NFL 2024 (Week 16)

There's been a lot of talk over the past few days over the NFL's decision to schedule two Saturday games opposite the first round of the expanded College Football Playoff.  When they made the deal with Netflix to broadcast two games on Christmas, which falls on a Wednesday this year, though, they weren't really left with another choice.  The four teams playing on Wednesday have to play on Saturday in order to get proper rest before the unusual midweek game.  Next year, Christmas is on a Thursday, which is a normal NFL game day, so this is almost certainly a one-year thing.

Thursday Night: Denver (Loss)

Texans (9-5) at Chiefs (13-1): Kansas City-With Broncos-Chargers getting flexed to Thursday night (still not a fan of Thursday night flexing at all), six of the seven AFC playoff teams will end up being featured in the first three games of the week.  When they set the Christmas matchups (this requiring the same four teams to play on Saturday), they picked four teams that made the playoffs last season, so the selections weren't much of a risk.  Still, they got lucky that it worked out the way they hoped and Texans-Chiefs is a matchup of two teams that have already won their divisions.  Another remarkable Kansas City stat that I saw this week: the Chiefs are one of four teams that hasn't scored 30 points this season.  The others are the Giants, Raiders and Browns--who all have double-digit losses.  The Chiefs are 13-1, going on 14-1.

Steelers (10-4) at Ravens (9-5): Baltimore-Pittsburgh has already clinched a playoff berth and can wrap up the division with a win.  The Ravens will clinch their playoff spot and tie the Steelers for the division lead if they win.  So, yeah, this is a big game.  Give me Baltimore, leaving the AFC North up for grabs over the final two weeks.  (Pittsburgh, by the way, has the most brutal stretch of the four teams with three games in 10 days--at Philadelphia, at Baltimore, vs Kansas City.)

Giants (2-12) at Falcons (7-7): Atlanta-Kirk Cousins is no longer the Falcons' starter, as they turn to first-round pick Michael Penix at QB.  After the change was made, I saw a quote the said making the change guarantees Atlanta won't win the division.  Frankly, the Falcons probably weren't winning the division anyway.  Not with Tampa Bay holding a one-game lead and ending with the Panthers and Saints at home.  All the Falcons can do is take care of the Giants and get back over .500.

Lions (12-2) at Bears (4-10): Detroit-Losing last week may not have been the worst thing for Detroit.  Even Dan Campbell thinks so.  Of course, they're tied with the Vikings now, but they play Minnesota (likely for the division title) in the last game.  And, frankly, that loss could've come on Thanksgiving if Matt Eberflus actually knew how to manage the clock rather than actively getting himself fired (which may have been his goal?).

Browns (3-11) at Bengals (6-8): Cincinnati-This game was originally on Thursday night, then it was moved to 4:25 before finally settling on a 1:00 kickoff.  Which, frankly, is the window where it belongs.  The Browns are terrible (yet two of their three wins are over Pittsburgh and Baltimore).  Cincinnati is technically still alive for the playoffs, but will be eliminated with another loss or as soon as the Broncos and Chargers win another game.  They play Denver next week, so that'll take care of that.  They'll still technically be alive until then.

Titans (3-11) at Colts (6-8): Indianapolis-Much like Cincinnati, Indianapolis has faint playoff "chances."  Same situation as the Bengals, though.  They're eliminated with another loss or another Broncos/Chargers win.  Unlike the Bengals, the Colts have a very realistic chance at winning out.  Titans, at Giants, Jaguars.  It's still a long shot.  All they can do is take care of their own business.

Rams (8-6) at Jets (4-10): Rams-The Rams were 1-4 at their bye week.  They're 7-2 since then and now lead the NFC West.  This team is starting to look more and more dangerous, too.  Especially since this is their last road game, and it's against the Jets.  I also find it funny that we're getting this matchup a week after the 30 for 30 about the New York Sack Exchange Jets where they have a whole segment about a Rams-Jets game where Mark Gastineau and Jackie Slater got into a fight.

Eagles (12-2) at Commanders (9-5): Philadelphia-It wasn't too long ago when it seemed like these two would be in a neck-and-neck race for the NFC East title.  Instead, we've got the Eagles on a 10-game winning streak looking to lock up the division with two weeks to go.  Even though that seems inevitable, they're also in the mix for home field advantage, and a loss here could damage their chances for that.  A loss for the Commanders, meanwhile, suddenly drops them into a situation where they've got to fight for their wild card over the final two games.

Cardinals (7-7) at Panthers (3-11): Arizona-Arizona visits the Rams in what amounts to an elimination game next week.  If they win out, though, making the playoffs is a very realistic possibility.  Beating the Panthers is no guarantee, however.  Carolina may be just 3-11, but has been playing much better than its record in recent weeks and has been competitive with good teams, especially at home.  The Cardinals should win, but it'll be close.

Vikings (12-2) at Seahawks (8-6): Seattle-All kinds of playoff implications in this one, so it's odd that it's just a regional game.  This isn't a FOX doubleheader week, but you'd think a game with this much importance would've been flexed.  Last week, the Seahawks got beat pretty badly on Sunday night in those bright green uniforms.  The Vikings, meanwhile, wore that ridiculous all white getup on Monday night.  Maybe that's why they didn't get flexed into primetime.  Can the Seahawks wrap up their home schedule with a win?

Patriots (3-11) at Bills (11-3): Buffalo-Buffalo is the only AFC playoff team not featured in an exclusive national window this week.  The Bills did get moved into the national doubleheader game slot, though.  It's also crazy that they haven't played the Patriots yet.  Two of their last three are against New England, with a matchup against the Jets in between.  They've scored 90 points in their last two games.  They've also given up 84.  Expect a little more defense to be played in this one.

Jaguars (3-11) at Raiders (2-12): Jacksonville-While it's Jaguars-Raiders, there's still plenty of reason to pay attention to this game.  If Las Vegas wins, that all but wraps up the No. 1 pick in the draft for the Giants.  If Jacksonville wins, the Raiders still have a shot to pick first.  That seems to be the most likely scenario.  The Jaguars pick up win No. 4.

49ers (6-8) at Dolphins (6-8): Miami-Both of these teams expected to return to the playoffs this season.  It looks like neither one will.  In fact, the loser will be officially eliminated from postseason contention.  Which team will that be?  Well, even though the Dolphins have been a dysfunctional mess, they've played pretty well at home.  The 49ers, on the other hand, have struggled on the road.  That's why I'm going with Miami.

Buccaneers (8-6) at Cowboys (6-8): Tampa Bay-Tampa Bay went into SoFi Stadium last week and absolutely dominated the Chargers in the second half.  It really was an impressive performance!  And you can bet people took notice.  The Bucs are on a four-game winning streak and they head to Dallas, where the Cowboys have been giving up points left and right all season, on Sunday night.  Make that five straight, as Dallas falls to an ungodly 1-7 at home.

Saints (5-9) at Packers (10-4): Green Bay-Don't think I'm letting the Packers off the hook for those ridiculous white helmets!  Those aren't as bad as Minnesota's, but it's close.  Anyway, Green Bay's record against Detroit, Minnesota and Philadelphia this season is 0-4.  Against teams not named the Lions, Vikings or Eagles, the Packers are 10-0.  Which will only get them the No. 6 seed in the NFC playoffs.  Incredible.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 12-4
Overall: 145-80

Priority: Pitching

Outside of Juan Soto's record contract with the Mets, most of the action this offseason has centered around starting pitchers.  There were two big free agent signing with Blake Snell going to the Dodgers and Max Fried joining the Yankees.  There was also the trade with Garret Crochet changing the color of his Sox.  We've even seen less-heralded starters cash in big, such as Luis Severino's deal with the A's.  And teams signing relievers with the intention of turning them into starters (Clay Holmes to the Mets).  There are plenty of big names still on the board, too, so we haven't seen the last big-money contract for a starting pitcher this offseason.

The old adage is "you can never have enough starting pitching," which some teams are clearly taking to heart.  The Dodgers had about nine starting pitchers on the roster last season, yet still somehow didn't have enough and ended up with only three healthy starters in the postseason.  Even with those guys set to return next season, they still went out and got Snell, who was arguably the best free agent starting pitcher available.  And they locked him up early, too.  It was right around Thanksgiving.  (Although, there's no doubt Snell not wanting to repeat what happened to him last off season was a factor in that.)

Of course, there's a huge irony surrounding this sudden focus on starting pitching.  They're paying even No. 2 or 3 starters ace-type money, which indicates that quality starting pitching has never been more valuable.  Meanwhile, less is expected of starting pitchers than ever before.  In many cases, they're expected to get you through five innings once every five days and that's it, then it's a parade of hard-throwing relievers (who get burnt out from overuse by September). 

You would think that with the financial investment that's being put in, starting pitching is the priority.  And, in a way, it is.  Teams like the Dodgers stockpile starters because they know how important it is to not need to get 12 outs from your bullpen every game, and they want to make sure they have enough in case of the inevitable injuries.  But, it's still interesting to see teams spending so much money on starters when they'll still utilize the formula and only ask the starter to give them five maybe six innings.

This obviously doesn't apply to all starting pitchers.  There are still a handful of legitimate aces who'll pitch until you literally have to take the ball out of his hand.  And I'm sure there are plenty of starters who'd love to go longer into games if only their teams would let them.  Maybe that's what we're about to see with all of these starters getting big contracts.

All of this coincides with the release of MLB's report about the abundance of pitching injuries.  The timing was obviously a coincidence, but maybe the report's findings will further influence the pitching market.  Because the results, while not surprising, were telling.

It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the main cause of these injuries is the increased focus on velocity over the past 15 years.  Fastball speeds have consistently gone up.  So have the injuries.  It's a fairly obvious correlation.  The emphasis on maximum velocity has resulted in guys throwing as hard as they can on every pitch before another hard-thrower comes in.

"Maximum velocity" doesn't just apply to fastballs, either.  The average speed of sliders, curveballs and changeups have all risen, too.  That has also helped contribute to the abundance of injuries.  Spin rate and movement have become just as important as velocity in this era of pitch tracking.  So, there's an emphasis on "stuff," with curveballs, sliders and changeups also being thrown at max effort every time.  Which puts stress on different parts of the arm every pitch.

While this next point makes total sense, it's also pretty telling that pitching injuries peak in early March.  It's in the ramp-up to Spring Training or the start of Spring Training itself when most of them occur.  So, obviously, those offseason training programs are a contributing factor.  Once the season starts, the number of major injuries that result in missing significant time are far lower, and they remain steady throughout the season.

That was actually discussed at the Winter Meetings (and has previously been brought up within the baseball medical community).  Because it's sort of a catch-22 situation.  Offseason pitching programs are a part of the problem.  Pitchers aren't using the offseason to give their arms a break.  But, at the same time, the offseason is when you want to tinker or learn a new pitch.  So, finding a solution will be difficult.

Another thing that's obvious, but was also mentioned in the report as a part of the problem is that it's not isolated to the Major Leagues.  Not even close.  It's the same thing at lower levels and has even made its way into amateur baseball.  Major League teams look at velocity and stuff, so that's how pitchers are being trained all the way up now.  Go all out for shorter stints.  Which is why we're seeing the same injuries to pitchers at all levels.

Both problems are interconnected.  The increased focus on velocity and max effort at all times is a contributing factor (perhaps the contributing factor) to the injuries.  And the idea of going all out for a shorter amount of time before going to the bullpen is why starters aren't expected to go much longer than five innings.  They don't do it on their way up through the system.  They sometimes don't even do it at the amateur level.  So, it's not that they can't throw more than five innings or 100 pitches.  It's that, with the way the game is being played at all levels these days, managers don't let them even try.

Which brings me back to the contracts we've seen pitchers sign this offseason.  Is this the start of a sea change?  Is the emphasis going to be brought back on getting length out of your starter?  After all, you're paying these guys millions of dollars because they're supposedly the better pitchers.  So, wouldn't you want your better pitchers pitching as often as possible--both in the game and more frequently?

Because, otherwise, these pitching contracts don't make much sense.  Don't get me wrong.  I think there's a massive amount of value in quality starting pitching.  It does make a difference.  Just ask the good teams that have deep starting rotations.  So, top-line starters are absolutely worth it.  Now if they'd just be allowed to prove that they're worth their contracts and pitch more than five innings in a game!

Transfer Portal Problems

Over the past few years, federal legislation has completely transformed the look of college athletics.  One of the biggest changes is that student-athletes are no longer required to sit out a year if they transfer schools.  They can also transfer as many times as they want, all but eliminating the "student" part of student-athletes, as they're all essentially free agents every year, free to sign with whichever program offers them the most playing time or the best NIL deal (the NIL is another part of this seismic shift).

Recruiting has become a year-round job, and coaches aren't just recruiting freshmen.  Half their time is spent re-recruiting their own roster, hoping the current players will have incentive to stay.  Managing the transfer portal is a full-time responsibility.  So much so that coaches can't do the part of the job they enjoy--actually coaching!  And it has resulted in some high-profile coaching retirements, including Nick Saban and Jay Wright.

As a result of the transfer portal, we see college basketball teams with completely different rosters from one season to the next.  Since there's absolutely nothing stopping them from doing it, players will play at three or even four schools over the course of their career.  Whenever a coach leaves, the new coach has to rebuild the entire roster essentially from scratch (with the occasional exception of one or two guys).  (When Deion Sanders took over at Colorado, he brought in 80! new players through the transfer portal.)  Even coaches that don't change jobs can't build a program because of the constant turnover.

While it's still a relatively new thing and everyone's learning on the fly, there are numerous issues with the transfer portal that need to be addressed.  The biggest one, however, is the timing.  For some reason, the transfer portal opens while the season is still going.  Which, as you can imagine, wreaks havoc on rosters while also putting players in an unenviable position where they have to make a decision about their future while still thinking about their present.

Football players opting out of bowl games is another fairly recent phenomenon.  There are different reasons why players might choose to opt out, but entering the transfer portal has become one of the most common.  And it's not just a handful of players, either.  It's become more and more prevalent, affecting numerous rosters each season.

Last season, after not being selected for the College Football Playoff, Florida State had so many players opt out of the Orange Bowl that they took the field against Georgia with a completely different team than the one that had gone 13-0 up to that point.  It shouldn't have been a surprise, then, that they lost by a bowl-game record 60! points!  It was more like one of those early September guarantee games against an FCS opponent than the Orange Bowl.

Would they have had all those opt outs had they been picked for the CFP?  Probably not.  But that's not the point.  The point is that in the four weeks between the ACC Championship Game and the Orange Bowl, the Florida State roster was completely decimated by starters and other key players entering the transfer portal.  On the bright side, they at least still had enough players left to field a team in the Orange Bowl.  Which is more than I can say for Marshall.

Marshall was set to take on Army in this season's Independence Bowl, but informed the bowl committee over the weekend that they won't be able to participate.  Marshall won the Sun Belt Conference title, but their head coach left the next day to take the Southern Miss job.  That led to more than 25 players entering the transfer portal, not leaving them with enough to play the game. 

The Independence Bowl was obviously left scrambling to find a replacement, and fortunately Louisiana Tech was able to step in at the last minute.  Imagine if they hadn't!  The game likely would've had to be cancelled and Army really would've drawn the short end of the stick, seeing its season come to end not because of something it did, but because too many Marshall players transferred.  Not the best look!

Penn State, meanwhile, is gearing up for a College Football Playoff appearance.  The Nittany Lions will be without their backup quarterback, Beau Pribula, for however long their run is.  He announced that he's entering the transfer portal and, as a result, will be leaving the team, effective immediately.  While Pribula isn't a starter, he's played in every game this season and had a significant enough role in the offense that his absence will be felt.

In his Instagram post announcing his decision, Pribula hit the nail right on the head.  He wrote, "The current NCAA postseason model creates a challenge for student-athletes.  The overlapping CFP playoff & transfer portal timeline has forced me into an impossible decision."  Pribula doesn't want to abandon his teammates going into the most important games of the season, but he was left in a no-win situation.  It was either leave Penn State before the end of the season or risk not being able to transfer (which, if that's what he truly wants, he should absolutely have the ability to do).

It's telling that the transferring student-athlete can identify the problem when the NCAA seemingly can't (or, more likely, won't).  It isn't just players who are being put in an impossible situation.  Coaches are supposed to prepare for postseason games while simultaneously trying to figure out who on the team will actually be available to play in said game.  Which brings me to another major issue with the transfer portal calendar.

Football teams in bowl games or basketball teams in the NCAA Tournament are still in the middle of the season.  That's what they should be worried about.  Not the transfer portal.  Meanwhile, teams that didn't qualify for the postseason are already hitting the portal and getting a jump on reshaping their rosters.  As are their players.  So, the good teams and their players are indirectly penalized for their success because they're left playing catch-up in the transfer portal once the season finally does end (and, not to mention those poor assistant coaches who won't be able to take any time off after the season).

What's so frustrating about the whole process is that there's such an obvious solution.  The College Football Playoff field was announced on a Sunday afternoon.  The transfer portal opened on Monday.  Less than 24 hours later.  Before any team had played a single postseason game.  It's the same thing in basketball.  The transfer portal opens the day after Selection Sunday.  Why?

Seriously.  Why does the transfer portal open the day after NCAA selections are announced?  Especially when all of the best teams in the country will still be playing in the NCAA Tournament (or, in the case of football, a bowl game or the College Football Playoff)?  That unnecessarily puts players, coaches and teams in a tough situation that they don't need to be in.  Especially since there's absolutely no reason for the transfer portal to open so early.

If that sounds simple, that's because it is.  If they move the start of the transfer portal to 24 hours after the NCAA Tournament ends instead of 24 hours after the selections are announced, it would solve so many problems and make things so much easier for everyone.  Then you wouldn't have teams opting out of bowl games because they don't have enough players and you wouldn't have players leaving their teams with the season still going.  Like I said, simple.

NFL 2024 (Week 15)

You can tell the season is starting to wind down.  Some playoff spots have already been clinched and others will be soon.  We've also got doubleheaders on both networks (and both 4:25 national games are fantastic!) and two Monday night games (which are not).  There's also a lot of bad vs. bad this week, so we know one of them's gonna get a win and the other will help their draft position.

Thursday Night: Rams (Win)

Chiefs (12-1) at Browns (3-10): Kansas City-If you looked at everything other than their record, you'd have no idea the Chiefs were 12-1.  Kansas City's scoring margin for the season is just +56.  Yet, the Chiefs have already clinched the AFC West and are in position to once again claim the No. 1 seed.  It's because they record in one-score games is incredible.  Against Cleveland, it shouldn't be a one-score game.  But, even if it is, you'd have to figure the Chiefs will find a way again.

Bengals (5-8) at Titans (3-10): Cincinnati-Cincinnati won in both Dallas and Springfield on Monday night.  I didn't watch the Simpsons broadcast, but I saw plenty of highlights online and it was incredibly well-done.  Anyway, the Bengals kept their faint playoff hopes alive with that victory.  And by faint, I mean really faint.  They need to win out to have any chance.  That's a difficult task to say the least, but starting that string with the Titans should keep them alive for at least another week.

Commanders (8-5) at Saints (5-8): Washington-Washington absolutely thumped Tennessee in their final game before their ridiculously late bye.  The Commanders now begin the stretch run with very realistic wild card hopes.  They're currently on the outside looking in and face the Eagles next week, so this is effectively a must-win for them.  Especially since that win over the Titans snapped a three-game losing streak.

Ravens (8-5) at Giants (2-11): Baltimore-It sure looks like it'll be Giants vs. Raiders for the No. 1 pick in the draft.  And the Giants appear to be the clubhouse leaders in that department.  They haven't won a home game yet this season, and it's doubtful that'll change this week.  Things have gotten so bad that fans hired a plane last week with a sign begging to end this dumpster fire.  The good news is there's only three games left after this one.

Cowboys (5-8) at Panthers (3-10): Dallas-Monday night was the Dallas Cowboys' season in microcosm.  A dumb mistake that led directly to a loss.  Now they get a Panthers team that has actually played pretty well since its bye.  Carolina has lost all three, but was competitive in all of them against three division leaders.  So, this won't be easy for Dallas.  I do think this is a game the Cowboys can and should win, though.

Jets (3-10) at Jaguars (3-10): Jacksonville-There are five teams in the AFC that are currently 3-10.  These are two of them.  This season has obviously been a massive disappointment for both the Jets and Jaguars, although only one (the Jets) actually had expectations.  The Jets almost won in Miami.  Of course they didn't.  The Jaguars went into Nashville and won last week.  Can they make it two in a row?

Dolphins (6-7) at Texans (8-5): Houston-With a win and a Colts loss, the Texans will wrap up their second straight AFC South title.  It's certainly been a lot less dramatic than it was last season.  Miami is clinging to faint playoff hopes that won't officially go out with a loss, but will come pretty close.  If the Dolphins win, though, they end with San Francisco, Cleveland, Jets, so there's a definite chance (even if it is slight).

Colts (6-7) at Broncos (8-5): Denver-They both had their bye last week.  Now they meet each other in a game that could have a big impact on the AFC playoff race.  If the Broncos win, they'll all but clinch a wild card.  If the Colts win, they're not only still in it, they'll be just a game out with the head-to-head tiebreaker over Denver.  It's crazy to think that all seven AFC playoff berths can essentially be wrapped up with three weeks left, but that could very well be the situation we're looking at.

Bills (10-3) at Lions (12-1): Detroit-I saw a funny graphic on Facebook the other day.  It said the Super Bowl America wants: Bills-Lions.  The Super Bowl America will most likely get: Chiefs-Eagles.  We could easily be seeing a preview of that Super Bowl America wants.  The Bills lost to the Rams in what ended up being the trap game many thought it might be.  Don't be surprised if they bounce back and knock off the Lions, though.  Although, with the way the Lions have won their last few games, it seems silly to pick against them.

Steelers (10-3) at Eagles (11-2): Philadelphia-All four teams playing on Christmas have the same schedule with three games in 10 days, but Pittsburgh has by far the hardest schedule of the four.  While the Chiefs and Ravens get to play bad teams and the Texans are at home, they have to go to Philadelphia.  Fortunately, they enter the game two up on Baltimore in the AFC North.  That could be down to one by the end of the week since the Eagles are on a roll.  The good news for the Steelers is that they don't even need to win to clinch a playoff berth.

Patriots (3-10) at Cardinals (6-7): Arizona-The Cardinals' playoff chances have taken a hit in the past few weeks, but the NFC West is so tight that they aren't out of it at all.  However, because the NFC West is so tight, they really can't afford to lose a game they should win.  They've dropped three in a row, but they can be forgiven for losing to the Seahawks (twice) and Vikings.  Against the Patriots, they can't.

Buccaneers (7-6) at Chargers (8-5): Chargers-As we've seen throughout the season, Jim Harbaugh's Chargers win when they're supposed to and don't when they aren't.  It's still likely that they'll make the playoffs, and they'll probably end up with at least 10 wins.  I'm curious to see how Tampa Bay does on this cross country trip.  They've won three straight to take over the NFC South lead and could be a very dangerous team should they make the playoffs.  So, you can bet there's a lot of NFC contenders rooting for the Chargers in this one.

Packers (9-4) at Seahawks (8-5): Seattle-Every time Green Bay visits Seattle, something crazy happens.  The Packers make the long trip for the third of four straight primetime games (and it could easily become five if their Week 17 game against the Vikings gets flexed to Sunday night) knowing that a loss all but eliminates them for the division title.  The Seahawks, meanwhile, already saw the Rams win this week, so they need it to maintain the NFC West lead.  Seahawks-Rams is my prediction for the Week 18 Sunday night game.  This game could go a long way in determining whether that one matters.

Bears (4-9) at Vikings (11-2): Minnesota-Minnesota will have its playoff berth locked up if the Packers win on Sunday night, but if they don't, the Vikings can take care of it themselves by beating the Bears.  Why are the Bears on national TV again?  I have no idea!  Although, it's the first Monday night game for Caleb Williams, so I guess that's why.  The Vikings have a tough final three weeks, so, even though their playoff berth seems inevitable, getting the spot clinched and out of the way against a beatable opponent should be the focus.

Falcons (6-7) at Raiders (2-11): Atlanta-After the Falcons beat Dallas in Week 9, they were 6-3 with a two-game lead in the NFC South.  A four-game losing streak later, they're under .500 and a game behind Tampa Bay.  The good news is they have a very soft remaining schedule, starting with the Raiders this week.  And they swept the Bucs, so if they beat Las Vegas and Tampa Bay loses to the Chargers, they'll once again control their own path to the division title.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-4
Overall: 134-75

To Pay Or Not to Pay

A few months before the Olympics, World Athletics President Seb Coe made headlines when he announced that all track & field gold medalists in Paris would receive prize money.  Gold medalists were paid $50,000 each, which came directly from the sport's distribution of IOC revenues.  It marked the first time in history that gold medalists were rewarded for their performance by their governing body (National Olympic Committees have done it for years).  It was controversial to say the least, but World Athletics surged forward anyway, with hopes of expanding it further and paying all medalists in LA.

Some of the initial resistance came from other sports federations.  World Athletics is one of the largest and one of the richest international federations.  They also get a big chunk of money from the IOC every four years.  So, track & field can afford to pay its medalists prize money.  Other sports, however, have much smaller budgets and rely on their IOC distribution to pay their expenses.

Their concerns were mainly financial.  Only a handful of international federations (track & field being among them) are financially able to award prize money at the Olympics.  Most can't.  And they had fears that it would widen the gap between the high-revenue sports (track & field, swimming) and the lower-revenue ones.  Worse, while the IOC would never make it mandatory, they feared that they'd get left behind by not doing it while other sports did.  

Seb Coe is one of the candidates to become the next IOC President, and he's made the idea of prize money for all medalists in all sports a part of his platform.  However, it's not just smaller international federations that aren't keen on the idea.  The topic was discussed at the recently concluded Olympic Summit, and there's a lot of push back from National Olympic Committees, too.

Prior to the Paris Games, the IOC didn't have an official position on prize money.  That's no longer the case.  The IOC Executive Board, after listening to the concerns of international federations and athletes' representatives, was in unanimous agreement about it.  They're opposed, declaring it a matter of fairness.

IOC spokesman Mark Adams noted that, including individuals and teams, there were about 1,000 gold medalists in Paris.  Over 10,000 athletes competed, so it's under 10 percent who'd benefit (some of them multiple times).  More significantly, 65 percent of the medalists came from the top 15 NOCs.  (And, while the 92 countries to win a medal was a record, that's still less than half of all the nations that competed in Paris.)  So, awarding prize money would essentially make the rich get richer.

Adams said that awarding prize money to Olympic medalists would "really overwhelmingly benefit a very, very small group of elite athletes to the detriment of others."  Beyond that, "it would only increase the existing inequalities even further...it was felt by the executive board that this goes against the mission of the International Olympic Committee, and it could very easily downgrade the Olympic Games to an elitist event." 

That's a position the IOC shares with both the international federations and the athlete representatives.  NOCs are still free to provide financial motivation for their athletes, but that's up to their discretion.  No one has an issue with that.  If medalists were to be awarded prize money by their international federation or the IOC itself, however, it would not only be double-dipping, it would also further the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

When World Athletics announced that it would award prize money in Paris, I was all for it.  The IOC and the international federations make a fortune on the athletes' backs every Olympics, and the athletes don't see any of that money despite all the hard work they put in for a moment that only comes around once every four years.  So, it made sense to want to give them a piece of the pie.  Especially since medalists have been receiving prize money at the World Championships for a while.

However, I'm glad that the IOC had this discussion and released this statement.  Because it forced me to look at things from a completely different perspective.  Those points all make a lot of sense.  And the fact that the international federations and athletes are in agreement about it is very telling.  Especially the athletes.  You'd think they'd be all about Olympic prize money.  The fact that they're not and they're more concerned with the issue of fairness speaks volumes.

Now, how much of this is the IOC just coming up with its position and simply attaching the international federations' and athletes' names to the press release?  That's always a possibility when talking about the IOC.  The fact that the reception was lukewarm at best and no other federation followed World Athletics' lead, though, gave an indication where they stood.  And there was certainly never going to be enough support to get every federation on board voluntarily (and there would've been some major pushback if the IOC tried to force it on them).

Getting the athletes on board was probably the harder sell.  Although, I'd imagine the athletes had very similar concerns as the international federations.  The larger, richer nations already have access to better training, facilities, coaching, etc.  Smaller nations can only hope to get to that level, knowing they likely never will.  They need the money they get from the IOC just to fund grassroots programs and basic infrastructure.  An Olympic gold medal would obviously make a huge difference, but that prize money would only go to one athlete...who may already be a member of a training group in one of those larger countries.  Everybody else is left to fend for themselves, while fighting an uphill battle for resources.

As a result, I've changed my position.  I no longer support international federations or the IOC giving prize money to Olympic medalists.  The argument about wealth inequality convinced me.  It's very similar to what's going on in the NCAA.  The Power 5 will be unaffected by all of the new legislation regarding paying student-athletes.  Smaller schools won't be able to afford it, though.  Which will result in the Power 5 gaining even more power.

It's a similar situation here.  Think of the United States and China as the SEC and the Big Ten.  They're already the big dogs.  Their athletes would also stand to benefit the most if Olympic medalists were awarded prize money, too.  It's not exactly a level playing field if American and Chinese athletes, who already have the most resources, get even more while smaller nations who may only send one or two athletes to the Olympics as it is get nothing.

This issue will likely come up again during the next few months leading into the IOC Presidential election.  Seb Coe's position is clear.  He made the call to do it at World Athletics and wants every athlete in every sport to receive the same benefit.  The rank-and-file don't agree with him, though.  Now that he knows that, will he come down from that stance?  Or will he push forward, trying to convince them he's right?  Or is this something that you table until after the election (especially since it could be what costs him said election)?

Either way, one thing that seems fairly certain is that this issue will be revisited in the future.  Awarding prize money to Olympic medalists is a great idea in theory.  Unfortunately, it's also something that wouldn't work logistically right now.  The IOC, the international federations and the athletes themselves are in agreement about that.

Where the Soto Contenders Pivot

Steve Cohen really wanted Juan Soto and said he wouldn't be outbid for him.  So, it should come as no surprise then that he got his man.  Mets fans are understandably giddy about the signing, as they should be.  Soto's a great player.  Congratulations to them and congratulations to Steve Cohen.  Congratulations also to Soto on signing a contract guaranteeing him a ridiculous amount of money.

Soto going to the Mets always seemed like the most likely scenario, especially since Cohen was willing to overpay for him.  And, yes, he overpaid.  Is Soto worth $51 million a year right now?  Sure.  Will he be worth that much in 2037?  Probably not.  (Although, the Mets are at least actually paying him $51 million a year instead of doing that stupid deferred money crap the Dodgers somehow keep getting away with.) 

But with an owner who was essentially handing Soto a blank check and Scott Boras as an agent, it would've been a surprise if he didn't take the money.  He would've been stupid not to.  So, I don't begrudge Juan Soto at all.  I obviously would've loved to see him stay in pinstripes, but I had also made my peace with the fact that it wasn't likely to happen.  Losing Soto isn't the gut punch losing Judge would've been, even if he did go across town.  (Had he gone to the Red Sox, it would've been close.)  But again, Steven Cohen's unlimited budget is hard to compete against.

The other teams involved in the Soto sweepstakes have to be disappointed.  Obviously.  But his signing so early gives them plenty of time to pivot.  More importantly, the money that was earmarked for Soto can now be spent elsewhere.  Soto's a superstar.  Those are always nice to have.  But that $50 million can now address multiple needs by being spread across 2-3 different players...of which there are plenty to choose from.

With Soto off the board, the market for those other free agents will open up.  I'd expect it to heat up pretty quickly, too, now that teams know how much money they have available to spend.  Some of those players who were waiting on Soto are perfect fits for the Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays and/or Dodgers.  Those teams likely didn't have the money for them and Soto.  Now Soto isn't part of the equation, which opens up many more possibilities.

Let's start with the Yankees.  Even if they'd re-signed Soto, they had plenty of other work to do this offseason.  They need a starting pitcher.  They need an actual closer (not Luke Weaver, and the Mets can have Clay Holmes), as well as other bullpen help.  They need a first baseman and another infielder.  And, now that they're not keeping Soto, they need an outfielder, too.  Don't be surprised if the additions they make in those spots are better than they otherwise would've been now that they have extra money to spend.

They've been linked to both Max Fried and Corbin Burnes, the two best starting pitchers still available.  Even while still pursuing Soto, the expectation was that the Yankees would go after Christian Walker to play first base.  Although, wouldn't it be crazy if they ended up signing Pete Alonso away from the Mets!?  But now they can also make a run at some others.  Alex Bregman to play third?  Teoscar Hernandez to play left?  A trade for Cody Bellinger, who can play either center or first?  It's all on the table now!

Fried's market is apparently down to the Yankees and Red Sox.  Boston's also reportedly in on Bregman.  Although, that, frankly, doesn't make much sense to me since they've got so much committed to Devers, who's their franchise player.  They'll also likely make a push for either Hernandez or Anthony Santander to fill the outfield spot they envisioned going to Soto.

Toronto had a grand vision of Juan Soto playing right field for them, as well, even though him signing with the Blue Jays never seemed likely.  They swung big for Ohtani last winter, too, and you'd have to figure they'll throw their hat in the ring every time a big-name free agent becomes available moving forward...including their own Vladimir Guerrero Jr.  Now they're in a much better position to retain Vladito, their franchise player, when he becomes a free agent after next season.  In the short term, I can also see them bringing back former Blue Jay Teoscar Hernandez, who's become an All-Star and World Series champion since leaving Toronto.

Or Hernandez could stay with the Dodgers.  They put in a bid for Soto, but I think that was partly just for show and partly to drive the price up.  The Dodgers actually made the first big move of the winter when they signed Blake Snell to a five-year deal (with Snell no doubt wanting to avoid a similar situation to last offseason, when he had to wait until Spring Training before landing a one-year deal with the Giants).  And they're the Dodgers, so you know they're not done.  Don't be surprised if they get in on Roki Sasaki.  I also have no idea where the Dodgers would've even put Juan Soto since their entire team seemingly consists of starting pitchers, outfielders and Freddie Freeman!

As for the Mets, Soto was both a big want and a big get.  I don't want to say he was a "need," but he's certainly an upgrade over anybody else they could've put in right field.  More importantly, he's a franchise player.  Along with Francisco Lindor, he's the player the Mets will build around for the next 15 years (or at least the next five).  With the Mets, Soto will get to be THE Man.  That wouldn't have been the case in the Bronx.  The Yankees are Judge's team.

Even though this is a team that reached the NLCS without Juan Soto last season, I can't necessarily say adding him necessarily pushes them over the top.  The Mets might not even be the best team in the NL East.  Soto brings them closer to the Phillies and Braves, but they, too, have more work to do this offseason.  And it's not like the Dodgers are going anywhere, either.  We know Steve Cohen has an unlimited budget, so we'll see how aggressive he is the rest of the winter.  Because there are other holes the Mets need to fill.

J.D. Martinez is likely gone as a result of the Soto signing.  I wouldn't be surprised if they end up losing Pete Alonso now, too, since other suitors will be able to offer him more (there are also luxury tax concerns that they should care about, even though we know Cohen doesn't).  And starting pitching is always an adventure for the Mets.  This offseason has been no different.  So, even after they got their guy, they've still got plenty to do.

Almost a year to the day after Ohtani's record deal, Juan Soto became the highest-paid player in baseball history.  That was just the start of what promises to be a busy offseason.  While we won't see another deal that comes anywhere close to the one Soto signed, now the fun really starts.  The Winter Meetings got off to a flashy start with the biggest fish coming off the board right off the bat.  Now it's everybody else's turn.

NFL 2024 (Week 14)

Something that's been very apparent for most of the season, but especially on the last two Thursdays when three of the division's four teams were featured, is that the NFC North is far and away the best division in football.  It's not even close.  The Lions, Vikings and Packers will all make the playoffs and are a combined 31-7 this season, with four of those losses coming against each other (Green Bay's four losses this season are to Detroit twice, Minnesota and Philadelphia).  So, yeah, they're pretty good.  All three of them.

I also think it'll be good for the top teams (Buffalo, Kansas City, Philadelphia, the three in the NFC North) to lose another game before the playoffs.  It sounds crazy to say that since the battle for positioning is so tight, but do you really want the added pressure of going into the playoffs on a massive winning streak with a 16-1 or 15-2 record?  The top teams all seem poised for another loss, too, which, again, I don't think is necessarily a bad thing.  Look at the Chiefs last season.  They lost to the Raiders on Christmas, then didn't lose again until three weeks ago.

Thursday Night: Green Bay (Loss)

Jaguars (2-10) at Titans (3-9): Tennessee-That was 100 percent a dirty play that knocked Trevor Lawrence out last week.  There's really no way to sugar coat it.  And, as a result, Lawrence is done for the season.  With Jacksonville officially eliminated from the playoff race, that was the right decision.  The Jaguars also currently stand to get the No. 1 pick in the draft.  That's a tight race with the Giants and Raiders, though, so they can't afford to screw it up by winning.

Jets (3-9) at Dolphins (5-7): Miami-Aaron Rodgers wants to play next season, and he wants to return to the Jets.  They don't seem to have any interest in a reunion, though.  That's how dysfunctional this relationship has become and how much of a disaster this season has turned into.  The Dolphins haven't exactly impressed this year, either, but they've simply not played up to expectations.  And they're still alive in the playoff race.  Playing the Jets twice in the last five weeks certainly helps that cause.

Falcons (6-6) at Vikings (10-2): Minnesota-Atlanta was sitting pretty at 6-3 with a two-game lead in the NFC South.  That lead has completely evaporated, and they're only holding on to a playoff spot because they hold the tiebreaker over Tampa Bay.  Traveling to Minnesota isn't exactly the recipe for getting them back on track.  Kirk Cousins returns to his old stomping ground needing a win to stop the Falcons' skid, but I'm not sure he gets it.

Saints (4-8) at Giants (2-10): New Orleans-On Thanksgiving, the Giants actually looked like a competent, professional football team.  They still lost, but it was one of their better efforts of the season regardless.  The crazy thing is that both of their wins have come on the road.  At home, they've been utterly pathetic.  Honestly, I don't see that changing here.  The last time they played at MetLife, they got booed off the field at halftime.  Not having that happen again could be considered a minor victory.

Panthers (3-9) at Eagles (10-2): Philadelphia-Give the Panthers credit.  They've become quite the nuisance.  A three-point loss to Kansas City, then an overtime loss to Tampa Bay.  So, the Eagles should anticipate having their hands full.  Philadelphia's on a roll and will clinch a playoff berth win a win and some help (in the form of all the six-loss teams losing).  And the Lions already won this week, so they need a victory to keep pace with Detroit, too, which is just as important at this point.

Browns (3-9) at Steelers (9-3): Pittsburgh-Two weeks ago, these two met on a Thursday night that started out clear and finished as a blizzard.  The Browns pulled off the upset in that one, which really could've damaged Pittsburgh's chances at winning the division, but the Ravens' loss to Philadelphia gave them back that buffer.  Should the Steelers avoid the season sweep, they'll have a one-game lead with four left.  And they'll need it, since they've got a brutal stretch coming up (at Philadelphia, at Baltimore, Kansas City within 10 days).

Raiders (2-10) at Buccaneers (6-6): Tampa Bay-Thanks to Atlanta's losing streak, Tampa Bay is suddenly tied for first in the NFC South.  The Falcons have the tiebreaker, but that won't matter if they lose in Minnesota and the Bucs win at home against the Raiders this week.  There's obviously four games left after this.  Tampa Bay already has wins over Detroit and Philadelphia, though, so you know they can do some damage should they get in as the NFC South champion.

Seahawks (7-5) at Cardinals (6-6): Seattle-While the NFC North is the best division in football, the NFC West is the most competitive.  They're probably only getting the division winner in, and it'll come down to the end.  Seattle currently has a one-game lead and has won three straight since its bye, including a 16-6 victory over the Cardinals two weeks ago.  Playing the same team twice in that close an amount of time can either be really good or really bad.  For the Seahawks, I'm thinking it'll be good.  They go up two games and, more importantly, get the season sweep.

Bills (10-2) at Rams (6-6): Buffalo-The Bills went into SoFi for the season opener after the Rams won the Super Bowl and came away with a victory, setting the tone for their season.  They enter their first game at SoFi since then with the division already locked up.  Buffalo dominated San Francisco in the snow last week and has a huge matchup with Detroit next week, so this could easily be a trap game.  Especially since the Rams are good.  I don't think they'll let themselves get caught in that trap, though.

Bears (4-8) at 49ers (5-7): San Francisco-We've reached the must-win portion of the season for San Francisco.  The 49ers are still alive, but barely.  And they absolutely have to win out.  Playing the Bears is a good start.  Evidently Matt Eberflus was the only one who thought highly of his clock mismanagement on Thanksgiving.  He was fired literally the next day!  This is Chicago's first game since then.  Changing coaches worked for the Saints.  It didn't for the Jets.  Let's see how it goes for the Bears.

Chargers (8-4) at Chiefs (11-1): Kansas City-When I said the good teams might need another loss, Kansas City was right at the top of that list.  Statistically, the Chiefs should not be 11-1.  They know this.  Yet somehow, they're managing to win every week.  So why would I think they won't again this week?  As for the Chargers, they'll almost certainly be a playoff team, but they're still looking for a signature win against a strong opponent.  Winning on a Sunday night in Kansas City would certainly apply.

Bengals (4-8) at Cowboys (5-7): Dallas-They wouldn't have been able to flex this out of Monday night even if they wanted to because of all the animations and voiceovers that went into Simpsons alternate broadcast.  I doubt they would've anyway.  The Cowboys are still a draw, and Joe Buck indicated as much last week.  Dallas finally got a home win on Thanksgiving, but it wasn't exactly pretty.  They still won, though.  Can they make it two in a row?  (Also, why did they put Cincinnati vs. the NFC East in primetime three times?  And how come Bengals-Eagles didn't make the cut?)

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 15-1
Overall: 124-72

2025 Classic Baseball Ballot

Juan Soto's free agency has been the dominant topic of baseball's offseason and will continue into the start of the Winter Meetings this weekend.  It will also likely end sometime this weekend (Monday at the latest), as Soto seems set to make a decision fairly soon.  His signing won't be the only action at the start of the Winter Meetings, though.  It probably won't even be the first action.  That will be the announcement of the first Hall of Famers who'll be joining Ichiro in Cooperstown next summer.

This year, it's the Classic Baseball Era that's up for election.  Although, the definition of "Classic Baseball" certainly has changed.  It goes all the way until 1980, and the ballot reflects that wide range.  Two of the candidates played in the Negro Leagues.  Two played primarily in the 60s.  And of the other four, three played well into the 80s.

The last time this committee met, they did some necessary clean up.  Four players were voted in, and their elections felt long overdue.  It was nearly five.  Dick Allen missed out by only one vote, and he likely would've joined Gil Hodges, Jim Kaat, Minnie Minoso and Tony Oliva had the voters been allowed to vote for more than four people.  The makeup of the committee is different this year, but I'd be surprised if Allen doesn't get enough votes this time.

So, who do I think will join Allen (and Ichiro)?  I'll get to that at the end.  First, I'm ranking the eight candidates from 1-8.  And, since you can only vote for four, those top four candidates would obviously be the ones who receive my vote.

1. Dick Allen, First Baseman (1963-69 Phillies; 1970 Cardinals; 1971 Dodgers; 1972-74 White Sox; 1975-76 Phillies; 1977 Athletics)-When Allen was on the ballot three years ago, I wasn't very high on his candidacy.  Then, when he just missed election, I took another look and rethought my position.  The definition of "Hall of Fame-caliber" has also changed significantly since Harold Baines was elected.  Allen was one of the most prolific sluggers in the Majors during his 15-year career.  He won a Rookie of the Year in one league and an MVP in the other and was a .292 career hitter...while playing the first half of his career in a pitcher's era.

2. Steve Garvey, First Baseman (1969-82 Dodgers; 1983-87 Padres)-He lost his Senate race.  Will this election go better for him?  I've long been on the Steve Garvey Hall of Fame bandwagon.  I think he's one of the more underrated players of the 70s.  He was the anchor of that Dodgers infield (which hasn't had a single member inducted into the Hall of Fame) and played in an NL-record 1,207 consecutive games.  That's 7 1/2 years during a 19-year career.

3. Tommy John, Pitcher (1963-64 Indians; 1965-71 White Sox; 1972-74, 1976-78 Dodgers; 1979-82 Yankees; 1982-85 Angels; 1985 Athletics; 1986-89 Yankees)-There are two reasons why I think Tommy John's career is Hall of Fame worthy.  The first is obvious.  The man has a freaking surgery named after him that has saved many a pitcher's career!  He missed the 1975 season before the surgery.  He ended up pitching until 1989!  The second are his sheer numbers.  John had 288 wins.  Yeah, he pitched a long time.  But that's still more wins than any pitcher since 1900 who isn't in the Hall of Fame except for Roger Clemens (who isn't in for different reasons).

4. Vic Harris, Outfielder (1922-47 Negro Leagues)-It was a tough call for my fourth "vote," but I ended up going with Vic Harris.  He was great as both an outfielder and manager for the legendary Homestead Grays.  Harris was a career .303 hitter over 18 seasons.  As a manager, his teams won seven pennants and a Negro World Series, and he has the highest winning percentage in history.

5. Dave Parker, Outfielder (1973-83 Pirates; 1984-87 Reds; 1988-89 Athletics; 1990 Brewers; 1991 Angels; 1991 Blue Jays)-Harris got the nod over Dave Parker, although I really wish I had a fifth vote so that I could go with both of them.  Parker was an outstanding defensive right fielder on those excellent Pirates teams in the late 70s, but he also won two batting titles and an MVP in Pittsburgh.  Then, later in his career, he became a solid DH.

6. John Donaldson, Pitcher (1908-40 Negro Leagues)-Donaldson pitched for more than 30 years, mainly for barnstorming Black teams, but also for a short time with the Kansas City Monarchs.  Among the stats that have been able to be verified are 420 wins, 14 no-hitters (including two perfect games) and 5,221 strikeouts.  His real totals are almost certainly higher.  Many consider him the greatest pitcher of his era.

7. Luis Tiant, Pitcher (1964-69 Indians; 1970 Twins; 1971-78 Red Sox; 1979-80 Yankees; 1981 Pirates; 1982 Angels)-Before Fernando Valenzuela was looking towards the heavens during his windup, Luis Tiant was turning his back to the batter and facing second base during his.  Tiant won 20 games four times and led the AL in ERA twice.  And, of course, he's best known as the ace of those Boston teams in the 70s.

8. Ken Boyer, Third Baseman (1955-65 Cardinals; 1966-67 Mets; 1967-68 White Sox; 1968-69 Dodgers)-Boyer was an 11-time All-Star and was the NL MVP in 1964, when the Cardinals won the World Series.  He still ranks among the Cardinals' all-time leaders in most offensive categories and was the second third baseman ever to hit 250 career home runs.  His number has been retired in St. Louis for 40 years, which shows how revered he is in Cardinals lore.

OK, so who gets in?  With only 16 voters, it's really tough to say.  I'm inclined to say Allen, who's fallen one vote short twice, will get over the hump this time.  It's possible that the other votes will be so spread out among the other candidates that he'll end up being the only one.  Regardless, it won't be the four we got three years ago.

I think it'll be two.  For some reason, I think Tommy John will get enough support.  There's a different appreciation for his career and his longevity, and the legacy that revolutionary surgery has left can't be ignored, either.  He had a very similar career to Jim Kaat, who did get in last time, which is another thing I see working in his favor.  So, if I had to guess, I'd say Dick Allen and Tommy John get the nod from the Classic Baseball Era Committee and become the first two members of the Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2025.

Mike Tirico Needs a Break

Mike Tirico is great!  I think we can all agree on this.  He's also one of the hardest-working broadcasters in the business (although, Kenny Albert would probably have something to say about that).  He's the face of NBC Sports, doing play-by-play for Sunday Night Football and serving as the primetime Olympic host, with NBA play-by-play duties likely being added next year, as well as the occasional hosting of a big event or play-by-play appearance in some random sport.  Let's not forget the guest spots on The Today Show and other NBC News programs, as well.

What's funny is that when he first left ESPN for NBC, Tirico had nothing to do, which is hard to believe now!  He was the anointed successor, but Bob Costas was still the primetime Olympic host and Al Michaels was still doing Sunday Night Football.  Tirico did the Olympic daytime show in Rio and would occasionally fill-in for Al when NBC had multiple games in a week, but his primary duties those first few years were Notre Dame games and the Football Night In America studio show.

Oh, how times have changed!  Mike Tirico is obviously very well-compensated, and I'm sure he wouldn't be doing so much working and traveling if he didn't feel he could handle it.  It's also an incredible display of versatility to see him effortlessly move from one sport to another and from play-by-play to studio hosting.  It's easy to see why NBC wants to use him as much as they can.  

Although, while I don't want to say he's overworked or overextended, I definitely think it could benefit both Tirico and NBC if he didn't do everything!  The same goes for Maria Taylor, who pretty much hosts everything Mike Tirico doesn't, including BOTH the college football studio show on Saturday and the NFL studio show on Sunday.  And, seeing as she made her mark covering the NBA for ESPN, you know she'll be involved in NBC's coverage there, as well.

So, where am I going with all this?  NBC will soon get to the point where we see somebody other than Mike Tirico and/or Maria Taylor covering major events.  Especially since their ever-growing sports portfolio will end up having overlapping coverage, meaning they'll need somebody else cover something. 

In 2022, the Winter Olympics and Super Bowl overlapped for the first time.  Since the Super Bowl was on the middle Sunday of the Olympics, Tirico was in Beijing for the start of the Games before flying to LA for the Super Bowl.  Immediately after hosting the Rams' trophy presentation, he segued right back into his Olympic hosting role...while literally still on the field at SoFi Stadium!

During the 2026 Olympics, he won't be able to do that.  For starters, he's doing NFL play-by-play now.  More significantly, though, the Olympic Opening Ceremony is on Friday night in Milan.  The Super Bowl is on Sunday in San Francisco.  You're not asking anyone, let alone the play-by-play guy who needs to be there on-site during Super Bowl Week, to do that.  (Yes, Taylor Swift flew overnight from Tokyo to Las Vegas for the Super Bowl last season, but she was only attending the game, not working it.)

The same thing goes for Maria Taylor.  She'll be in San Francisco hosting the Super Bowl pregame and postgame shows, so it's highly unlikely she'll be in Milan for the start of the Olympics.  NBC will also broadcast the NBA All*Star Game the following week in Los Angeles.  If, as expected, Tirico and Taylor play prominent roles in NBC's NBA coverage, you'd have to figure they'll be in LA for that, as well.

Now, is it possible that they could either return to NBC's home base in Connecticut or even go to LA early and take advantage of being the host broadcaster for the 2028 Olympics for a few days between the Super Bowl and the All*Star Game?  Sure.  But will they be spending those few days in Italy?  Unlikely.  So, like I said, NBC needs to figure something else out soon.  Since Mike and Maria can't be everywhere and do everything!

Can I also envision a scenario where the No. 2 NBA play-by-play guy (Noah Eagle?) does the All*Star Game and Tirico heads to Italy right after the Super Bowl?  Yes.  But that still doesn't solve the problem of the Opening Ceremony and first five nights of Olympic competition coverage, including after the Super Bowl.  And Maria's out since she'll be with Mike at the Super Bowl!  (See why only having two main studio hosts cover everything is an issue?)

My initial guess is that Craig Melvin will probably get the call for those first few days of the 2026 Olympics.  He filled in the primetime host in 2022 while Mike was traveling from Beijing to LA and was the daytime co-host during the Paris Games.  And he was recently promoted to the full-time co-host of Today, which always broadcasts on location from the host city during the Olympics, so he'll be on-site in Italy.  But that's a solution only for 2026, and NBC will have the same problem with the Winter Olympics, Super Bowl and NBA All*Star Game overlapping again in 2030...and every four years after that (although, in 2034 it'll be easier since the Olympics will be in Salt Lake City).

Rebecca Lowe and Ahmet Fareed are the other in-house options.  Rebecca has been involved in Olympic coverage since joining NBC, but usually handles the morning/afternoon show.  Ahmet could be the guy.  He has the versatility to step in and likely won't have a permanent assignment in Milan/Cortina, so it's easy to see him getting the call.  But is either one familiar enough to enough people to anchor primetime Olympic duties?  Frankly, no.  At least not yet.  Although, Ahmet Fareed could easily be groomed to take over as Mike Tirico's eventual successor.

Which brings me back to the root of the problem.  Most of NBC's Olympic commentators don't work for the network full-time.  When it comes to regular coverage of their ever-growing list of sports and leagues, their roster is actually fairly small.  Which is why Mike Tirico and Maria Taylor end up covering everything.  They're working some other, younger announcers in, but, primarily, it's Mike and Maria.

As good as Mike Tirico and Maria Taylor are (although, frankly, I don't think Maria's anywhere near as good as she thinks she is), NBC needs to build a bigger team around them, if only to give those two a break.  Because it will be physically impossible for them to cover both the Super Bowl and Winter Olympics, let alone the NBA All*Star Game, in 2026!

The Race For 2036

Prior to the Paris Games, we didn't even know where the Winter Olympics in 2030 would be held.  The French Alps were finally awarded those Games, with only five and a half years to prepare.  The 2034 Winter Olympics were awarded to Salt Lake City at the same time, so we suddenly just like that knew the Olympic hosts for the next decade.  And the jockeying has already begun for the next available Olympics in 2036, where some heavy hitters look to be entering the race.

The Olympics have never been held in the Middle East (or any Arab country).  That's something the IOC would love to change.  By 2036, the World Cup will have been held in the Middle East twice--2022 in Qatar, 2034 in Saudi Arabia.  Doha has been very transparent about its desire to host the Olympics and has apparently already had discussions with the IOC about 2036.  Riyadh is also interested, although they haven't officially declared themselves a candidate yet.

Of course, while Qatar and Saudi Arabia both have money out the wazoo and can easily handle the infrastructure, the issue that plagues any possible Middle Eastern bid hasn't gone away.  It's incredibly hot there in the middle of the summer.  That's why the 2022 World Cup was moved to the winter and the 2019 Track & Field World Championships in Doha were held in October--and even then, they had to hold events at midnight to combat the heat.  At both events, they used a cooling system inside the stadium.  For the limited number of stadiums used in the World Cup, that worked.  There are a lot more venues used at an Olympics, though!

Holding the Track & Field World Championships later in the year didn't make too much of a difference since all it did was extend the season a few weeks, but we saw how disruptive moving the 2022 World Cup was.  Now think about what kind of an impact moving the Olympics, with its hours of TV coverage across the world, to September or October would be!  And not just for the broadcasters, but for all the athletes and professional leagues, as well.  There's a reason why they block off dates in July and August for the Olympics--when the heat in the Middle East is unbearable!

It does seem inevitable that Doha will eventually get to host an Olympics.  But they have to figure all of that stuff out first.  You either do it in the middle of the summer, when conditions are borderline unsafe for athletes and spectators, or move the Olympics later in the year, which could cause a problem with international broadcasters since it would conflict with other events.

Another place that the Olympics have never been is India, the most populous country on Earth.  Despite its population, India is nowhere near as successful a sporting nation as China or the United States, mainly because of economic reasons.  They've made more of a financial investment in sports, though, and have specifically targeted hosting major events.  Even though a city hasn't been selected, the Indian Olympic Association has submitted a letter of intent to the IOC's Future Host Commission expressing its interest in 2036.

An Olympics in Africa is another long-time IOC goal.  The 2026 Youth Olympics will be held in Dakar, Senegal.  If they're a success, it could be a precursor to the main event taking place on African soil for the first time.  The IOC met with officials from South Africa last week and expressed confidence in the country's ability to stage an Olympics.  That's especially important since the IOC clearly wants to have an Olympics in Africa, so it's really just finding the right site (and South Africa is one of the few countries that could handle the financial and logistical requirements).

Then there's serial Olympic bidder Istanbul.  They've taken a few Games off, having last bid for 2020, but are back in the running for 2036.  Istanbul wants to host the Olympics.  That's why they keep bidding.  You'd have to think their persistence will eventually be rewarded, as it should be.  Especially since Istanbul would be that first Middle Eastern/Arab city to host, but can do it within the traditional window.  Not to mention the fact that it's located in both Europe AND Asia, a cool feature that no other major city in the world can claim!

Other countries that have expressed interest in 2036 include Indonesia, which would hold the Olympics throughout the country, but centered in the new capital city.  Santiago, Chile, meanwhile, got the IOC's seal of approval after successfully hosting the 2023 Pan Am Games.  The President has given the Chilean Ministry of Sport the green light, so a bid from Santiago seems to be a go, as well.

What's notable, however, is that 2036 will be 12 years since the Paris Games.  There's never been longer than a 12-year gap between Summer Olympics in Europe.  Which would lead you to believe that none of those cities are likely for 2036, when it would be Europe's "turn."  There's no formal rotation among the continents, but the IOC is still a heavily European-based organization, so you'd have to think they wouldn't want to go longer than that...especially with 2028 and 2032 already going to North America and Australia.

While no European city other than Istanbul has officially declared its candidacy, there are several that have expressed interest.  Some of the potential bidders have already shifted their focus to 2040, which might be an indication that the IOC is leaning towards Doha.  Still, I don't think a European host in 2036 is completely out of the question.  Especially because one city in particular, an Olympic host in waiting, is still in the mix.  Budapest.

Budapest's bid for 2024 was torpedoed by a local referendum, and another referendum is scheduled for the 2036 bid.  So, it may fizzle out before even really getting off the ground.  But, assuming the citizens of Budapest vote "Yes" and the bid moves forward, it would instantly be considered the favorite.  Budapest has a great track record after hosting wonderful World Championships in both aquatics (twice) and track & field in recent years, and has more major events on the horizon.  The city is ready and plenty capable of hosting an Olympics.  It has been for a while.

This will be the second Summer Olympics awarded under the IOC's new bid process with the Host City Commission instead of a traditional competition between cities.  The first was the 2032 Games going to Brisbane, with some interested parties surprised by how quickly the entire process took.  Those Olympics were awarded on the eve of the Tokyo Games--a full 11 years in advance.  That's the timeline that potential hosts are working with now, which is why we're already talking about hosts for an Olympics that's 12 years away.

Some have suggested that Doha's already a done deal and the IOC is just waiting to announce it until after the Presidential election in March.  That very well may be the case.  Or the new IOC President may want to have a say on where the final Olympics of their tenure will take place (assuming the new President is reelected for a second four-year term after their initial eight-year term).  Or maybe we'll see the bidding process entirely changed once again. 

Because the current bidding process isn't exactly the most transparent.  The Future Host Commission was set up in response to the lack of candidates that had plagued the IOC for several host city elections in a row, but it's incredibly secretive, which has made it the subject of a lot of criticism.  So, I wouldn't be surprised if there are changes after a few unanimous "elections" of the IOC's hand-picked choice.  Especially if the 2036 Olympics end up going to Doha shortly after the Presidential election.

Either way, there are several capable options that appear willing to host the 2036 Olympics.  And that's most certainly a good thing.  Even though it seems so far ahead to even be thinking about the 2036 Games, I wouldn't be surprised if a host city announcement isn't that far off.  If I had to guess, it'll be just before the start of 2026 Winter Olympics in Italy...which are only 14 months away.

NFL 2024 (Week 13)

Remember when the Lions were the only bad team that played on Thanksgiving?  Detroit used to be so bad, in fact, that Thanksgiving would sometimes be their only national game of the year...and people would complain about having to see them!  My how times have changed!  There are three Thanksgiving games, and only two of the six teams playing are worth watching...and the Lions are one of them.

They've been doing three games on Thanksgiving long enough that it's now a tradition.  Detroit, Dallas, night game.  And now there's the Black Friday game.  Plus, Sunday and Monday night.  That's six national games this week.  Is it any wonder why there are never any byes during Thanksgiving week?

Bears (4-7) at Lions (10-1): Detroit-Believe it or not, the Lions are on a seven-game Thanksgiving losing streak.  Even last year when they were good, they played perhaps their worst game of the season and lost to the Packers (which started Green Bay's run to the playoffs).  It has to end against the Bears, right?  I mean, they've scored 52 points in each of their last two home games.  Although, you also have to wonder how many more different ways Chicago can find to lose after Washington, Green Bay and Sunday against Minnesota.

Giants (2-9) at Cowboys (4-7): Dallas-Dallas hasn't won a home game all season and has lost each of them by 20 points.  It'll be a challenge to keep that streak alive.  Two years ago, these two met on Thanksgiving after a World Cup game and it ended up being a good matchup between playoff-bound teams.  This year, I bet the NFL was wishing they'd been able to flex it out!  Two bad teams playing with backup quarterbacks isn't exactly what they had in mind for one of the showcase games of the season.

Dolphins (5-6) at Packers (8-3): Green Bay-Playing on Thanksgiving certainly isn't a new experience for the Packers, but playing at Lambeau on Thanksgiving night sure is.  Miami was definitely an interesting selection as their opponent, but the Dolphins were a playoff team last season and Tua's a draw, so I do kind of get it.  Even if it does seem super random.  Anyway, it's gonna be cold.  Which you know isn't a good thing for Miami.

Raiders (2-9) at Chiefs (10-1): Kansas City-Thursday, Sunday, Monday.  Now add Friday to the list of days on which the Chiefs have had a game this season.  Four down, two to go.  Last season, they played the Raiders at home on Christmas, played a terrible game and lost.  It was their last loss until that game in Buffalo two weeks ago.  So, they won't take this Black Friday matchup lightly.  Especially since they weren't great and kinda got lucky in Carolina on Sunday.

Chargers (7-4) at Falcons (6-5): Atlanta-Atlanta has dropped two in a row, but still has a one-game lead in the NFC South.  The Chargers, meanwhile, saw their four-game winning streak snapped on Monday night.  They're still in comfortable playoff position, though, with a two-game edge over Miami in the loss column.  This is a big one for both teams.  The Falcons are coming off a bye and playing at home, while the Chargers are flying cross country for a 1:00 game after playing at home on Monday night.  That's why I give the advantage to Atlanta.

Steelers (8-3) at Bengals (4-7): Pittsburgh-For the Steelers, losing in Cleveland was bad.  There's really no way to sugarcoat it.  Then things got even worse when the Ravens won on Monday night.  Now their division lead is just a half-game, and they have a very difficult remaining schedule (at Philadelphia, at Baltimore, Kansas City plus three other division games).  You know the Bengals would relish the chance to play spoiler, but the Steelers know the urgency.

Cardinals (6-5) at Vikings (9-2): Minnesota-Sam Darnold and Daniel Jones were both driven out of New York.  They're now the starter and backup quarterback for a likely playoff team.  Which tells you all you need to know about the state of New York football.  The Vikings are the only NFC North team not playing on Thanksgiving.  Which could be an advantage since they'll know how everybody did.  More significantly, they'll know how they stack up with the Lions and Packers.

Colts (5-7) at Patriots (3-9): Indianapolis-When it was Manning vs. Brady, Colts-Patriots was always a must-see matchup.  These days, it's very much not.  I will say that Indy badly needs to win it, though.  The Colts have dropped three out of four and are on the verge of playing themselves right out of the playoff race.  The AFC South is still winnable for them, too, though.  But not if they don't get a win in Foxboro.

Seahawks (6-5) at Jets (3-8): Seattle-Things are crazy in the NFC West, and it'll likely stay that way for the rest of the season.  The Seahawks took over the division lead with their win over Arizona on Sunday.  Playing the Jets while Arizona visits Minnesota and San Francisco visits Buffalo gives them a prime opportunity to make it a two-game lead with five left.

Titans (3-8) at Commanders (7-5): Washington-After starting 7-2, Washington has lost three straight.  As a result, the Commanders have gone from the 2-seed in the NFC to the 7-seed.  They're coming off a a brutal (albeit entertaining) loss to Dallas.  The Titans were also involved in a brutal loss on Sunday, upsetting the Texans and making the AFC South race a lot more interesting.  Washington needs a win here, especially with the bye finally coming next week.  They don't want to go into that bye on a four-game skid.

Texans (7-5) at Jaguars (2-9): Houston-Just when we thought the division was gonna be a cakewalk, the Texans went and lost at home to Tennessee.  They're 7-5, but they started 5-1, and there have been some bad losses during this 2-4 stretch.  Which Texans team will we see over the final third of the season?  For their sake, it needs to be the first one.  Because they've got games with Kansas City and Baltimore still on the schedule.

Rams (5-6) at Saints (4-7): Rams-I really don't get the LA Rams.  They're a team that's scary, and they're the opponent good teams don't want to see in the playoffs.  It actually seems to vary week-by-week which Rams team will show up.  Although, on Sunday night, they just got outplayed by a better Eagles team.  On the flip side, they're better than the Saints.  New Orleans is 2-0 since firing its coach, though.

Buccaneers (5-6) at Panthers (3-8): Tampa Bay-Tampa Bay is still very much in the playoff mix.  Yes, they were playing the Giants, but that was still an impressive performance on Sunday.  Carolina's performance against Kansas City was impressive, too.  The Panthers are definitely improved.  They're not gonna finish 3-14.  The Bucs definitely need to be on high upset alert.

Eagles (9-2) at Ravens (8-4): Philadelphia-A good one in the exclusive late Sunday doubleheader window.  I'm not sure why people are talking about Lamar Jackson as an MVP candidate.  Because that guy playing running back for the Eagles is sure making a strong case for himself.  How great must Saquon feel to not only be free from the Giants but to be arguably the best player on one of the best teams in football?  That Hard Knocks clip certainly hasn't aged well!  Anyway, I can really see either team winning this one, but I think the Eagles are better, so I'm going with them.

49ers (5-6) at Bills (9-2): Buffalo-If the Packers win on Thanksgiving, the Bills can clinch the division on Sunday night.  And it's supposed to snow in Western New York.  Potentially clinching on December 1 is certainly a much different situation than the one they were in last year, when they needed a win in Week 18 just to make the playoffs.  The 49ers are also in a much different situation than they were last year.  They're running out of time to get back in it.  If they lose here, they'll almost have to win out to have any shot.

Browns (3-8) at Broncos (7-5): Denver-Unfortunately, the Monday night game is a bit of a dud.  Cleveland is one of the most confusing teams in the league.  The Browns lost at home to the Giants and Cowboys, but have also beaten both Baltimore and Pittsburgh...also in Cleveland.  Their only road win came in Jacksonville.  The Broncos aren't the Jaguars.  They're looking more and more like a playoff team with each passing week.

Last Week: 8-5
Overall: 109-70

NFL 2024 (Week 12)

Man, there sure was some good off-the-field NFL drama this week, wasn't there?!   And, immediately after the Giants and Daniel Jones agreed to part ways, there was already the social media buzz that he should sign with the Cowboys just so he can play against them on Thanksgiving.  That seems unlikely, but it would definitely be funny! 

Meanwhile, New York's other terrible quarterback has said he wants to play in 2025, so the speculation on where he'll end up has also been making the rounds.  A reunion with the Jets seems like a longshot, especially when you consider they've brought in all of his friends to play receiver and they still suck!  Another Facebook meme I saw this week said "Joe Montana...took the Chiefs to the AFC Championship Game, Peyton Manning...went to two Super Bowls and won one, Tom Brady...won a Super Bowl, Aaron Rodgers...got the coach and GM fired."  That pretty much sums it up.

Thursday Night: Pittsburgh (Loss)

Vikings (8-2) at Bears (4-6): Minnesota-Reality has started to set in for the Bears.  They went into their bye week at 4-2.  They haven't won since then.  And their schedule's only getting harder now that they're playing division games (against three possible playoff teams).  I wouldn't be shocked if they go into Detroit on Thanksgiving and win (since that seems to be the Lions' Thanksgiving M.O.).  Beating the Vikings this week, though?  That I'm not as sure about.  Minnesota has rebounded nicely from those back-to-back losses.

Lions (9-1) at Colts (5-6): Detroit-Now that the Chiefs have lost, the Lions are the new betting favorites to win the Super Bowl.  Of course, Kansas City losing has absolutely nothing to do with Detroit, but the Lions have been proving all season that they're one of the best teams in football.  They can win in different ways, too, which is important as we get later in the season.  They had that ridiculous comeback in Houston, then bludgeoned Jacksonville in their next game.  What will they do against the Colts?

Patriots (3-8) at Dolphins (4-6): Miami-If New England wins, Buffalo will essentially clinch the AFC East (the Bills can't do anything officially this week since it's their bye).  They may have to wait for that until December, though, because the Dolphins have been playing much better of late.  After that Monday night upset in LA, they came home and dominated the Raiders last week.  With a win here, they'll keep themselves in the playoff conversation entering the season's final month.

Buccaneers (4-6) at Giants (2-8): Tampa Bay-Um...yeah.  So, Tommy DeVito.  I get the whole Daniel Jones thing, think it needed it to happen, and agree that it was better for all involved to just completely go their separate ways.  (Even Saquon Barkley was like, "Dude, you're lucky to get out of there!") But why is Drew Lock on the roster if you're not gonna play him?  Unless the goal is to continue losing enough to get the No. 1 pick.

Cowboys (3-7) at Commanders (7-4): Washington-It really is kind of impressive how Dallas has lost every one of its home games, and all of them by at least 20 points.  Of course, they host the Giants on Thanksgiving, so that'll make it tough to keep that streak going.  This week, they head to Washington, so you'd figure the game might be a little closer.  And it's the Commanders who really need the win after dropping two straight and out of first place.

Chiefs (9-1) at Panthers (3-7): Kansas City-That loss to the Bills might've been the best thing for Kansas City.  Trying to become the first team in the Super Bowl Era to three-peat was challenging enough.  They didn't need the added pressure of being undefeated on top of it.  Beyond that, though, they'd hadn't lost since last Christmas, and sometimes you need that feeling to motivate you.  They'll take it out on the Panthers.

Titans (2-8) at Texans (7-4): Houston-All credit to the Texans.  They suffered a bad loss to Detroit, only to come back and hand it to the Cowboys on Monday.  While they only have a two-game lead and anything can happen, Houston can start thinking about playoffs and seeding.  They've got a couple division games coming up before their (ridiculously late) bye, when their schedule gets significantly tougher.  In other words, they'd better take care of business at home against the Titans if they don't want to make their lives much harder than they need to be.

Broncos (6-5) at Raiders (2-8): Denver-Denver isn't sneaking up on anybody anymore.  After all those years in the post-Peyton Manning wilderness, Sean Payton may finally have the Broncos headed in the right direction.  This sure looks like a playoff team.  They don't have the easiest schedule down the stretch, so they need to take care of business in the games they should win.  A visit to Las Vegas to play the Raiders certainly qualifies as one of those.

49ers (5-5) at Packers (7-3): Green Bay-Last season, the seventh-seeded Packers went into San Francisco and nearly pulled off the upset against the top-seeded 49ers in the Divisional Playoffs.  That didn't happen, of course, but Green Bay's playoff run last season should've signaled us how formidable they'd be again this season.  They're comfortable in playoff position, but the NFC North is tight, so they need this one to keep pace.  The 49ers also need this one not just because they'll fall below .500 with a loss, but because everybody in the NFC West is within a game of each other.  That division race is the one to watch over the final month of the season.

Cardinals (6-4) at Seahawks (5-5): Seattle-Speaking of the NFC West, it's Arizona who's currently in first place at 6-4, a game ahead of the other three.  Which makes this a huge one in Seattle.  The Cardinals will either have a two-game lead or be tied with at least the Seahawks (how cool would a four-way tie be?!).  These two are gonna see a lot of each other over the next two weeks.  They meet again in Seattle in Week 14.  Lots of NFC West games down the stretch.  A lot still to be decided.

Eagles (8-2) at Rams (5-5): Rams-The Chargers got flexed into Sunday night last week, which made things really easy for NBC's crew since they already had Eagles-Rams scheduled for this week.  I'm intrigued by this one.  The Eagles have won six in a row, while the Rams rebounded from that shocking loss to Miami with a win in New England.  Yes, the Patriots aren't good, but the Rams also flew cross country on a short week for a 1:00 game, which is never easy.  They're that pesky team nobody wants to play because you know you'll have a fight on your hands.  Especially now that they're getting healthy.

Ravens (7-4) at Chargers (7-3): Chargers-Sunday Night Football is at SoFi this week, so why not Monday Night Football too?!  And it's the Harbowl!  John vs. Jim for the first time since Super Bowl XLVII!  The Ravens were handed a massive gift by the Browns on Thursday night, but this is a tough matchup for them.  Jim Harbaugh loves having Justin Herbert, and he's effortlessly transferred his system back to the NFL with the Chargers.  The Chargers are a dangerous team.  Which is something the Ravens will find out.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 12-2
Overall: 101-66

Baseball's Best Players, 2024

No DH has ever won MVP.  That stat should actually have an asterisk since Ohtani has won MVP multiple times.  What I should say is that no true DH has ever won MVP.  Either way, that will change once Ohtani is announced as this year's winner.  He won't only become the first DH to win MVP for his exceptional first season with the Dodgers, he'll join Frank Robinson as just the second player in Major League history to win MVP in both leagues.

Maybe it was because he wasn't pitching and could focus exclusively on hitting.  Maybe it was because of ridiculously good the lineup behind him was.  Whatever the reason, this was the greatest offensive season of Ohtani's career.  In addition to leading the league in homers, RBIs and runs (and ranking second in batting average and hits), he also stole 50 bases.  You know how many 50 HR/50 SB seasons there have been in MLB history prior to Ohtani this year?  Zero!

Last season, Ohtani unanimously won AL MVP.  This season, he may win unanimously again, this time in the National League.  Although, I do think it's possible it might not be unanimous.  Because, if not for Ohtani, Francisco Lindor's season would definitely be considered MVP-worthy.

Lindor had the best all-around season of any National League position player.  His 2024 season was so much more than that, though.  The Mets were going nowhere fast in late May when they moved Lindor into the leadoff spot.  After that, they took off, making the playoffs and getting all the way to the NLCS.  Lindor didn't just provide leadership.  He was the author of so many big moments during the incredible second half of the Mets' season.

Diamondbacks second baseman Ketel Marte finished third in the voting.  He took his outstanding 2023 postseason and carried it over into the 2024 campaign.  Marte was great offensively (he ranked among the top 10 in batting average, home runs and RBIs) and he was great defensively.  While I don't have him third on my ballot, he certainly would've been one of my 10 selections.

My third-place vote went to Marcell Ozuna, who was a constant in the Braves lineup (he was one of only four National League players to appear in all 162 games).  He was second in the NL in homers, third in average and fourth in RBIs.  Of course, he was second among DHs in all three categories, trailing only you know who.  If not for Ohtani, Ozuna would be the DH we'd be talking about in the NL MVP conversation.

Who else should be in the conversation?  Mookie Betts.  He played all over the field for the Dodgers while batting between Ohtani and Freddie Freeman.  Luis Arraez.  All that guy does is hit.  Bryce Harper and Kyle Schwarber.  They both stayed healthy, which was a big key to the Phillies' success.  Teoscar Hernandez.  You finally put that guy on a good team and look what happened!  Jackson Merrill.  He wasn't the Rookie of the Year, but he easily could've been.  Pete Alonso for all of his clutch hits.  And Chris Sale's pitching Triple Crown can't be ignored.  Nor can what Paul Skenes did.

So, how does my ballot look behind Ohtani and Lindor?  Something like this: 3. Ozuna, 4. Harper, 5. Marte, 6. Arraez, 7. Betts, 8. Hernandez, 9. Merrill, 10. Schwarber.

Over in the American League, it's the Yankees' 1-2 punch of Aaron Judge and Juan Soto going up against Bobby Witt, Jr.  AL MVP was the exclusive domain of the Angels for so long.  First it was Mike Trout, then it was Ohtani.  Judge, of course, won the award in 2022 after his historic 62-home run season.  And now, in the first season with Ohtani in the National League (thus theoretically opening it up for everybody else), he seems poised to win it again.

You can't talk about Judge or Soto without talking about the other.  The combination proved to be everything the Yankees hoped it would when they traded for Soto.  They don't get to the World Series without them, and I think they made each other better.  Soto had the best year of his career, and Judge's 2024 season might've been even better than his record-setting 2022 campaign.

Judge led the Majors in home runs (58), RBIs (144), on-base percentage (.458), slugging percentage (.701), OPS (1.159) and walks (133).  The Yankees' captain, he played like one.  Judge switched positions (from right field to center) and moved down in the batting order (from second to third) to accommodate Soto.  As he goes, so go the Yankees.  This season was proof of that.

Soto may or may not still be a Yankee in 2025.  But, if 2024 was his only season in pinstripes, it was a glorious one!  Batting in front of Judge, he hit .288 with 41 homers and 109 RBIs.  Soto also had a career-high 166 hits and ranked second in the Majors in runs.  The guy was already set to get paid a ton.  He made himself more money by not just showing he can handle New York, but showing he can thrive in it.

In any other year, Bobby Witt, Jr., would be a slam-dunk MVP selection.  As it is, the Royals' franchise  player likely split the Yankees and finished as the runner-up behind Judge.  He led the Majors in batting average (.332) while putting together a 30-30 season.  Witt also played Gold Glove defense at shortstop.  Much like Francisco Lindor, he was arguably the best all-around player in his league.  The only reason he won't win MVP was because somebody else put up otherworldly offensive numbers.

Those three clearly separated themselves.  There are plenty of others who deserve their down-ballot votes, though.  Anthony Santander had his most productive season, hitting 44 homers and driving in 102.  Jose Ramirez continued to do Jose Ramirez things.  Can people please stop saying this guy is underrated?  He's one of the best freakin' players in the American League!  So is Vladimir Guerrero, Jr., who didn't let the Blue Jays' disappointing season prevent him from putting up monster numbers.  The same could be said for Brent Rookier during the A's final season in Oakland.

While Witt is the face of the Royals' future, let's not forget that their present also includes Salvador Perez, who's still raking at age 34.  Jarren Duran had such an unheralded all-around good season for the Red Sox.  So did Yordan Alvarez in Houston.  I can't forget Gunnar Henderson's follow-up to his Rookie of the Year campaign, either.  And Tarik Skubal certainly deserves to be up there.  The Tigers don't even come close to the playoffs without their ace.

Judge wins his second MVP in three years, but it's not a Yankees 1-2 since Witt finishes ahead of Soto.  As for the rest of the AL MVP ballot, my selections look like this: 4. Ramirez, 5. Guerrero, 6. Skubal, 7. Santander, 8. Perez, 9. Duran, 10. Henderson.