

Then there's Sloane Stephens and Madison Keys, who met in the final two years ago.  And the 2016 finalists, Angelique Kerber and Karolina Pliskova.  Plus, Caroline Wozniacki alternates good and bad US Opens.  This is her 13th appearance and she's made it to at least the semifinals as many times (5) as she's lost in the first or second round.  Woz's last semi was in 2016, so don't count out a run from her.

If you're looking for a breakthrough performance on the women's side, let me offer you three names.  Jo Konta has never been past the fourth round here, but she made the semis and quarters at the last two Grand Slam tournaments.  Can she continue her solid 2019?  I've been tabbing Elina Svitolina as one to watch for a while (pretty much since she beat Serena at the 2016 Olympics).  She's coming off her first Grand Slam semi at Wimbledon, so let's see if she's turned that corner.  My third player to watch is Kiki Bertens, who's never been past the third round, but is the No. 7 seed and has a pretty favorable draw to the quarterfinals.

With all these contenders for the title, another Serena victory is by no means a certainty.  She'll definitely get some challenges, starting with Sharapova in the first round.  But that could end up being a good thing.  She'll be battle-tested, which could pay off in the later rounds.

The entire bottom half of the women's draw, in fact, is loaded.  There are five former US Open champions, plus former finalists in Pliskova and Keys, and the reigning French Open champ in Barty.  I still Serena coming out of it, though.  And, in a rematch of last year's final, this time she doesn't lose her cool, beats Osaka, and ties the record.

On the men's side, it's the same old story.  Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but it's once again the Big Three and everybody else.  Unlike Wimbledon, they actually do let other guys win the US Open occasionally.  But with the way all three of them have been playing this year, that seems unlikely.

One of the reasons people are so excited about the Serena-Sharapova match is because they've played in the finals of the other three Slams, but never met at the US Open.  It's the same deal with Federer and Nadal.  People keep anticipating that match that, until now, has been elusive (it almost happened two years ago, but Del Po had other ideas).  The only way it can happen this year would be in the final.  Except there's a certain Serbian guy who might have something to say about that.

Djokovic and Federer have given us some epic matches over the years, including several US Open classics.  So, it only seems fitting that the third-seeded Federer ended up in the top half of the draw, setting us up (hopefully) for another.  Especially after that incredible Wimbledon final, a Friday night semifinal encounter between the two heavyweights almost seems like too much of a dream!

Nadal's route to the final seems much more direct.  All of the big names are on the other side.  He'll be challenged by the winner of the third round match between John Isner and Marin Cilic, but beyond that, I don't see him facing too much resistance (which could prove beneficial late in the tournament). 

That also leaves room for a surprise finalist/semifinalist from the bottom half, though.  And there are plenty of men who fit the bill for that possibility, starting with No. 6 seed Alexander Zverev, a player whose Grand Slam breakthrough people have been waiting for.  Let's not forget Wimbledon semifinalist Roberto Bautista Agut, the No. 10 seed, and Dominic Thiem, whose quarterfinal appearance last year was his best result at a Slam other than the French Open.  And Stefanos Tsitsipas, the No. 8 seed, was a semifinalist in Australia, so he can't be counted out either.

Ultimately, though, I think Nadal gets through the bottom half unscathed.  And, just like in so many of the other Djokovic-Federer epics, I see Nole outlasting Roger in the other semifinal.  Then he continues his dominant stretch by winning his second straight US Open, third Grand Slam title of the year, and fifth in the last six tournaments.  As if there's any doubt who's currently the best men's tennis player in the world.

Uniforms Worse Than the Players Weekend Ones

I don't know what MLB was thinking with these Players' Weekend uniforms.  All white vs. all black?  Really!  The NCAA has an (often broken) rule about the number being the same color as the uniform, and it's easy to see why.  Because you can't see the home team's numbers!  I can't even see them on TV.  I can only imagine how bad it is for fans in the upper deck!  And the white hats?  It makes the players look like they're either the members of a paint crew or a Broadway stage crew!

Anyway, we'll only have to deal with looking at these monstrosities for just a weekend.  I really feel for the fans of teams who wear horrible uniforms all the time.  Some of those teams realized their mistake right away and went back to more traditional logos/uniforms as soon as they were able to.  While others subject their fans to bad uniform after bad uniform.

But what are the all-time worst?  I'm not talking about the ones that were so ugly that they were actually somewhat endearing like the Astros' tequila sunrise uniforms of the 70s and 80s.  I'm talking the ones that were straight-up bad!  Like these...

Jacksonville Jaguars (2013-17): Ah, yes, those infamous two-tone helmets.  I think my feelings on those were pretty well-known during the five years Jacksonville wore them.  A high-school team uniform for a team that, except for that one AFC Championship Game appearance, mostly looked like a high school team while they were wearing them.  My question is: Who actually thought these helmets were a good idea?!  There wasn't anybody in the focus group who told them how ridiculous they looked?

Denver Broncos (1960-61): General rule of thumb, unless you're the San Diego Padres (who should bring the combo back), brown and yellow simply doesn't work!  But that didn't stop the Broncos during their first two years.  The vertically-striped socks obviously made the uniforms.  Uniforms which were so ugly that the team literally burned them prior to the 1962 season, when they went to their now-familiar blue and orange.  But they did return as throwbacks for the AFL's 50th anniversary a few years ago!

Vancouver Canucks (1978-85): Speaking of brown & gold, the Vancouver Canucks had that market cornered on the hockey front!  They went through several incarnations of brown & gold uniforms (sidebar: the uniform exhibit is one of the coolest things in the Hockey Hall of Fame), but the "Flying V" version was definitely the worst.  And they had two of them!  One was brown with a yellow V, the other was yellow with a brown V.  Both were remarkably bad.

Buffalo Sabres (2006-10): While I was going to school in Buffalo, the Sabres had a black, red and silver buffalo-head logo that I'll always associate with them.  As soon as I left, they switched back to their original blue & gold colors with the much-reviled "buffaslug" logo that didn't endear itself to anyone (and bears an uncanny resemblance to a certain President's hair).  When they hosted the inaugural Winter Classic on New Year's Day 2008, they wore throwbacks to their original uniform, which was back as their regular uniform not too soon after that.

New York Islanders (1995-97): You saw these coming, didn't you?  Possibly the worst (and most ill-advised) jersey change in NHL history!  The Islanders took their perfectly functional Long Island silhouette logo and replaced it with this, complete with the waves (which I guess were supposed to be coming off Long Island Sound) on the bottom, prompting plenty of "Fish Sticks" chants from Rangers fans.  They figured out pretty early that these were a mistake and the old logo was back within two years (which is probably the minimum allowed time).

Los Angeles Rams (2017): Talk about ill-advised changes.  When the Rams moved back to LA, owner Stan Kroenke decided he wanted to change the team's identity, so he decided to go back to their blue-and-white color scheme from the early 70s.  Except he didn't want to wait until the new stadium opens next year, so they had the new helmets with white horns and the old St. Louis Rams uniforms that are accented in gold.  Resulting in this ridiculous mismatched look.  At least the team and the NFL realized how dumb it looked and the Rams started wearing their throwback blues.  Really, they should just ditch the white horns and wear the throwbacks permanently.  That's the LA Rams, not the white!

Arizona Diamondbacks (2016-Present): Where do I start with the Diamondbacks' current uniforms?  How about the weird dark gray color?  Or that snakeskin pattern going down the side?  Or the number that's randomly teal (which isn't anywhere in their color palate)?  The home uniforms are just as bad (and they come with a two-tone hat that's similar to that terrible Jaguars helmet).

Miami Marlins (2019-Present): For a team that's only been around 25 years, the Marlins sure have a long uniform history.  This year's vintage is their fourth different set of primary uniforms.  Three of the four options aren't horrible (I actually really like the teal one), and in many ways they're better than the previous version.  But the black-on-black is simply awful.  It's unreadable!  C'mon Derek, you're better than this!

Philadelphia 76ers (1991-94): Like the Chicago White Sox, the Philadelphia 76ers have made some questionable uniform choices throughout their history.  But these are by far the worst!  (Were the uniforms the reason Charles Barkley demanded a trade after the 1991-92 season?)  Anyway, the shooting stars up the side scream "early 90s," like so many of the other bad NBA uniforms from that era.

Cleveland Cavaliers (1994-99): These uniforms, meanwhile, scream "mid 90s!"  Teams across all sports were obsessed with teal at the time, and the Cavs took it to the extreme.  It's like someone took a can of teal paint and spilled it all over the black uniform.  It didn't work!  Just imagine if LeBron had been subjected to these like Shawn Kemp was.  Not surprisingly, they never wore them as throwbacks during his eight years in Cleveland.

Are there plenty of other terrible uniforms throughout the history of the four major sports?  Of course!  And I haven't even touched the WNBA or MLS!  Then there's the NFL Color Rush, which is the complete opposite of what MLB is doing with this whole black & white thing for Player's Weekend.  Also, you've got the Yankees playing the Dodgers, with neither team wearing their classic uniforms.  For shame!

The Greatest QB of All-Time Discussion

This afternoon I was watching "First Take" (a show that I ordinarily find incredibly annoying) and they were having an interesting discussion.  Brian Billick was the guest, so he and Stephen A. were talking about comments made by Philip Rivers recently made on "The Dan Patrick Show."  Specifically what Rivers said when he was asked his opinion on whether or not Tom Brady is the greatest quarterback of all time.

Brady's supporters point mainly to his championships and the fact that he's been under center for the Patriots' entire two-decade run of dominance.  They win the division and play in the AFC Championship Game every year, have been to the Super Bowl nine times and won six Lombardi Trophies.  Although Rivers, not surprisingly, doesn't think you can base the GOAT conversation on championships alone (which is the same argument used by the LeBron people in the LeBron vs. Jordan debate).

Now, I'm not trying to take anything away from Brady here.  He'll obviously be a first-ballot Hall of Famer five years after he actually retires, assuming he eventually does at some point.  And if he's not the greatest quarterback of all-time, he at least belongs in the discussion.  I don't think he deserves all the credit for the Patriots' dominance over the past 20 years, but the fact that they've continued it this long with him as the constant, but so many different supporting characters (many of whom you wouldn't consider "stars"), also speaks highly in his favor.

Frankly, Rivers' comments came off as a little bit petty.  He's never beaten Brady in his career and has never enjoyed the same type of team success.  But he does have a point about the championships.  The Patriots have been involved in some crazy Super Bowls.  If not for the Giants and Nick Foles, they could easily be 9-0.  But then again, if not for incredibly dumb play calls by Seattle and Atlanta, they could be 4-5.

Although, I think the point Rivers was trying to make was that you can't base your argument on championships alone (especially because the Patriots don't let anybody else win any!).  The name Rivers threw out there as his choice was Dan Marino, who lost the only Super Bowl he ever played in.  Warren Moon never reached the Super Bowl.  Neither did another Charger, Dan Fouts.  Jim Kelly was 0-4.  Meanwhile, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler and Mark Rypien are among the quaterbacks who have won Super Bowls...and nobody's confusing them with all-time greats!

We're blessed to be in an era of some all-time great quarterbacks.  Besides Brady, there are three other active QBs who appear to be Hall of Fame locks (Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger), two who very likely will get in (Rivers and Eli Manning), and some others (including Russell Wilson and Matt Ryan) who are well on their way to at least being the subject of some intense debate when their time comes.

And that's where the conversation got interesting.  Because it led to the "what if" game.  How many rings would Brady have if he didn't play for the Patriots?  Or, perhaps more tellingly, how many rings would those other guys have if they did?

For the sake of this discussion, we're assuming that the other half of Bradicheck has still been in New England this whole time.  But we're gonna swap out the quarterbacks.  And we might as well start with Rivers.  Now, it's obvious that the talent in New England is much better than that of Rivers' teammates throughout most of his time with the Chargers.  But if you were to drop Rivers in New England instead of Brady, I think it's safe to say he'd have at least one ring.  Probably two.  Six though?  Definitely not!

Next up is Drew Brees, whose consistent regular season numbers blow Brady out of the water, but only has that one Super Bowl appearance and title.  Brees and Brady are probably the most similar in terms of style and longevity.  But the rings obviously aren't even close.  Still, you put Brees on the Patriots, they've still got at least four of their titles.  Maybe five.  All six?  Questionable.

Then there's Aaron Rodgers.  Rodgers has been generally accepted as the most talented QB in the game for several years now.  Yet, like Brees, he only has one Super Bowl ring to show for his incredible career.  This is a tough one because Rodgers has had plenty of talent around him, yet the Packers have continually underachieved.  He's a gunslinger and needs good receivers.  But I'm sure he would've been able to make it work in New England.  Like Brees, I'll give him four rings with the Patriots.

Roethlisberger is the rare case of a QB who probably wouldn't have been as successful in New England.  He hasn't done too badly for himself in Pittsburgh with his three rings, but it's been 10 years since the Steelers' last Super Bowl appearance (and he got a lot of the blame for their locker room discord).  I can see a Roethlisberger-led Patriots team winning two, maybe three championships, but no more.

If not for Eli Manning and the Giants, Brady and the Patriots would have eight rings instead of six.  They've twice had Bradicheck's number on the first Sunday in February, and it's hard to imagine things going that much differently if they'd switched places.  I'm not saying Eli gets six.  But he probably does get at least one more and pass Peyton.

The three other active QB's who've won the Super Bowl as a starter are Russell Wilson, Joe Flacco and Nick Foles.  Wilson hasn't been around nearly as long as Brady, so it's hard to imagine he'd have more than one or two rings right now if he was on New England instead.  Flacco is the only AFC quarterback not named Brady, Manning or Roethlisberger to start a Super Bowl in the past 16 years, which is an achievement in itself.  Would the Patriots have six wins with him under center, though?  Most likely not.  As for Foles, who beat them as an Eagles backup two years ago, it's hard to imagine him with more than one (maybe two) in New England.

Those young guys are still writing their stories.  You've gotta figure Patrick Mahomes and Jared Goff will each get one eventually.  Same deal with Matt Ryan.  But if they don't, they fall into that same boat as Marino, Moon and Fouts...and Rivers.  Regardless, they're not gonna catch Brady.  Six and counting.  That's just ridiculous!

Regardless of what you think about using Super Bowl titles as a qualifier for "greatest of all-time," there's no denying that Tom Brady wouldn't have six if he were playing for any other team or that the Patriots likely wouldn't have six if they had another quarterback.  So, whether it's unfair to compare him with others based on that or not, those six rings make him stand head-and-shoulders above the crowd, at least in one respect.

Like any "greatest of all-time" debate, the answer is subjective.  Just like the criteria each person uses to make their decision is subjective.  But the one objective piece of information we have regarding Tom Brady is Super Bowl championships.  And in that area, he stands alone.

No Ties In Triathlon

The Olympic triathlon test/qualifying event in Tokyo last week sure caused quite a bit of controversy.  First, they had to shorten the running portion from 10 km to 5 km because of the excessive heat (which is looking more and more like it's going to be a serious problem next summer).  They almost had to cut the swimming leg in half, too, but the water temperature of 30.3 degrees Celsius was just under the allowable limit (30.9 degrees, which is 87.6 Fahrenheit!).

But it was the finish of the race itself that drew the biggest reaction.  Two British women--Jess Learmonth and Georgia Taylor-Brown--were so far ahead of the rest of the field that they joined hands and crossed the finish line together.  Instead of finishing 1-2 (or tied for first), though, they were both disqualified.  Which was completely justified.

International Triathlon Union rules very clearly state that "athletes who finish in a contrived tie situation, where no effort to separate their finish times has been made will be DSQ."  That's exactly what happened here.  Hence, they were both DQ'ed.  I don't see the problem here.

My opinion is not shared by everyone, however, which I knew it wouldn't be.  In fact, there was an article on ESPNW that called the whole thing a "disgrace."  Although, the author of that article fails to mention a very important fact that contradicts her entire point.  And I'm not even sure she realizes it.  But she's very wrong about a very key detail of the story.

Her outrage was mainly directed at the fact that "This disqualification not only stripped Learmonth and Taylor-Brown of their rightful spots atop the podium, it also prevented them from qualifying outright for Britain's triathlon team for next year's Tokyo Olympics." 

Except it didn't.  Because British Triathlon decided before the race that since the running course had been shortened, it wouldn't count for Olympic qualification purposes.  Thus, Learmonth and Taylor-Brown's DQ's, which also moved teammate Vicky Holland from fifth to third, are irrelevant.  And, by the way, Holland was the only Brit actually eligible to qualify for the Olympics in the race.  But that's what the ESPNW article would have you believe.

Under British Triathlon's selection criteria, a medalist in the test event would've earned an automatic Olympic spot only if that athlete had finished on the podium at a race in Yokohama earlier this year OR the 2016 Olympics.  The medalists in Yokohama were all Americans, but Holland won bronze in Rio, so her updated third place finish would've been enough to qualify under normal circumstances.

However, they also say in the British selection documents that those criteria wouldn't apply if the results are significantly impacted by "environmental conditions/exceptional circumstances which result in substantial alteration to the race format."  I'd call cutting the running portion in half a "substantial alteration."  As a result, the final standings of Thursday's race had no bearing whatsoever on who makes the British team (and Holland was the only athlete affected by that decision anyway).  That kinda changes the narrative, doesn't it?

Let's for a minute assume it did matter for Olympic selection, though.  What if they had said that the top British finisher (and only the top finisher) would earn an automatic spot?  Would they have done it then?  Of course not!  Or, let's fast forward 11 months to the Tokyo Games themselves.  Would they be fighting for the medal?  You bet your ass they would!  The ultimate goal for any athlete is to win Olympic gold.  Teammates or not, I'm going for it.

No one was stopping them from embracing at the line and celebrating their 1-2 finish (which the ESPNW article also tried to imply).  If they had both finished separately, then hugged right after they crossed the line, it wouldn't have been a problem.  How many times have we seen that exact scene?  The gold medalist waiting at the finish line to greet the silver medalist or a teammate.

And, to be clear, it's not the hand-holding that was the problem.  At least not completely.  It's their decision to finish simultaneously.  The whole point of competition is to try and beat everybody else.  Voluntarily finishing in a tie spits right in the face of that (it's not like one was injured and the other was helping her across the line).

For their part, Taylor-Brown and Learmonth took the incident in stride.  On Twitter, Taylor-Brown responded to another triathlete's post about the situation by simply saying, "Sucks for us, but it's just one race, we promise not to do that again."  Sounds to me like they knew exactly what they were doing and accept the consequences (which were clearly stated in the rule book, not arbitrarily decided).  So why can't other people who aren't affected by it at all?

If you were looking for another chapter to this story, you got one on Sunday.  This time, Taylor-Brown and Learmonth were teammates on Great Britain's mixed relay squad, which finished second behind France.  So, even after the individual DQ's, they both ended up taking home a medal anyway.

Great Britain will be favored to medal in the mixed relay when the event makes its Olympic debut next summer.  Taylor-Brown and Learmonth may be on that team.  Or they may not.  The country is simply that strong in triathlon.  But Thursday's DQ's have no bearing on whether or not they make the team.  So please let's stop acting like the do!

Next Year's USA Basketball Roster

A lot has been made about the number of high-profile withdrawals from Team USA for the upcoming FIBA World Cup.  The current 14-member squad features only a handful of players who were on the preliminary roster.  The rest have withdrawn for various reasons, usually citing injury.

Despite fielding a roster of mid-level NBA starters, the USA will still be favored to win the World Cup.  At the very least, they're expected to claim one of the two Olympic berths available to the highest-placing teams from the Americas.  And that's their only real goal.  Otherwise, they'll be required to play in a final Olympic Qualifying Tournament next Spring, likely without any NBA players at all.

None of this is a real surprise.  Sure, the number of withdrawals is slightly alarming and, among the remaining names, there's only about five guys I've ever heard of.  But, simply put, the U.S. doesn't care about the World Cup.  For the rest of the world, the World Cup and Olympics are equally important.  Not the U.S.  The Olympics are No. 1 and the World Cup isn't even a close second.

As a result, the World Cup roster rarely resembles an Olympic roster.  After winning bronze at the Athens Olympics and 2006 World Cup, the U.S. rebounded with a gold medal at the Beijing Olympics (with one of the best NBA teams ever to represent the U.S.).  Then at the 2010 World Cup, none of those 2008 Olympians were on a roster headlined by Kevin Durant.  In 2014, there were two Olympic holdovers in James Harden and Anthony Davis.

So what's the difference this year?  Well, the blame for that falls squarely on FIBA.  They made a very short-sighted decision to reschedule the World Cup so that it would be the year after soccer's World Cup, which FIBA thought "overshadowed" their event (even though they never actually took place at the same time...and they manage to have both the soccer World Cup and Winter Olympics in the same year with no problem).

Anyway, after FIBA's decision to move the World Cup to the year before the Olympics, I'm not surprised that it's been difficult for the U.S. to draw top NBA players.  If you think about the schedule FIBA's asking them to play, they'd go two straight years without a break if they played in both events (2019 World Cup in September, right into training camp, 2019-20 season starts in October, 2020 Finals in June, 2020 Olympics in July, a few weeks off, training camp in September, 2020-21 season starts in October).  That would be an absurd expectation even if these guys weren't constantly complaining about rest!

And, who we kidding?  American fans don't care about the Basketball World Cup either.  Yes, the two are related.  Fans would care more if the better players were going to be there.  But the priority is on the Olympics for the fans, too.  Which is why we have this second-tier roster for the World Cup.  And it wouldn't be a surprise to see 12 completely different faces wearing the red, white and blue next summer in Tokyo than those who'll be representing the USA next month in China.

The 2019 World Cup team member most likely to be considered for the 2020 Olympic team is Kemba Walker (who has certainly become the face of the team).  Although, you'd have to think that he'd be, at best, the third choice point guard behind Russell Westbrook and Kyrie Irving, why is why I don't think anybody on the World Cup squad can be viewed as a lock.  Especially since most, if not all, of the marquee names will almost certainly be available.

Assuming the full selection of All-NBA players is available, the Olympic roster isn't going to just look significantly different as this year's.  It'll also be significantly better.  And actually include guys you've heard of!  But who will those 12 players be?  Let's take a look...

If healthy, LeBron looks to be a lock for a fourth (and probably final) Olympic team.  So does Steph Curry, who withdrew from consideration for the 2016 team.  I'd also think Anthony Davis, Kawhi Leonard, Russell Westbrook and James Harden are on the team if they want. 

Meanwhile, one name who figures not to be on next year's Olympic team no matter what is Kevin Durant.  Considering he's likely going to miss the entire 2019-20 season, it simply wouldn't be smart for all parties involved to even think about it.  Does the USA want a player, even one as talented as Durant, who hasn't played a competitive game in more than a year on the Olympic team?  Do the Nets want their multi-million-dollar investment, who's already going to miss the first year of that contract, to play for the Olympic team before he ever plays a game for them?  And does Durant really want to risk further injury by rushing back just to be on another Olympic team (especially since he'll still be around in 2024)?

With all that in mind, here's my 12-player roster that's headed to Japan for the 2020 Olympics: Steph Curry, Kyrie Irving, Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Klay Thompson, LeBron James, Kawhi Leonard, Anthony Davis, DeMarcus Cousins, Draymond Green, Paul George, Blake Griffin.  

We'll see how the Warriors' annual trip to the Finals impacts the roster and their players' decisions whether or not to play.  Although, putting Steve Kerr on the coaching staff was smart.  If they're on the fringe, that could be a deciding factor that gets them to play.

Unlike the women's team, they won't spend the entire year training and playing together.  And, unlike some other countries, every spot on the U.S. National Team is up for grabs.  Which is a nice problem to have.  Because, whether you want to consider them a "B", "C" or even "D" team, the roster representing the United States at the 2019 World Cup will still be 12 NBA players.  So, even if they're not as good as the guys who'll be in Tokyo, they're still pretty good.

Who Gets the Win?

It's been 10 years since Randy Johnson notched his 300th win, and some have speculated that he might be baseball's last 300-game winner.  While I'm not sure I'm willing to go far enough to agree with that position, the reason why people think it is valid.  Simply put, with the way baseball is played today and the size of modern bullpens, the win statistic for starting pitchers doesn't mean nearly as much as it used to.

With eight-man bullpens and managers who are so eager to exploit relief matchups, starters are throwing fewer innings than ever before.  Complete games are almost nonexistent, and it's rare to see a starter still in the game in the seventh.  We've even got guys getting pulled as soon as the lineup turns over a third time, which could be as early as the fourth!  All of this adds up to fewer opportunities for starters to pick up wins.

Then there's the "opener," which the Rays started last year and a number of other teams have since embraced, as well.  In "opener" games, whoever starts, by design, will only pitch one or two innings before giving way to the bullpen (before the Rays, these were always known as "bullpen games").  And, since the starter needs to go five to qualify for the win, it's impossible for the "opener" to get the win, even if his team leads the entire game.

Which got me thinking about the win statistic moving forward.  If the "opener" is around to stay, which it looks like it is, at least for the foreseeable future, maybe it's time to reconsider how the winning pitcher is determined.  More specifically, is it time to get rid of the five-inning requirement?

This is never actually going to happen (and probably wouldn't be seriously considered if ever proposed).  It even feels blasphemous for me, a baseball purist in many respects, to be the one bringing it up.  But I really do think it's worthy of a discussion.  Especially since bullpen usage only figures to increase, not decrease, moving forward.

They don't have the five-inning rule in the All*Star Game, where it's understood that none of the pitchers will go that long.  Instead, the winning pitcher in the All*Star Game is the pitcher of record when the winning team takes the lead for good, which is rarely the starter anyway.  (The last time the starter got the win in the All*Star Game was in 2012, when the NL had a 5-0 lead before the Giants' Matt Cain even threw a pitch in Kansas City.)

That rule has been in place for the All*Star Game from the very beginning.  Lefty Gomez started for the AL, threw three innings, and got the win in the very first All*Star Game in 1933.  Other than 1935, when Gomez went six, no All*Star Game starting pitcher has ever gone more than four innings.  Which means none of them would qualify for a win under normal circumstances.  But because the five-inning minimum doesn't apply in the All*Star Game, there are plenty examples of the starter getting the win.

The All*Star Game is obviously much different than either the regular season or postseason, but the idea is the same.  Especially in "opener" games when you know nobody's going to throw the requisite number of innings, give the win to the pitcher of record.  If the "opener's" team puts up a six-spot in the first and he has a 1-2-3 inning, why shouldn't he qualify for the win?  Frankly, that's just silly.

In games where the starting pitcher doesn't go five, it's the official scorer's discretion who gets the win.  This is generally the first reliever, provided the experience isn't "brief and ineffective," at which point the official scorer can award the win to a different reliever who had a better performance.

These rules have been on the books for as long as anyone can remember.  And the rationale behind the five-inning thing made sense for a long time.  If the starter can't go the majority of the game (which, in fairness is 4.2 innings, not 5), he doesn't get credit for winning it.  However, that explanation now seems a little outdated.

While once regarded as the premier pitching statistic, the general opinion on the win has changed significantly over the years.  With shorter appearances by starters, their fate is left up to the bullpen more often, and relievers end up getting a lot more decisions as a result.  Likewise, you can pitch well and not get a win because your team can't score (just ask Jacob deGrom about that) or vice versa, you get lit up and you still get the win because your team outscored your opponent.

And you still have the pitchers like Justin Verlander, Clayton Kershaw and Max Scherzer.  The true aces who are going to get their wins (and losses) because they'll pitch deep into the game and have a direct bearing on the result.  So maybe that's a reason why you shouldn't change it.  Just leave it alone, and their wins will take care of themselves.

Although, that's where it gets tricky, which brings me back to my original point.  Managers care more about the team win than the pitcher win.  That's why you see guys getting pulled as soon as they hit 80 pitches after 4.2 innings when they could easily get another out if given the chance.  And because they were taken out before completing the fifth, they can no longer get the win, through no fault of their own.  That doesn't exactly seem fair, especially since the win then ends up going to the guy who pitched 1.1 innings of relief in a game his team was already leading 7-2.

I understand that this is a non-issue for most people.  But, as we lament the demise of the 20-game and 300-game winners in this era of modern bullpen usage, maybe this is a way to fix that.  Because relievers shouldn't be getting credit for work that was done by the starters.  If a team takes the lead and never gives it up, they were all responsible for the win.  Even if the starter doesn't go five!

Highlights of the 2020 Schedule

On the 25th anniversary of the 1994-95 strike, MLB unveiled its schedule for next season.  I'm not sure if that was planned or pure coincidence, but I'm thinking it's the former.  We already knew a handful of special events, so we knew the full schedule being released was just around the corner, but this is definitely the earliest I can remember.  Every other sport waits until the season is over, yet in MLB, we're finding out next year's schedule with six weeks left in this season.

Maybe one of the reasons the schedule came out so early is because next season starts so early.  Opening Day for all 30 teams is March 26.  I figured it would be April 2, which is a much-more-normal date.  That means season will end on September 27 and the playoffs will start on September 29, rather than October 4 and 6.  The October 20 World Series start date will also be the earliest in quite some time.  I guess they decided they'd rather start in March than have the World Series potentially end in November.

Anyway, let's look at some of the fun stuff that's in store for us next season.  For starters, the interleague rotation gives us AL East vs. NL Central, which means we'll see both the Yankees and Red Sox play the Cubs.  It's also NL East vs. AL West, so there'll be a Trout vs. Harper series when the Angels play the Phillies (which will also be the rare opportunity for Trout to play near his hometown in South Jersey).  Finally, the AL Central plays the NL West, which gives us a rematch of that Giants-Royals World Series, as well as Eric Hosmer's return to Kansas City.

Speaking of the NL West, the Dodgers are hosting the All*Star Game, and MLB did some cool things surrounding the event.  For starters, their final series before the break is at the Angles.  It's the first time they'll start All*Star Week with an interleague series in the host city (which, to be fair, is only possible in LA, Chicago, New York or the Bay Area).

But that's not all.  It's a two-game set on Friday and Saturday.  They'll have the incredibly uncommon Sunday off, so there'll be nothing else baseball-related going on in LA on All*Star Sunday.  Then, everyone from ESPN can just stay there, since the Thursday night game to start the second half is Giants at Dodgers.

The Angels will also be the visiting team in the Rangers' first game at their new park.  Texas begins the season with a four-game series in Seattle before officially opening Globe Life Park with that contest on March 31.  As if the opening of a new stadium wasn't going to be enough to sell that game out, adding Mike Trout to the mix certainly guarantees it.

No games in Mexico next season, but they will be returning to Puerto Rico when the Mets face the Marlins from April 28-30.  The Marlins are the perfect team to play three "home" games in Puerto Rico.  First, they'll likely sell significantly more tickets in San Juan than Miami.  But they're also the closest MLB team to Puerto Rico, so it makes sense from that perspective, as well.

It also makes sense to have the White Sox be the home team for the historic first MLB game in Iowa.  There's really no other team that could play on the cornfield from Field of Dreams (the White Sox ARE the team in the movie, after all).  And I'm sure the Yankees were chosen as their opponent because of the game's historical significance.  Especially since the White Sox don't really have that rival that just screams out as the team they HAVE TO play in that game.

After a successful first trip to London, MLB returns with another one of its great rivalries.  It'll be Cubs vs. Cardinals on June 13-14.  Those are St. Louis "home" games, and they did it the same way they did with Yankees-Red Sox at Fenway this year.  The Cubs don't actually visit St. Louis until after the All*Star Break, but will play two four-game series at Busch Stadium, so they still have eight actual home games against their rival.  (Giants-Dodgers in the 2021 London Series?  And when are we getting that Toronto-Tampa Bay series in Montreal?)

I didn't see anything about the Royals playing a game in Omaha during the College World Series (they're actually on the road for much of June), which is surprising, since I thought this year's game was considered a success.  The Little League Classic will return for a fourth straight year, though.  This time it'll feature to American League teams for the first time, as the Orioles take on the Red Sox.

Now that the Little League Classic certainly appears to be an annual thing, I was wondering when they were finally going to work some other teams in there instead of just rotating the Phillies and Pirates.  And the Orioles are just as close to Williamsport as the two Pennsylvania teams, so I was waiting for them to be the first AL representative.  The Red Sox are the perfect opponent, too.  They're a well-known, worldwide brand, and it's a division game, so Baltimore can afford to move one.  (For the record, Washington is close enough to be the home team in Williamsport, too.)

Other games of note are Cardinals at Reds on March 26, as Cincinnati plays its traditional Opening Day home game.  Patriot's Day in New England is on April 20, and next year it's the Indians that'll face the Red Sox at 11 a.m.  The only other game in Major League Baseball that's scheduled for 11 a.m. is the 4th of July game in Washington.  That'll be a good one, too.  The Nationals will be facing the Astros.

Meanwhile, those AL East-NL Central games give us the Red Sox and Cubs at Wrigley from June 19-21, with the Cubs visiting the Yankees the following weekend.  So, get ready for back-to-back Sunday Night Baseball appearances by the boys from the North Side (actually, it'll technically be three straight, since the London Series against the Cardinals is the weekend before they play Boston).

Finally, there's the quirk that year-round interleague play gives us--the Opening Day and season-ending interleague series!  The season-opening series will be Pittsburgh at Tampa Bay, which could be fun since Chris Archer will likely pitch in one of those three games if he's still on the Pirates next season.  Drawing the short straw at the end of the season were two teams that are actually relevant--Houston and Atlanta.  It'll be especially interesting if that series matters for either team (or both).

NCAA's Depth On Full Display

If you've been watching the Pan American Games, you've probably heard a lot of familiar names.  And it's not because the stars we'll be seeing next summer in Tokyo.  In fact, very few of the American athletes in Lima will be on the Olympic team next year.  No, it's because of the NCAA.

The NCAA is the main reason why the U.S. Olympic team has traditionally been so strong.  But it's not just Americans who take advantage of the opportunity to play a sport while going to school.  NCAA rosters in all sports are peppered with athletes from all over the place (and even if they're from somewhere in the U.S., many can claim foreign citizenship if their parent or grandparent is from that country).  And that international depth has been on full display this week.

None of this is news to anybody.  But what makes it different is that we aren't just seeing the same schools from Power 5 conferences that normally make up international teams.  Sure, there are still plenty of them, too, but we're also seeing some smaller Division I and even Division II or III schools represented by nearly all 41 countries participating.  Which just goes to show how international the NCAA really is.  And it really is a great thing to see.

All of this makes complete sense.  Those larger BCS programs offer full scholarships across the board.  Those scholarships are naturally going to go to their top recruits (and you ain't getting a swimmer from Brazil to come to Austin, Texas without a full scholarship), and those top recruits are naturally going to be the ones who'll be competitive internationally.  So, when the Olympics come around, it's understandable that you're going to see a ton of athletes who went to college in the U.S.

And there's a perfectly good reason why coaches give those scholarships to international athletes (and those international athletes take them).  It's really simple, actually.  It's because the NCAA is unique.  The U.S. (and Canada to a certain extent) is the only place where you can go to school and still play a sport.  The fact that they're letting you go to school for free only sweetens the deal.

In Europe, it's not like that.  They don't have "college sports" in the way that North Americans take for granted.  Colleges are just that.  Colleges.  Educational institutions.  If they want to keep participating in their sport, by and large, they have to continue with the same club they were with at the youth level.  That is if they even have the time to continue in sports.  The education at a lot of European colleges is so intense that many students have to make a choice.

I know I just spent the last paragraph talking about Europeans, who don't participate in the Pan Am Games, but I did it to illustrate my point.  It makes sense from both perspectives to accept a scholarship from a college in the U.S., where the athlete doesn't have to choose between sports and school.

For athletes from the other 40 Pan Am countries, the choice is just as easy.  Not only do they get the chance to continue in their sport and do it while going to school for free, they'll get a better educational opportunity, too.  That's not a knock on the education system in their home countries (I have no idea how good the colleges in Colombia are).  But it's simply a case of supply and demand.  There are a lot of colleges in the U.S.  And a lot of them offer scholarships.  So why not take advantage of the opportunity if it's presented?

Whenever I watch track & field, I'm amazed by how many of the names are familiar from the NCAA.  Dwight Stones and Dan O'Brien have been talking about it all week.  Most of the Caribbean sprinters, in fact, run for American college programs.  Sometimes the fun part is seeing the guy in the Trinidad & Tobago jersey and trying to remember what college he went to.  Or, the less fun opposite game, where you go, "Oh, I didn't know he was from Grenada!"

To be fair, just because they're representing these Caribbean or Central American nations, a lot of them still live and train in the U.S.  It's not uncommon for an athlete from Philadelphia whose parent or grandparent is Guyanan to represent Guyana internationally (my friend Aliann Pompey, a four-time Olympian from Guyana, has lived in New York as long as I've known her).

But the coolest thing isn't that a majority of the athletes at the Pan Am Games (especially in the marquee sports of swimming and track & field) also compete for U.S. colleges.  Rather, it's the number of different colleges that are represented.  It goes to show the quality of NCAA competition across the board.  Because it's not just the big schools.  There are international-caliber athletes at schools big and small all across the country.

For the colleges it's fun, since it gives them someone to root for.  For the fans it's fun, since it means there's at least one familiar name.  And for the NCAA it's fun, because it shows that, for all its problems, the organization still serves a very valuable purpose.  These talented athletes and their physical gifts are on full display.  For both their nations and their schools.

Not Trading, But Still Signing

When Baseball moved to a single trade deadline on July 31 this year, the whole idea was to make teams be more aggressive at the deadline instead of waiting until August and making a bunch of waiver moves.  Basically they were telling them that they have to decide whether or not they think they're in it by then instead of waiting until mid-August to sell of their tradeable assets, which is how the Astros were able to get Justin Verlander two years ago.

David Cone went off about this during the Yankee game tonight.  Basically, he doesn't like it.  He doesn't mind the single trade deadline.  He'd just prefer if it was sometime in August.  Especially since August 31 is still the deadline for players to be eligible for the postseason roster.

To an extent, I get his point.  Say there's an injury.  Instead of making a trade for a veteran, they might have to rely on someone from the Minors coming up and hoping they can do the job.  Depending on the position, some teams have the depth to handle that.  Others don't.

The Yankees offer a practical example of exactly what he was talking about.  Brian Cashman, of course, got crushed by the media after not doing anything of significance at the deadline (and, seeing as the Yankees haven't lost since the trade deadline, Cashman's clearly smarter than the rest of us).  But anyway, when Luke Voit got hurt, Cashman felt comfortable with Edwin Encarnacion and DJ LeMahieu at first base.  Then Encarnacion had his wrist broken by the Red Sox two days later!  LeMahieu and Mike Ford are obviously doing the job just fine, but if both Voit and Encarnacion are both out for the year, you can bet Cashman would've loved having the option of making a waiver trade.

Then there's the Cubs.  Willson Contreras went on the injured list a few weeks ago, so they traded for Martin Maldonado from Kansas City to catch while he was out.  With Contreras back, they felt no need to carry three catchers, so they traded Maldonado to Houston...only to see Contreras go right back on the IL!  Except it was after July 31, so the Cubs couldn't trade for a replacement this time.

Catchers are especially tough to replace when the starter goes down.  Then you throw in the fact you can't make a trade, and the veteran replacement options become even fewer.  Enter Jonathan Lucroy, the former Brewers and Rangers All-Star who was recently released by the Angels.  The Cubs promptly signed him and threw him right into the tightest division race in Baseball.

That, I think, is the biggest point of confusion about the single, earlier deadline.  You're still allowed to make moves in August, and those players will still be eligible for the postseason.  The only difference is that the team whose player is claimed off waivers doesn't get anything in return.  So, instead of making a trade, the claimant simply just waits to sign him after he's officially released.

We've already seen a bunch of players move in the first few days of August.  In addition to signing Lucroy, the Cubs released reliever Brad Brach, who promptly signed with the suddenly surging Mets.  Greg Holland was just DFA'd by the Diamondbacks.  You can bet he'll end up somewhere else fairly soon.  Same thing with now-former Giant Joe Panik.  If I'm a team like Atlanta or Washington, I wouldn't mind having that left-handed bat off the bench.

So, as you can see, just because teams can no longer make trades in August, we're still going to see a bunch of players on the move.  What I'm curious to see, though, is how much movement there will actually be in August.  That was part of the point, too.  There was little to no action in July because teams knew they could still trade for pretty much anyone they wanted (as long as he cleared waivers) in August.

And teams are still free to put players on waivers.  Except now they can't "pull him back" if they can't agree on a trade with the claiming team.  Revokeable trade waivers are a thing of the past.  Now, if you put a guy on waivers and somebody else claims him, you have to give him up.  Which basically means we're going to see fewer players put on waivers.  But, guys are always going to be DFA'd, and when that happens, they just become regular free agents that each of the 29 other teams are free to sign...just like any other time of the year!

Which means we're still going to see plenty of player movement between now and the end of the month.  The question is how many of them will actually be impact guys?  Although, I'd imagine the teams that fall out of it will still look to dump some salary and make their players available.  Probably just not as many.

Will we see Verlander-to-Houston again?  No.  But teams still have plenty of opportunity to improve themselves in August.  This just happens to be the first season with these new rules, so it's a whole new world.  And just like everything else, they'll figure it out soon enough!