Baseball Pre-Playoff Rankings

The situation regarding the Mets-Braves doubleheader that wrapped up the MLB season on Monday ultimately wasn't fair to anybody.  It wasn't fair to the Mets, who had to fly from Atlanta to Milwaukee, back to Atlanta, back to Milwaukee.  It wasn't fair to the Diamondbacks, who couldn't do anything but sit there and watch, knowing that their season was over unless whoever won the first game also won the second (despite having absolutely no incentive to do so).  And, while the Braves got to stay in Atlanta the whole time, they still had to play two games before getting on a plane and flying to San Diego to play the next day (I guess the silver lining there is that the Padres-Braves winner plays the Dodgers, so they'll at least get to stay in SoCal all week if they do win the Wild Card Series).

I get that it wasn't ideal and that it only came about because of the hurricane (as well as the Mets' decision to reschedule an April rainout during that series instead of on a mutual off day during the season).  And, yes, there was likely some gamesmanship involved in the Braves not wanting to play on Monday or adjust the start time on Wednesday.  But still, MLB had the authority to step in and move the series somewhere that wasn't impacted by the hurricane (for example, Texas) and chose not to.  They rescheduled it as a Monday doubleheader instead.

And there's something to be said about preserving the integrity of the 162-game schedule.   They let it be decided on the field and let the Diamondbacks still theoretically have a chance, even if it was completely out of their control.  It definitely could've been handled better, though.  Because the Mets and Braves have both been put at an incredible disadvantage heading into the playoffs.

As a result, I've got both teams ranked lower than I otherwise would in my pre-playoff rankings.  This year, instead of trying to pick my World Series winner by predicting the results of each series, I'm putting the teams in order from 1-12 (or 12-1, since I'm going in reverse order) based on what I think the likelihood of their winning the World Series is.  And, even though I know full well that getting that bye into the Division Series isn't necessarily an advantage under this new format, I'd still rather be in the Dodgers, Phillies, Yankees or Guardians' position than that of the other eight teams.

12. Mets: Winning Game 1 of the doubleheader was huge because it meant they didn't have to use Luis Severino and were able to hold him for the opener of the Wild Card Series.  But they still had to use everyone else, so their bullpen was taxed to say the least.  And that could be the biggest factor heading into their series with a Brewers team they just played...and didn't have to go back-and-forth to Atlanta.

11. Brewers: With that being said, though, I don't see either the Mets or the Brewers beating the Phillies.  Milwaukee may be the best team in the NL Central, but they're far from the best team in the playoffs.  Not by a long shot.  They have a decent rotation and a solid bullpen, but, while it might be enough to beat the Mets, it's not enough to win the pennant.

10. Royals: Don't be surprised if this is the first of many playoff appearances for the Royals in the Bobby Witt Jr. Era.  Seeing Witt in the postseason will be great, though, and so will seeing Sal Perez get another shot in the spotlight.  I can actually see their rotation shutting down the Orioles' lineup (or, at the very least, outpitching Baltimore's starters).  It'll take a lot for them to get beyond the Division Series, though.

9. Tigers: Why do I have the Tigers rated above three other teams?  Two words: Tarik Skubal.  They were able to lineup the AL Cy Young frontrunner to pitch Game 1 against Houston, and if they can steal that game, winning the series isn't out of the question at all.  Can they go much beyond the Division Series?  Probably not.  But the fact that they have the best pitcher makes me think that first-round upset is possible.

8. Braves: Back spasms was the official reason, but being able to avoid using Chris Sale in the second game of the Mets doubleheader might've been a blessing in disguise.  Because now he's available to pitch against San Diego.  Getting into the playoffs was the biggest thing for a Braves team that's well-equipped to make a run like last year's Rangers.  Except having to use Raisel Iglesias twice on Monday puts an extra burden on their bullpen.  They beat the Padres, they can easily beat the Dodgers.  Beating the Padres is by no means a guarantee, though.

7. Orioles: Baltimore can outslug anybody in the playoffs.  I've seen it firsthand twice this season.  And they won the season series with the Yankees, so it's not crazy to see them playing in the ALCS.  They have to get by Kansas City first, though, and I can easily see them losing to the Royals.  The Orioles' pitching needs to keep up with their hitting.  If either side falters, they aren't going very far.

6. Padres: Who would've thought that trading their best player--Juan Soto--would set the Padres up to become a playoff team?  Heck, at midseason, there were probably very few people who thought they'd be a playoff team.  Yet here they are, hosting a Wild Card Series against a Braves team that had to fly cross country after playing a doubleheader.  They can easily beat Atlanta.  They can easily beat the Dodgers, too.

5. Guardians: Cleveland is good!  I'm not sure people realize how good.  And if the Guardians have the lead late, it's pretty much game over.  Before they can get the ball to the lights-out Emmanuel Clase, though, they need their starters to come through.  That's the biggest question mark surrounding the Guardians and why I can't put them any higher.  They're gonna hit.  There's no question about that.  But will that be enough, especially since they could very well be facing Houston in the Division Series?

4. Astros: It's October and it's the Astros.  Pick against them at your own peril.  Sure, this season's a little different in that they actually have to play the Wild Card Series and they won't have home field in the Division Series (against a very formidable Cleveland team).  But, still, they've been to seven straight ALCS for a reason.  The crazy thing is I can see them losing to the Tigers.  But I can also see them extending that streak to eight.

3. Yankees: Despite being terrible for a six-week stretch in July and August, the Yankees still earned the No. 1 seed in the AL and actually head into the playoffs fairly healthy.  Losing Anthony Rizzo hurts.  Obviously.  But the lineup is otherwise intact and good enough to absorb that loss.  The biggest difference between this Yankees team and Yankees teams in recent years (other than the fact that they now have the Judge-Soto combination) is the fact that they actually have a solid starting rotation.  That's what makes them formidable. 

2. Dodgers: Shohei Ohtani embarks on his first foray into October after another historic regular season.  And the Dodgers always have to be considered one of the favorites, especially after a 98-win campaign.  However, there are question marks, especially on the pitching staff.  Not to mention the fact that they've gotten upset in the Division Series by a division opponent in each of the last two years.  So, while it wouldn't be smart to count them out, picking them to win it all isn't exactly a safe bet, either.

1. Phillies: All season long, I've thought the Phillies were the best team in baseball.  Heading into the playoffs, I have no reason to move off of that stance.  They've got the playoff experience over the past two years, and I think they've got the best-equipped pitching staff for the October grind.  That lineup is obviously stacked, too.  Plus, you know they're motivated after coming so close in the last two years.  I know it's far from a guarantee, but I think the Phillies are in the best position to win the 2024 World Series.

NFL 2024 (Week 4)

The NFL season is only three weeks old, but there are already a bunch of teams feeling the pressure.  The Bengals are 0-3.  The Jaguars are 0-3.  The Ravens and 49ers, both considered to be Super Bowl contenders, are 1-2.  The Cowboys were 1-2 heading into their Thursday night game against the Giants, where they got the win, but still have a lot of unanswered questions.  And the pressure will only mount if some of the other teams I mentioned don't join them in the win column this week.

Thursday Night: Dallas (Win)

Saints (2-1) at Falcons (1-2): New Orleans-After scoring 91 points in their first two games, the Saints were held to 12 by the Eagles last week.  So, that offense clearly isn't as good as the first two weeks indicated.  I don't think it's as pedestrian as the Eagles made it look either, though.  It's probably somewhere in the middle.  Atlanta, meanwhile, has its fourth straight tough opponent to start the season.  The Falcons fortunately got that win over Philadelphia.  Otherwise, they'd be staring at 0-4.

Rams (1-2) at Bears (1-2): Rams-Of all those teams I listed above, the Rams are certainly one that might've salvaged their season by winning last week.  I'm not sure they would've been able to make a run after an 0-3 start.  The schedule sure hasn't done them any favors, either.  It's Week 4 and they're already playing their third road game.  They'll obviously benefit from it later on with their back-loaded home schedule.  In fact, they're home for the entire month of October.  So, if they beat the Bears, they're in good shape.

Vikings (3-0) at Packers (2-1): Green Bay-Jordan Love will evidently be back for this one.  An incredible development since they sure made it seem like he'd be out a while.  The Packers won both of their games without him, though, and his return only makes them better.  The undefeated Vikings, meanwhile, have been one of the biggest surprises in the league.  Expect them to fall down to Earth eventually.  Starting with this season's visit to Lambeau.

Steelers (3-0) at Colts (1-2): Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh's not just in first place.  The struggles of the other three AFC North teams have helped the Steelers already build a two-game division lead.  They've mainly done it with their defense, too.  That's why I think they can keep their hot streak going.  Especially against an Indianapolis team that they're better than.

Broncos (1-2) at Jets (2-1): Jets-This is what the Jets had in mind when they traded for Aaron Rodgers.  They didn't even play that well against the Patriots.  They still won rather easily.  Next week, they head to London for a game against the Vikings.  They should head there on a three-game winning streak.  Although, the Broncos did pull off the shocker last week by dominating the Bucs in Tampa, so the Jets had better be ready and not looking ahead to their trip across the pond.

Eagles (2-1) at Buccaneers (2-1): Philadelphia-Just think, if the Eagles hadn't run that idiotic 3rd down pass to Saquon Barkley in the Falcons game, they'd be 3-0 right now.  Frankly, Tampa Bay should be 3-0 right now, as well.  They hosted Denver last week in a game they should've won and instead lost 26-7.  How will they bounce back?  More importantly, how badly were they affected by the hurricane, which I'm sure screwed with their practice schedule all week?

Bengals (0-3) at Panthers (1-2): Cincinnati-If you'd told me one of the teams would enter this game 0-3, I wouldn't have been surprised.  If you'd told me that team would be the Bengals, I certainly would have.  What's even nuttier is that it's Cincinnati's former quarterback, Andy Dalton, who engineered the Panthers' first win in quite a while.  Was that really the start of a turnaround in Carolina?  Either way, this is a game that Cincinnati absolutely must win.

Jaguars (0-3) at Texans (2-1): Houston-Houston's got a real chance to run away with the AFC South.  Of course, the Jaguars, who still consider themselves the Texans' biggest competition in the division, could have something to say about that.  Or the Texans can build a three-game cushion over Jacksonville after only a month.  Both of these teams got smacked around pretty good last week, too, so it's a good opportunity for a bounce back.

Commanders (2-1) at Cardinals (1-2): Washington-Washington hasn't exactly played the toughest schedule.  But, even with that in mind, the Commanders actually may not be that bad!  And they've got another winnable game this week.  Of course, Arizona views it as winnable, too, so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.  The fact that Washington has to travel on a short week could make a difference, but probably not enough of one to affect the result.

Patriots (1-2) at 49ers (1-2): San Francisco-When the 49ers beat the Jets in Week 1, it looked like this season would be business as usual.  Then they went on the road and lost twice, first to the Vikings, then to the Rams.  Back home, against the Patriots, they should be able to get their groove back.  Especially if New England plays the way it did against the Jets.

Browns (1-2) at Raiders (1-2): Cleveland-Cleveland lost to the Giants last week.  Las Vegas lost to the Panthers last week.  That's the state of both these teams.  So, yeah, not great.  The real question is how they'll bounce back from last week's lackluster performances.  I still think the Browns are better than the Raiders, so I'm giving them the nod.

Chiefs (3-0) at Chargers (2-1): Kansas City-It hasn't been easy, but the Chiefs are 3-0.  They haven't been their typical dominant selves, but they've managed to get the job done.  This will be their toughest test so far on the road against Jim Harbaugh's Chargers.  It wouldn't totally shock me to see these two tied for first (with the Chargers as the technical division leaders) after this one.  With the way the Chiefs have won their first three games, though, I'm not betting against them.

Bills (3-0) at Ravens (1-2): Buffalo-While it might be a bit of a stretch to call them the "best" team in football, the Bills have certainly been one of the most impressive through three weeks.  They were absolutely dominant against Jacksonville on Monday night.  The Ravens had an impressive showing themselves last week.  For a half.  Until they let Dallas back in it and almost gave it all away.  I know I picked them to make it to the Super Bowl, but Baltimore really needs to show me more.

Titans (0-3) at Dolphins (1-2): Miami-I'm not ready to anoint Tennessee as the worst team in the league, but they're definitely up there.  Their first two games were close, but last week was not, and they're one of three winless teams left.  As for Miami, I still have no clue what's going on!  I'm honestly not sure if the Dolphins are any good.  I do think they're better than the Titans, though.  Plus, the ESPN Monday night game is in Miami.  That's why the Dolphins are the call.

Seahawks (3-0) at Lions (2-1): Detroit-Monday night game No. 2 features two of the best teams in the NFC.  Seattle is undefeated, with three wins over AFC opponents.  The Lions are by far the best opponent they've faced this season.  Detroit, meanwhile, is making its way through the NFC West.  It's Week 4 and they've already played everybody in the division except the 49ers.  That one's not until the end of the season.  As for this week's matchup, expect Detroit and Seattle to have the same record after the game.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 7-9
Overall: 28-21

Oakland No More

During the final season-plus of the Oakland Athletics, the few fans who did show up at games often brought signs to show their dissatisfaction with the team's ownership.  Many of those signs simply said "Sell."  OK, fair enough.  There was one particular sign that I saw often, but really took issue with: "The A's belong to Oakland."  My reaction was: Do they?

I get the sentiment that fan was trying to express.  The A's have played in Oakland since 1968, so there are generations of fans who only know them as representing Oakland.  And the 57 years on the East Bay do represent the franchise's longest tenure in any location.  But do they belong to Oakland?  Hardly.  Oakland was their third home...and the third city they've left!  So, they "belong" to Oakland just as much as they belonged to Philadelphia and Kansas City.

In fact, they're indirectly responsible for the existence of three other teams because of their move from Kansas City to Oakland.  Kansas City didn't want to wait for baseball to return, so the AL added the Royals as an expansion team in 1969.  They needed another team, though, and that led to the creation of the Seattle Pilots, who are now the Milwaukee Brewers.  Seattle eventually got its replacement team in 1977, when the Mariners joined the American League.  Would some of that still happened?  Maybe.  But the A's moving to Oakland was the first domino to fall, setting that sequence of events in motion.

Oakland's frustration about the A's leaving is understandable.  Especially since they were the last professional team to call the city home.  It wasn't too long ago that Oakland boasted three professional teams, but the Warriors moved across the Bay to San Francisco (which I don't consider truly "moving" to the degree of, for example, the Arizona Coyotes relocating to Utah) and the Raiders skipped town for a second time, going to Las Vegas...where they'll once again be joined by the A's in 2028.

So, no, the A's don't "belong" to Oakland.  And, while the team definitely shoulders a good deal of the blame for the way everything went down in Oakland, they aren't the only ones.  The city and fans bear plenty of responsibility, as well.  If they'd given the A's a reason to stay, they would've.  Instead, they made the decision to leave for Las Vegas an easy one.

Those fans had every reason to be frustrated.  The team was lousy and the owner made no investment in them getting any better.  Oakland acted like a small-market club when it really didn't need to.  Not when San Francisco's right across the Bay and part of the same media market.  Not when the A's have had a high payroll plenty of times in their history (just look at their roster when they went to three straight World Series from 1988-90).  So, the decision not to spend any money was definitely a choice.

And it's easy to become disillusioned when a team is out there actively not trying to win.  (Actually, that's unfair...they weren't pulling a Philadelphia 76ers.  Maybe it's more accurate to say they didn't care as much about the results.)  However, it's not exactly like the money was pouring in and he was just pocketing it.  Fans didn't want to watch a bad team play in a terrible stadium that badly needed to be replaced, thus limiting the revenue coming in.  It's a vicious cycle really.

The ballpark was the biggest issue.  It was bad.  Players hated it.  Fans hated it.  While it was state-of-the-art when it was brand new in 1968, the Oakland Coliseum aged badly.  Not only that, they made it worse when they constructed "Mount Davis" to lure the Raiders back.  It worked for a while.  But the stadium was bad for football, too, and was the primary reason why the Raiders skipped town a second time.

Everyone knew the A's needed a new ballpark.  And they tried, time and again, to get one built in Oakland (or somewhere nearby).  All of their efforts failed.  As a result, they felt they were left with no choice.

While it might seem like I'm oversimplifying it, it really is that simple.  The degree to which the A's actually wanted to stay in Oakland is questionable, but the outrage over their leaving seems to be at least somewhat misplaced when they tried to stay.  How hard they tried is also up for debate.  Even if it was just lip service, though, the city had to know they weren't bluffing.  And you would think a city that was down to one professional team would do everything it could to keep it!

That's why I can't feel too bad for Oakland.  There were definitely fans who cared, and for them I do have some sympathy.  There weren't enough of them, though.  And I get why everyone else didn't want to watch a crappy team in a crappy ballpark.  But, had they actually shown up, then the team would've brought in more money, which they could've invested in the team and ballpark improvements.  Which not only would've improved the fan experience, it would've made it more clear that there actually was a fan base there supporting the team.  That wasn't always apparent.

Really, though, this falls on the city.  Oakland acted like it was entitled to "its" baseball team.  Yet, every time the team presented its proposal for a new ballpark site, it was rejected.  Meanwhile, this is a city that's not unfamiliar with teams relocating.  That's how they got the A's in the first place.  That's how they lost the Raiders twice.  They tried to call the A's bluff.  Only the team wasn't bluffing.  They were getting a new ballpark or they were leaving.

It was only after the A's announced that they were moving to Las Vegas that all of this faux outrage took hold.  Meanwhile, had they been this passionate about the A's in the first place, the team staying in Oakland would've been a done deal.  And those fans could show up when they wanted to.  Just look at that sellout crowd for their final game at the Coliseum!  So, no, it's not entirely on the team.  It's on the city and the fans, too.

Will those fans follow the A's to Sacramento and Las Vegas?  It's hard to say.  Although, it's probably a safe bet to say they won't suddenly become Giants or Angels fans, either.  Regardless, the A's have moved before.  Three times, in fact.  First from Philadelphia to Kansas City, then from Kansas City to Oakland, now from Oakland to Las Vegas via Sacramento.

At some point in the probably not-too-distant future, fans will become nostalgic for the Oakland A's.  Just look at the affection people have for the Montreal Expos now, two decades after they became the Nationals.  And I'm sure there will be plenty who have fond memories of the Oakland Coliseum, even if the sentimentality doesn't match the reality of what their experience actually was.

Things ended badly in Oakland and they really didn't need to.  And for some, that bitterness will likely never go away.  For others, they'll watch the Sacramento/Las Vegas Athletics and happily remember when they played in Oakland, while at the same time wondering how different things would've been had things gone down differently.  The A's will get the beautiful new ballpark they wanted.  In Las Vegas.  Not Oakland.

A Soccer Strike?

Last week, Manchester City and Spain star Rodri made headlines when he suggested that the world's best soccer players are "close" to a strike.  The reason?  Because of FIFA's ever-expanding match calendar.  It's getting to be too much for the players, and it may reach the point where they have no other choice if they want to get their point across.

Of course, the definition of "close" is open to interpretation.  And certainly not every player agrees with Rodri.  Some are more impacted than others, as well.  But his basic point remains.  FIFA keeps adding matches, making players' offseasons shorter and shorter.  More matches means more of a toll on their bodies, and the shorter offseason means less time to recover.  Yet the players are just supposed to sit there, grin and bear it while FIFA and the clubs reap the benefits.

Rodri is a good example because his club and national teams were both "rewarded" for their success by playing deep into tournaments and being invited to others.  The Premier League season is 38 games.  This is also the first season of the new Champions League format that sees teams play eight games in the league phase, which replaced the six-game group stage.  There's also a play-in round before the round of 16, which could result in two more additional games.  So, if Manchester City were to make the Champions League Final, that's at least 15 games (potentially 17), bringing it to 53 (or 55)...and that's just for the club.  It doesn't include any national team duty.

As a Champions League winner, Manchester City has also qualified for the 2025 Club World Cup, which is also newly-expanded.  The Club World Cup now features 32 teams and is using the same format that was used in the World Cup from 1998-2022 (with the exception of no third-place match).  Should Manchester City make the final, that's seven matches, which gets us to 60.  And I haven't even included the FA Cup, England's domestic tournament.  Making the final there is another six.

All added together, Manchester City could play as many as 68 competitive fixtures from August 2024 (the start of the Premier League season) to July 2025 (the end of the Club World Cup) before getting little more than a month off until the 2025-26 season begins.  Of course, to play that many would involve advancing as far as possible in every competition, which is unlikely, but it's inconceivable either. 

And, while I've been using Man City as the example, they're far from the only team in the same boat.  All of the European teams in the Club World Cup face that prospect.  Twelve UEFA teams qualify under the new format, so al number of marquee European clubs (Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, PSG, Inter Milan) will be there.  Barcelona, AC Milan and Manchester United are among those who didn't make the Club World Cup, which could actually end up being a benefit for them.

I haven't even mentioned national team duty yet.  The UEFA Nations League group phase will take place during the Fall in the FIFA international windows, with World Cup qualifying starting in March.  That's at least the six Nations League group play games for everybody plus whatever they have in the Spring.  And, while the top players would likely get to skip out of friendlies, we'll count those for the sake of them still being possible games that the top players could theoretically play in.  All told, it could be well over 70 games between all competitions.

So, Rodri definitely has a point.  The players can't be expected to play so many games and perform at a high level in all of them.  And what do you prioritize?  You need to perform well enough in your domestic league to qualify for the Champions League, which is where you make your money.  And you need to make that money to be able to keep signing top international players for your club.  But the players aren't missing games for their national team if they get called up.  So, when do they get any sort of a break if they're not injured and forced to sit out?

More and more players have had to miss time due to injury, which isn't all that surprising when you consider the number of games they're being asked to play without the proper rest in between.  It's what they call "soft-tissue" injuries, too.  Muscle trains, hamstrings, etc.  Typical stuff that happens from overuse.  Plus, there's the serious risk of mental fatigue and burnout.

Some clubs have even come out in support of the players and voiced their opposition to the ever-expanding FIFA match calendar.  In its response, FIFA shot back that the clubs are only upset because they'd rather be going on their summer tours.  There are two big flaws with that argument, though.  Those summer tours are exhibition games where the top players may not play at all or will only see limited minutes.  Summer tours are also more of a preseason training camp than anything else.  They're also only a handful of games.  Teams are mindful of the fact that they have a long season ahead, so they're not going to overwork their players during summer exhibitions.

It's also very transparent what FIFA is doing.  They see dollar signs.  They know there's money to be made from broadcast rights, ticket sales, etc.  So, as long as the appetite is there, they'll keep expanding these events so that they can generate even more revenue.  While I don't think they're actively trying to make soccer a year-round sport, they're succeeding at doing that anyway.

However, they can't do any of this without the players.  That's, unfortunately the only area where the players have any sort of leverage.  FIFA and their clubs will continue to exploit them unless the players fight back and demand change, which is what they're now threatening to do.

Will anything come of this?  We'll find out.  But Rodri isn't the only player who's been vocal about the fact that there needs to be some sort of change.  Simply put, they're asking too much of the players by adding extra games and tournaments to their already busy schedules.  The players don't get any sort of say in the matter, either, which is another major source of contention.  It's not that they think these tournaments are a bad idea or that they don't want to play.  They just want it to be within reason and, more importantly, they want their voices to be heard.

While I don't think a strike is at all imminent, I'm glad the threat is out there.  It's the one thing the players have in their back pocket.  Sure, the club owners and FIFA could (and likely would) try to stop them, but if the players feel like they're left with no other choice, I can definitely see it happening.  That, unfortunately, might be the only way for the players to get their message across and have somebody listen.

Worst of the Worst

Everyone knew the Chicago White Sox would be bad this season.  I don't think anybody was expecting this bad, though.  The White Sox have tied that modern-era baseball record of 120 losses set by those memorable 1962 expansion Mets, and there's still a week left in the season.  So, it's a virtual certainty that they'll not only break the 1962 Mets' record for losses, they'll become the first Major League team to win fewer than 40 games in a full, 162-game season.  (Heck, the Dodgers got to 40 in the 60-game 2020 season.)

Although, while it might not seem like it now, it's not all gloom and doom for the White Sox.  Sure, this season was memorable for the wrong reason, but there are plenty of recent examples of teams that turned it around from being historically bad to champions in not that long an amount of time.  The Tigers had the previous American League record for losses with 119 in 2003.  In 2006, they were in the World Series.  The Astros intentionally sucked for their last few years in the National League.  Since moving to the AL in 2015, they've been postseason regulars.  The Nationals turned two years of futility into Stephen Strasburg and Bryce Harper, who became the cornerstones that the team built around.  Same thing with the Orioles and Adley Rutschmann.

It isn't just baseball, either.  The Lions and Browns, of course, had those historic 0-16 seasons.  They were both in the playoffs shortly thereafter.  And, let's not forget the expansion Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who lost the first 26 games in franchise history in 1976-77.  They made it to the NFC Championship Game in 1979.  And the Mets went from 120 losses in 1962 to World Series champions in 1969.

Expansion teams are supposed to be bad.  The 2017-18 Vegas Golden Knights are the exception.  Not the rule.  So, for that reason, teams like the 1962 Mets and 1976 Bucs won't be included in the following list.  Nor will the White Sox since we don't know what their future turnaround will look like.  Could they be like one of these 10 teams?

Houston Astros: During the stretch when the Astros were enduring three straight 100-loss seasons from 2011-13, Sports Illustrated anointed them as the 2017 World Series champions.  That prediction proved to be prophetic (although, we all know part of the reason why, but I digress).  The Astros' championship season of 2017 was the first of three consecutive 100-win campaigns.  They've made the ALCS every year since then.  They won another World Series in 2022.  Simply put, they've become one of the premier franchises in baseball.

Detroit Tigers: They may no longer hold the American League single-season record for losses, but let's not forget how bad the 2003 Tigers were.  They were eliminated from playoff contention in August!  So, it really is crazy to think that three years after such a low point, Detroit was in the World Series.  Sure, a rookie pitcher named Verlander and a Hall of Fame manager in Jim Leyland certainly helped, but it goes to show that a quick turnaround is very possible.

Washington Nationals: In 2008, their fourth season after moving to Washington, the Nationals won just 59 games.  They won 59 games again in 2009.  With the resulting No. 1 overall picks in the draft, they took Stephen Strasburg and Bryce Harper.  And with those two as the nucleus of the team, later joined by Max Scherzer, the Nationals won 90 games and the NL East title four times in six years from 2012-17.  Of course, it wouldn't be until Harper was gone in 2019 that they finally won the World Series.

Detroit Lions: That 2008 season is obviously the one that went down in history as the first 0-16 campaign in the NFL.  The next year, they weren't much better, going 2-14.  In 2011, now with Matthew Stafford and Ndamukong Suh on the roster, they went 10-6 and made the playoffs for the first time since 1999.  We've seen it again with them recently.  They were 3-13-1 in 2021, then made the NFC Championship Game last season.

Cleveland Browns: Cleveland went a combined 1-31 in 2016-17, capped by the NFL's second 0-16 season in 2017.  They turned that into Myles Garrett and have really been in their first era of sustained success since the late 80s.  The Browns returned to the playoffs in 2020, three years after going 0-16, then made it again in 2023.

Philadelphia 76ers: There was a three-season stretch from 2013-14 to 2015-16 when the 76ers went a combined 47-199, capped by a 10-72 season in 2015-16 that was the second-worst in NBA history.  They lost 28 consecutive games during that span.  All of it was part of "The Process," where they were willing to endure some rough years for long-term success.  Two years after winning 10 games, they won 52, and they've made the playoffs every year since 2017-18.

Cleveland Cavaliers: Call it the LeBron Effect.  Cleveland was among the worst teams in the NBA for years, including a 17-65 campaign in 2002-03.  That year they just happened to end up with the No. 1 pick in the draft and took a local kid.  Funny how that happens, isn't it?  LeBron took them to four straight NBA Finals before leaving for Miami.  Not coincidentally, the Cavs immediately started to suck again.  They won 19, 21 and 24 games in the next three seasons.  Then LeBron came back and the Cavs-Warriors NBA Finals became an annual thing every year from 2015-18.  Then he left again and guess what happened?  Back-to-back seasons of 19 wins (although, the second was a COVID-shortened season).

Pittsburgh Penguins: While they didn't quite hit rock bottom like some of the other teams on this list, the Penguins did endure a rough stretch when the franchise was mired in bankruptcy proceedings and they finished last four years in a row.  Then the lockout changed everything.  They ended up with the No. 1 pick in the draft, which got them Sidney Crosby.  Pittsburgh made back-to-back Stanley Cup Finals in 2008 and 2009, winning the Cup in '09, then added two more in 2016 and 2017.  The Penguins made the playoffs 16 consecutive times from 2006-07 to 2021-22.

Chicago Blackhawks: The Blackhawks are currently in the midst of a rough stretch, but it's nothing like the one they endured from 1997-98 to 2007-08.  They made the playoffs a grand total of once during that decade, losing that series in five games.  They followed that up by being ridiculously good from 2008-09 to 2016-17, including that stretch when they alternated years winning the Stanley Cup with the Kings.

New York Liberty:  Once Jim Dolan decided he didn't want to own the Liberty anymore, they were exiled to the Westchester County Center.  It began a stretch of really bad years that was capped by a 2-20 record during the WNBA's "Wubble" season in 2020 (with No. 1 overall pick Sabria Ionescu playing a grand total of three games that season).  Since then, they've become one of the absolute best teams in the WNBA, making the Finals last year and earning the No. 1 seed in this year's playoffs after going 32-8 during the regular season.

NFL 2024 (Week 3)

Last week was a rough one.  Lots of upsets across the board, some of which were the result of just absolutely terrible performances.  For me, that carried over into Week 3.  I took the Patriots on Thursday night because they had that ridiculous winning streak at Met Life Stadium going.  So, of course, the Jets (who are the better team and should've won the game) dominated despite not even playing well.

Thursday Night: New England (Loss)

Giants (0-2) at Browns (1-1): Cleveland-The Giants are not a good football team.  That's about the simplest way I can put it.  With their starting schedule, they easily could've been 2-0.  Instead, they're 0-2, and last week, they didn't even have a kicker!  When you can't kick field goals and have to go for two after every touchdown no matter what, it's a bad sign.  Especially when that happens in Week 2.  I'm not sure I see a win coming before the rematch with the Commanders in Week 9.

Packers (1-1) at Titans (0-2): Green Bay-Playing the Colts at home was the soft landing Green Bay needed after the season-opening loss in Brazil.  Now the Packers play their first true road game of the year against the Titans.  In baseball, the AL Central has four playoff contenders because of how bad the White Sox are.  I think the same thing may happen in football.  The AFC South is so bad that they'll bulk up the records of every opponent who plays them.  The Packers go to 2-0 against that division.

Bears (1-1) at Colts (0-2): Chicago-This is a tough one to forecast.  Indianapolis is 0-2 and hasn't looked great.  But the Colts haven't looked terrible, either, and this is definitely a game they can win.  The Bears feel exactly the same way.  Their three-game, season-opening tour of the AFC South concludes with a game that's in a city only three hours away.  Gotta love NFL geography!  Anyway, a 2-1 start for Chicago is also a very realistic possibility.

Texans (2-0) at Vikings (2-0): Minnesota-Of all the 2-0 teams, Minnesota is perhaps the most surprising.  Beating the Giants is one thing.  Beating the 49ers is another.  Are the Vikings actually better than people thought?  Everyone knew the Texans would be good, and everybody else in the AFC South is 0-2, so they've already got a two-game division lead.  They could already have it wrapped up by midseason.

Eagles (1-1) at Saints (2-0): New Orleans-I have absolutely no sympathy for the Eagles about what happened on Monday night.  Yes, Saquon dropped the ball.  But why are you passing on 3rd & 5 from the 8 anyway?  You had to chances to get the 1st down and, even if you don't, they have to go 95 yards in less than a minute.  Run the damn ball!  Anyway, the Saints have put a lot of points on the board in their first two games, so expect that to continue.

Chargers (2-0) at Steelers (2-0): Pittsburgh-In the other matchup of 2-0 teams, the Chargers visit Pittsburgh.  You've gotta be impressed with the way the Steelers have won their first two games.  They went on the road twice, allowed a total of 16 points and gave up only one touchdown.  They haven't exactly lit it up on offense, but 2-0 is 2-0.  This is by far the biggest test Jim Harbaugh will face in his young tenure with the Chargers (until next week when they play Kansas City).

Broncos (0-2) at Buccaneers (2-0): Tampa Bay-Through two weeks, the Bucs have been impressive.  In fact, they've been one of the more impressive teams in the league.  That 2-0 record is no fluke.  After putting up 37 on a not-so-great Washington team, they went into Detroit and held the Lions to 16 in another win.  Now they get another not-so-great opponent at home, so 3-0 looks like a good bet.  Bo Nix will work out in Denver.  It'll just take a little bit before it does.

Panthers (0-2) at Raiders (1-1): Las Vegas-Carolina finally benched Bryce Young.  While the franchise's failures can't be blamed entirely on him (they were a mess long before he arrived), their young quarterback has certainly looked like he was in way over his head on more than one occasion.  Will the switch to Andy Dalton make any difference?  I guess we'll find out.

Dolphins (1-1) at Seahawks (2-0): Seattle-Tua Tagovailoa has ANOTHER concussion!  Sadly, I think concussions are gonna end up cutting his career short.  They have such an impact, too.  Because we've seen how the Dolphins are such a different team with him than they are without him.  Tua-less Miami makes the long trip to the complete opposite corner of the country for a matchup with 2-0 Seattle.  Make that 3-0 Seattle.

Ravens (0-2) at Cowboys (1-1): Dallas-As great as Dallas looked defensively in Week 1, the Saints completely tore the Cowboys apart in Week 2.  So, which is it?  Is their defense good or not?  The Ravens, meanwhile, gave away that game against the Raiders and fell to a surprising 0-2.  They really needed that one because things aren't exactly getting easier with at Dallas, Buffalo, at Cincinnati.  Baltimore, a team many (including me) thought would be a Super Bowl contender, could end up starting 0-5.  At the very least, 0-3 seems likely.

49ers (1-1) at Rams (0-2): San Francisco-While the Rams losing in Arizona was surprising, that wasn't the shocking part of that result.  The fact that they allowed 41 points was.  Like the Cowboys, it just leaves me with a ton of questions about the Rams defense.  The good news is that they're finally home after opening with two straight on the road.  The bad news is they're playing San Francisco.

Lions (1-1) at Cardinals (1-1): Detroit-After playing two of their playoff opponents at home, the Lions hit the road for the first time and head to Arizona.  That offensive explosion by the Cardinals last week really came out of nowhere.  They sure moved the ball better against the Rams than Detroit did!  It's Week 3 and they've already got that common opponent.  Who they both beat, but in very different ways.  I'm not sure if we should read anything into that, though.  The Lions are a better team than the Cardinals and everybody knows that.

Chiefs (2-0) at Falcons (1-1): Kansas City-It hasn't been easy (or pretty), but the Chiefs have gotten the job done in their first two games.  Will the luck continue as they hit the road for the first time?  The Falcons really needed that comeback against the Eagles.  Without it, they would've been staring at 0-3 in the face with New Orleans and Tampa Bay coming up.  As it is, even with a loss here, those next two games could still set them up nicely in the NFC South race.

Jaguars (0-2) at Bills (2-0): Buffalo-An early-season matchup between two teams that were expected to be playoff contenders.  The Bills have certainly looked like one, scoring 30-plus points in both games so far.  Jacksonville, meanwhile, is 0-2 with road games against Buffalo and Houston on the horizon in the next two weeks.  They're in real danger of letting the season get away from them really quick.

Commanders (1-1) at Bengals (0-2): Cincinnati-Washington visits Cincinnati in the ABC Monday night game.  Few would've predicted that the Bengals would be the 0-2 team heading into this matchup, but here we are.  The loss to the Chiefs is disappointing because they feel they should've won, and they absolutely should've beaten New England.  Just like how they absolutely should beat the Commanders.

Last Week: 8-8
This Week: 0-1
Overall: 20-13

Paris Proves You Can Do It

One of the reasons the IOC wanted the 2024 Olympics to be in Paris was because the bid checked all the boxes for "Olympic Agenda 2020+5."  The IOC was getting hammered over the cost of simply bidding to host the Olympics, not to mention the astronomical price tag of the Sochi Games.  Countries were getting scared off and bids were failing referendums.  Simply put, no one wanted to host the Olympics. 

After the Paris Games, that's no longer the case.  I'm not saying that cities are suddenly lining up knocking on the door of IOC headquarters begging for the opportunity.  But the IOC may once again have choices, which hasn't been the case in recent Olympic cycles.  Paris and LA won by default.  That was pretty much the case with Brisbane, as well.  And the 2030 Winter Olympics weren't awarded until two months ago (just five and a half years before the Games!) because they had trouble finding a host.  Fortunately, the French Alps stepped up with a late bid.

For the next available Summer Olympics in 2036, though, there's some definite interest.  Some experts believe that the 2036 Games are all but assured to go to Doha, with the announcement only being delayed because they don't want to do it until after the next IOC President is chosen next summer.  It does seem like a Doha Games, which would be the first Olympics in both the Middle East and the Arab world, is inevitable.  But I'm not 100 percent sure 2036 is as assured as some others seem to think.

The IOC (and, thus, the Olympic Movement) is primarily European-based.  Even with more members and increased influence from the other regions, Europe has always been the most important continent for the Olympic Movement.  As such, they're very deliberate about maintaining a presence in Europe, the Olympics' traditional "home."

Which brings me back to Doha.  The next two Olympics are in North America and Australia, which means we'll go at least 12 years between European Games.  We also just had a 12-year gap between London and Paris.  If Doha hosts in 2036, meanwhile, it'll be 16 years between Paris and 2040, the longest gap in history.  That would also mean that there was a grand total of just one Summer Olympics in Europe during the 28-year period from 2012-40!

So, I'm inclined to believe that it's far more likely the 2036 Olympics will take place in Europe, with Doha pushed back to 2040 (then hopefully an African city in 2044).  Especially since the success of the Paris Games, more specifically, the success of the new Olympic model has made hosting attractive to potential European host cities again.  It's more than that, though.  Paris has made places want to host the Olympics again.

European cities that have already expressed interest are Budapest, which has hosted numerous World Championships in multiple sports in recent years and has long been seen as an Olympic host in waiting; Istanbul, which badly wants to host the Olympics and has bid multiple times before; and Copenhagen, which is probably a long shot, but would be a great example of how a smaller countries could still stage a successful Olympics on a budget.  Poland and Germany have also floated the idea of bidding.  (Although, and this is by no means the German Olympic Committee's fault, if I was the IOC, I'd want to stay far away from Germany on the 100th anniversary of the 1936 Games, then the 100th anniversary of World War II.)

Poland and Germany seem to prefer 2040, which would almost certainly go to Europe if Doha does indeed host in 2036.  So does Madrid and potentially Ukraine.  As well as all the 2036 candidates should those Games go to Doha.  So, like I said, the IOC will have options.  And they have Paris to thank for that.

When LA hosted in 1984, it was a complete paradigm shift for the Olympic Movement.  Through the use of existing venues and corporate sponsorships, those Games actually made money.  As the spending increased, Olympic hosts stopped turning a profit, even with private donors and corporate sponsorships.  And you had governments not wanting to use public funds for such an expenditure, especially after the people themselves were either apathetic or flat out opposed to spending any money on hosting the Olympics when they saw no benefit in it for them.

Paris changed that perception.  They proved that it can be done without building a vast Olympic Park with a bunch of costly new venues that will see little to no use after the Games.  Paris brilliantly used existing and temporary venues in the heart of the city, which kept costs down tremendously.  LA will do the exact same thing four years from now.  And countries saw the genuine enthusiasm for the Paris Games.  It made them want to get in on the fun.  Paris showed them how they can.

I'm not saying all of these European cities will follow the Paris model exactly.  Nor should they.  After all, there's only one Paris.  And nobody will argue that part of what made this summer's Olympics so spectacular was making the city a part of it.  When you have Paris as a backdrop, use it.  These other cities won't have that luxury, which isn't a knock on them.  It's simply an acknowledgement that Paris is one-of-a-kind.

Each of these other European cities are one-of-a-kind in their own unique way, as well.  And they'd be smart to lean into that the way Paris did so brilliantly.  Take advantage of what you've got.  That was perhaps the biggest lesson any potential host city could take away.  No one will ever forget where the 2024 Olympics took place.  Weave the city into the fabric of the Olympics while also doing things your way.  As Paris showed, you can do that without breaking the bank.

And, while I've been focusing on Europe here, it's worth noting that the model first employed in Paris has made other countries in other regions consider bidding.  Countries like India and Egypt and South Africa.  Santiago, meanwhile, already has the infrastructure in place after hosting the 2023 Pan Am Games.  The "use what you've got, build only what you need" approach has suddenly made hosting the Olympics seem much more cost feasible.

This year's Olympics was the first to fully utilize the Olympic Agenda 2020+5 reforms.  So, it's too early to say if the reforms as a whole work of if it was simply the result of excellent organization by the host committee.  It was probably a combination of both.  After all, Paris had been wanting to host the Olympics for a long time before finally getting the opportunity.  The fact that they did so, and did it so brilliantly, though, was certainly noticed.  And it will likely result in other cities and countries wanting to host the Olympics again.  Which is a far cry from even a few years ago.  And could end up being not just Paris' legacy, but its greatest contribution to the Olympic Movement.

Who's Next?

Just when we thought the Pac-12 was dead and buried, Washington State and Oregon State made their first move in rebuilding the conference by grabbing four of the strongest Mountain West schools as new Pac-12 members.  That gets the conference to six and they need at least two more to be recognized as an FBS conference, but you know more expansion is coming.  It's really just a question of who?

All credit to Washington State and Oregon State for keeping the Pac-12 alive.  They've seriously done more as a two-team conference than the 12-member league did during Larry Kliavkoff's entire failed tenure as commissioner.  Seriously, what did that guy do other than "negotiate" a terrible media rights deal, see 83 percent of the conference get poached by other leagues, and not do anything about it?  I don't blame Stanford and Cal for not wanting to stick it out on a sinking ship, but if the Pac-12 had actually had this kind of leadership months ago, they might not have felt the need to make the move to the ACC.  But I digress...

Pretty much as soon as UCLA and USC announced they were leaving for the Big Ten, I said the Pac-12 needed to immediately sweep up San Diego State.  They didn't, even though it was the obvious move (another questionable Kliavkoff decision).  And, had they done it, I seriously doubt the seismic shift that happened would've been nearly as drastic.  Now, San Diego State, the strongest all-around athletic program not already in a Power 4 conference, is finally joining the Pac-12 four years later than they should've.  (For the record, I also advocated for BYU in the Big 12 for years before it finally actually happened.)

Boise State is another great move that made just as much sense for the Pac-12 four years ago as it does now.  Had they been the second team to join along with San Diego State in 2022, that really would've solved a lot of the Pac-12's self-inflicted problems.  Anyway, Boise State and San Diego State are the two strongest Mountain West schools who would've held their own competitively in the old Pac-12.  In the new Pac-12, they'll thrive.

Also joining the Pac-12 are Colorado State and Fresno State.  While neither one is the caliber of San Diego State or Boise State, they were attractive targets who'd been on the expansion radar for a while.  Colorado State, in particular, is an exciting addition that has real potential.  Fresno State, meanwhile, isn't nearly the caliber of the other three, but maintains the conference's presence in Northern California, which is a must.

The four additions leaves the Pac-12 with six teams for the 2026-27 season.  Oregon State's Athletic Director did say that they would be "aggressive" and "look to move quickly" while pursuing other expansion candidates, however.  Will any of those teams come from the Mountain West, especially now that it looks like a reverse merger is off the table (I can't help but think this had a lot to do with why the football scheduling agreement wasn't renewed for next season, too)?  And how many teams will it be?

A new twist in all of this has come with the recent reports that Air Force is also considering leaving the Mountain West.  The Falcons are being courted by the American Athletic Conference, which is already home to Army and Navy's football teams.  As we've seen time and again, once a school and conference start talking, the move is pretty much a done deal (except for UConn and the Big 12).  So, if and when Air Force leaves, the Mountain West will also be looking to replenish its ranks, whether the new-look Pac-12 snags more of their members or not.

Should they go the Mountain West route, there are two other programs that seem like obvious fits.  The first is UNLV.  I'm actually surprised UNLV hasn't been included in any of these conversations.  They've got a quality athletic program and, more importantly, would give the conference a footing in Las Vegas.  The other is New Mexico, which is probably the top overall program of those remaining in the Mountain West.

There's also San Jose State, which provides strategic importance.  With no Stanford or Cal, there's no Bay Area team in the Pac-12.  San Jose State keeps that San Francisco market.  Plus, they've already got those rivalries with San Diego State and Fresno State.  While probably not on the same level competitively right now, it's easy to see San Jose State improving quickly with the proper financial investment (not to mention the increased rights fees you'd assume a Pac-12 TV contract would bring compared to the Mountain West's deal).

If you want to talk about obvious perfect fits for the Pac-#, though, there's one school that really stands out above the rest.  Hawaii.  They're the biggest fish out there, although it may sometimes feel like they're the white whale.  Hawaii is in the Mountain West for football and the Big West in everything else since the Big West is a California-based conference, which is easier for their travel back and forth to the mainland.  It could be worthwhile, though, to deal with a little extra travel if it means bringing in more from media rights and joining a conference with the Pac-12's history.  (And the name "Pac-12" still means something.)  And, frankly, the Pac-12 is the only "major" conference that makes any sense for Hawaii.

Or maybe they look beyond the Mountain West and Hawaii.  There are two American Athletic Conference schools that have jumped to the top of expansion wish lists for multiple leagues.  Tulane and Memphis.  Tulane gives you New Orleans.  That alone is enough to make them an attractive candidate, regardless of how good they are.  Memphis is a smaller TV market, but a majority of their teams are good and their basketball team shares an arena with an NBA team.  Reading the tea leaves, it sure seems like Tulane and Memphis will end up leaving the American for another conference.  It's really just a matter of which one.

Depending on how many more schools, the Pac-# wants to add, there are a few other strategic options who aren't at the same level as San Diego State or Boise State competitively, but that's not as important as where they're located.  Really, I'm talking about a Texas State, which gives you San Antonio, or North Texas, which gives you Dallas.  I can also see North Dakota State for its football team.  Or, even though these seem far less likely, somebody like Sacramento State, Portland State or Idaho (which would obviously be a natural rival for Boise State).

Of course, many of these schools will be potential targets for the Mountain West, too.  So, what the Pac-# ends up doing will have a direct impact on what the Mountain West does.  Either way, the number in Pac-# won't be eight.  They need to add at least two more, but they won't be stopping there.

While I think six might be pushing it, I can see them bringing in another four schools to get back to a 10-team league for 2026-27.  That way the Pac-10 can play a nine-game football schedule and double round robin basketball schedule.  As for who those additional four members will be?  I'm going with Hawaii, UNLV, New Mexico and Tulane.

Five Fewer Blown Saves

With two weeks left in the MLB regular season, the Yankees have the best record in the American League.  That's truly remarkable when you consider how, for a six-week stretch in the middle of the season, they were just an awful baseball team.  Actually, outside of April and May, when they were ridiculously good, they've been essentially a .500 team.

The race for the AL East will come down to the wire.  As will the battle for the No. 1 seed between the Yankees, Orioles and Guardians.  It's also crazy to think that, for as bad as the Yankees were in June and July, those races really don't need to be that close.  If not for Aaron Boone sticking with Clay Holmes despite him being terrible at his job, they'd have a much bigger lead both in the division and in the AL as a whole.  And, if they do end up playing in the Wild Card Series, all of those blown saves will become even more glaring.  Because they literally would've cost them the division!

This may be hard to believe, but Clay Holmes was an All*Star this season.  That's because he was actually good in April and May.  Since then?  Not so much!  Holmes has set a franchise record for blown saves.  Even Mariano Rivera blew the occasional save, so I'm not saying fans expected him to be perfect.  But the sheer number of saves he's blown is simply unacceptable.  And, frankly, he should've lost the closer role long before he actually did.

Holmes is an equal-opportunity save blower.  It doesn't matter the inning.  He doesn't just blow them in the ninth!  He blew one in the seventh against the Royals the other day!  And they didn't all necessarily result in Yankees losses.  But still, his failures at the end of games are the reason why the division race is closer than it should be.  Let's take a look at five of his most glaring blown saves and how they've impacted the race.

June 13 at Kansas City: After taking a 3-2 lead in the eighth, the Yankees were three outs away from a four-game sweep of the Royals.  Holmes got the first out of the ninth, then Kansas City put the tying run on base with an infield single (that was a dribbler to first where the play should've been made).  A two-out single put runners on first and third before Maikel Franco's walk-off two-run double.

Had Holmes not blown the save, the Yankees would've completed the four-game sweep and improved to 50-21 on the season.  Instead, this was the game that started the stretch where they were truly awful for the next six weeks.  They were 49-22 after this loss.  They would go 11-22 over their next 33 games.

July 5 vs Boston: I was at this game.  It was George Costanza Bobblehead Night at Yankee Stadium.  And it was perhaps the most frustrating Holmes blown save of the season.  The Yankees led 2-0 with nobody on and two out in the ninth.  Holmes still managed to blow the save!

Mets legend Dom Smith hit a pinch-hit double.  OK, no big deal.  Then Holmes threw EIGHT CONSECUTIVE 3-2 sinkers to Masataka Yoshida!  Yoshida fouled off the first seven.  The eighth he hit into Monument Park.  Holmes admitted afterwards that he might've gone to the well one too many times.  Ya think?!  Anyway, it was Tommy Kahnle who actually took the loss in this one after giving up a leadoff homer in the 10th.  But the game never should've gone to the 10th in the first place.  This one is squarely on Holmes.

July 14 at Baltimore: In the final game before the All*Star break, the Yankees suffered another brutal walk-off loss courtesy of a Holmes blown save.  This was after they scored three in the top of the ninth to take a 5-3 lead, too.  The defense didn't help by any means.  Anthony Volpe booted a ground ball that would've ended the game, and Alex Verdugo terribly misplayed a fly ball that resulted in a two-run, walk-off double.  However, let's not forget that the only reason Baltimore was even in a position to win was because Holmes loaded the bases on a single and two walks.

A Yankees win here would've capped a three-game sweep and given them a one-game division lead at the All*Star break.  Instead, it was the Orioles who had the one-game lead.  This one is particularly glaring because it was against Baltimore, the team they're fighting for the division title, and that was a two-game swing which could end up being significant.

August 18 vs Detroit: Another bad one in the Little League Classic.  The Yankees had a 1-0 lead going to the bottom of the ninth.  Holmes had no margin for error.  That's obviously not the best situation for a closer who's struggling.  Detroit put the tying run on base with a one-out double, then Jace Jung's single to left scored Colt Keith.  Mark Leiter Jr. played the role of Tommy Kahnle here, taking the loss in an extra inning that wouldn't have been necessary had Holmes done his job.

While this walk-off loss wasn't as devastating as some of the others, it was already clear by this point that Clay Holmes needed to be relieved of his closer duties.  How many blown saves could they continue to put up with when every game was so important in the pennant race?  Well, as it turns out, one more.  Which would be the most egregious of them all.

September 3 at Texas: Finally, the breaking point.  A walk-off grand slam was the last straw that finally got Aaron Boone to say they were "weighing all options" with regard to the closer position.  All it took was an MLB-leading 11 blown saves (up to that point) for it to happen--much later than it should've.  Boone's continued confidence in Holmes was nonsensical.  The fans' only confidence in Holmes, meanwhile, was confidence that he'll find a way to blow the save.

Carlos Rodon was outstanding in this game, striking out 11 in six innings.  Texas scored two in the bottom of the eighth to make it 4-3.  Then it all unraveled in the ninth.  Holmes got then first out, then single, walk, walk to load the bases.  Rookie Wyatt Langford unloaded them with a walk-off grand slam to left that was such a no-doubt-about-it shot that Verdugo didn't even move.  Final score: 7-4 Rangers.

Even if every other result had been exactly the same, flipping the winner of those five games alone is enough to prove the following point.  The Yankees are 87-63.  Holmes doesn't blow those five saves, they're 92-58.  Suddenly, the record is a lot more impressive and they have a lot more breathing room.  They have a three-game lead over the second-place Orioles.  They win those five games, it's a nine-game lead (since one was against the Orioles, Baltimore would have an extra loss).  And their one-game lead over Cleveland for the best record would be six games.  They'd even be ahead of the Phillies and Dodgers for the best record in all of baseball, which would mean World Series home field.

All of this could end up being moot, of course.  They're in a position to win the division despite how bad Clay Holmes was as the closer (also, don't forget that they fired Aroldis Chapman, an actual closer, because Holmes did well filling in while Chapman was injured in 2022, because I sure haven't).  If they don't win the division, however, it's not hard to pinpoint why.  Holmes hasn't just cost the Yankees a bunch of games this season.  He could potentially end up costing them a division title.

NFL 2024 (Week 2)

My biggest takeaway from Week 1 of the 2024 NFL season: Tom Brady isn't as good at the broadcaster thing as he is at the quarterback thing.  Sure, he's got room to improve and there's really nowhere for him to go but up.  That was a rocky start, though.  Kinda like how some teams had rocky starts.  How will those 15 Week 1 losers bounce back in their second game of the season?

Thursday Night: Buffalo (Win)

Saints (1-0) at Cowboys (1-0): Dallas-Dallas going into Cleveland and beating the Browns wasn't the surprise.  It's how they did it.  The game was never close!  The Cowboys' defense was THAT good!  Which is shocking when you consider how the Packers just tore them up in the playoffs last season.  The Saints' offense, meanwhile, was in midseason form.  The Panthers' defense and the Cowboys' defense are entirely different things, though.  If they can do it again this week, then we can talk.

Buccaneers (1-0) at Lions (1-0): Detroit-After winning their Wild Card Game rematch against the Rams last week, now the Lions take on their Divisional Playoff opponent from last season.  So, the NFL certainly didn't make it easy for them out of the gate.  You know what, though?  They found a way to get it done against the Rams, and it wouldn't surprise anybody if they find a way to get it done against Tampa, too.  That's just what good teams do.

Colts (0-1) at Packers (0-1): Green Bay-Losing to the Eagles in Brazil was bad enough.  Losing Jordan Love was much bigger.  How will the Packers navigate life without their starting quarterback for the next few weeks?  We'll find out starting in their home opener against the Colts.  That's a good team for them to play since it's a winnable matchup even without Love under center.

Jets (0-1) at Titans (0-1): Tennessee-Robert Salah said after the loss on Monday night that he'd rather be 0-1 with Aaron Rodgers than 1-0 without him.  I get the sentiment and can't say I disagree with it.  Besides, who we kidding?  The Jets likely weren't going to win in San Francisco no matter what.  Now they head to Nashville for a matchup with a Titans team they can and probably should beat.  I'm not sure they will, though.  Not on a short week that included a cross country flight home, only to get right back on a plane five days later.

49ers (1-0) at Vikings (1-0): San Francisco-Both of these teams beat their New York opponents pretty handily in Week 1.  The Vikings were playing the Giants, so I take it with a grain of salt, but they still put four touchdowns on the board and Sam Darnold actually looked like a competent NFL quarterback.  Darnold's first home game as Minnesota's starter will be against the team he played for last year--San Francisco.  We'll see how well he does against an actual opponent.  You know, a team that isn't the Giants.

Seahawks (1-0) at Patriots (1-0): Seattle-No Week 1 result was more surprising than the Patriots going into Cincinnati and upsetting the Bengals.  The Jarrod Mayo Era obviously got off to a great start!  Now the challenge is avoiding a letdown in Week 2, as the Patriots open their home schedule against Seattle.  The Seahawks held off Denver in their opener.  Not super impressive, but not bad, either.  If they can make the cross country trip and head home with a win, that'll tell us something.

Giants (0-1) at Commanders (0-1): Washington-If the Giants wanted to be taken seriously as a playoff contender, they had to start 2-0, especially since they had two winnable games to start the season.  Instead, they wore those monstrosities that paid homage to the Montreal Canadiens and scored as many touchdowns as the Canadiens last week.  Zero.  They were the only team in the league kept out of the end zone and were getting booed before the end of the first quarter.  I have no confidence that they'll win in Washington.

Chargers (1-0) at Panthers (0-1): Chargers-Jim Harbaugh's debut went about as well as it could have.  The Chargers had a comprehensive victory over the Raiders in their opener.  Their first road game of the year takes them to Charlotte, where they'll meet a Panthers squad that was thoroughly crushed in New Orleans.  Their performance should be a little better this week, but probably not enough to beat the Chargers.

Browns (0-1) at Jaguars (0-1): Jacksonville-This is an interesting early season matchup between two teams that were expected to be playoff contenders.  The Browns losing to Dallas wasn't a total surprise.  The way they were thoroughly beaten sure was, though.  The Jaguars, meanwhile, lost on a last-second field goal in Miami, so they're still in a decent position.  A loss isn't catastrophic for either of them by any means, but Jacksonville heads to Buffalo next week, so they might need the win a little bit more.

Raiders (0-1) at Ravens (0-1): Baltimore-He was definitely out of bounds.  The video was clear.  But, to think, if he had been in bounds, the Ravens would've gone for two and the win.  They came thisclose to getting a statement win right off the bat.  They've had plenty of time to shake off the loss, though.  And this week they get a Raiders squad that only scored 10 points against the Chargers.  Baltimore's defense is certainly better than the Chargers' unit, so another one-touchdown performance isn't a crazy thought.

Rams (0-1) at Cardinals (0-1): Rams-The Rams really should be 1-0 entering their second straight road game to start the season.  All credit to the Lions for coming back and winning that game, though.  And the loss is far less devastating than the loss of Puca Nacua.  Expect even more Cooper Kupp in the coming weeks.  As for this week's matchup, I'm expecting a nice bounce back victory over the Cardinals.

Steelers (1-0) at Broncos (0-1): Pittsburgh-In one of the more surprising Week 1 results, the Steelers went into Atlanta, held the new-look Falcons offense to 10 points, and came away with a win.  And, since the rest of the AFC North lost, they're in first place.  Denver, meanwhile, lost by six in Seattle.  That was a representative result for the Broncos.  I can easily see this one going either way, but I'm taking the Steelers.

Bengals (0-1) at Chiefs (1-0): Kansas City-Ja'Marr Chase said earlier this week that he thinks Cincinnati is the best team in the AFC.  That might be a bit of a stretch, especially after the Bengals were upset at home by the Patriots last week.  Now they pay a visit to the defending champs looking to avoid an 0-2 start.  That seems like a tall order.  Kansas City has had 10 days off since holding on in the season opener.

Bears (1-0) at Texans (1-0): Houston-While I still don't entirely understand the obsession with putting the Chicago Bears on national TV, especially early in the season, this is at least a chance for America to see two dynamic young quarterbacks in Caleb Williams and C.J. Stroud.  The Bears are actually less bad this season, too, and the Texans were a playoff team last year.  So, I'll allow it.  As for the result, I see Houston taking this one at home.

Falcons (0-1) at Eagles (1-0): Philadelphia-On Monday night, we get an Eagles team that was more impressive than most people expected during their win in Brazil against a Falcons team that surprisingly disappointed in a home loss to Pittsburgh.  I'm curious to see how they both bounce back.  This should be a good test for both of them.  It's a chance for Atlanta to turn the page and knock off a good opponent on the road.  For the Eagles, meanwhile, it's a chance to show their performance against the Packers wasn't a fluke and that they're a team to take seriously this season. 

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 12-4
Overall: 13-4

Celebrating Everyone's Ability

One of my favorite scenes in the movie The Greatest Showman is actually towards the beginning, when P.T. Barnum hears Lettie Lutz, the bearded lady, signing, pulls back the curtain she's hiding behind and calls her "beautiful" and "extraordinary."  As the movie progresses, Lettie and the other circus performers gain confidence and acceptance.  (That's what the entire song "This Is Me" is about.)  Even the skeptical newspaper reporter calls it a "celebration of humanity."  It really is such a beautiful message.

I bring up The Greatest Showman because I see a lot of parallels between that movie and the Paralympics, which just concluded in Paris.  As the Paralympics progressed, that's what stood out to me more than anything.  I was absolutely in awe of their athletic ability.  Of course.  Who wouldn't be?  But that's not what inspired me the most.  It was their stories.

Take Iran's Morteza Mehrzad.  At 8-foot-1, he's the second-tallest man in the world.  Much like the fictional Lettie Lutz (who was based on a real person), he was embarrassed by his extreme height, especially after a bicycle accident that caused his right leg to stop growing, leaving it 15 centimeters shorter than his left.  For years after the accident, Mehrzad mainly kept to himself and rarely left his house.  Then he appeared on a TV show about people with unusual and different talents in 2011, which completely changed his life.

Hadi Rezaei, the coach of Iran's national sitting volleyball team, was watching the TV program and called the network, hoping they could put him in touch with Mehrzad.  They did, and Rezaei eventually convinced Mehrzad to try sitting volleyball.  He joined the national team prior to the 2016 Paralympics and is now a three-time gold medalist.  Mehrzad is also recognized as one of the best sitting volleyball players in the world and is a three-time world player of the year. 

As you'd expect, Mehrzad towers over both his teammates and his opponents.  Suddenly, being 8-feet tall wasn't a cause of embarrassment.  Instead, it was an incredible asset.  Morteza Mehrzad is at home on a sitting volleyball court.  His sport didn't just give him a purpose.  It gave him a new lease on life.

While there weren't any other 8-footers competing in Paris, Mehrzad's story is far from unique.  His is just one of many inspirational journeys to the Paralympics.  A lot of those tales are similar, too.  They found their sport and it changed everything for them.

That, I think, is my favorite thing about the Paralympics.  Approximately 15 percent of the world's population has some sort of disability.  That's more than a billion people worldwide.  The Paralympics show those people doing extraordinary things.  Outside of the Paralympics, how often do they get such a spotlight?  A spotlight that shows what disabled people are capable of.  A spotlight that inspires younger people of all abilities, showing them that the only limitations they face are the ones they put on themselves. 

And, I think this one is just as important, if not more so, shows that Paralympians are, by and large, just regular people.  They're elite athletes.  Same as Olympians.  They put in just as much work as their able-bodied counterparts.  Literally the only difference is that Paralympians have gotten where they are despite having a physical disability and overcoming the limitations that presents.  Frankly, what they've done is often times more impressive because of everything they've had to overcome.

Matt Stutzman was born without arms.  So, he uses his legs for most activities, including archery.  Known as the "Armless Archer," he's a five-time Paralympian who won his first career gold medal in Paris.  Hunter Woodhall's a double amputee.  His wife, Tara, won the women's long jump at the Olympics.  He picked up his own gold medal in Paris at the Paralympics.  Those are just two of the names who won gold medals in Paris.

From Jessica Long to Tatyana McFadden, there are also plenty of Paralympians who've become household names.  That's something nobody would've expected even a decade ago.  Heading into LA, there will only be more.  Ezra Frech is from LA and won two gold medals in Paris.  You can bet he'll be one of the faces leading up to his home Paralympics four years from now.  Frech will also be a freshman on the track & field team at South Carolina this season, the latest Paralympian who's earned a scholarship with an able-bodied NCAA program.

If you watch the Paralympics, too, it's sometimes easy to forget that these athletes are disabled.  I mean, sometimes it's obvious.  If they're using a wheelchair or have a prosthetic limb, you can't miss it.  But, once the competition gets going, it's just like you're watching any other game or race.

The Paralympics aren't and will never be the Olympics.  They aren't supposed to be.  The Olympics are a two-and-a-half-week spectacle featuring the greatest athletes in the world at the height of their powers.  The Paralympics are about equality and representation.  They're also about showing that disabled athletes are just as capable of putting on a show as their able-bodied counterparts.

It's in the host city contract that the city that organizes the Olympics also takes on the responsibility of hosting the Paralympics, as well.  They use many of the same venues for both events.  Networks are also required to cover the Paralympics as part of Olympic broadcast contracts.  Which has raised the profile of the Paralympics exponentially!  If not for that, how many of these stories would we know?

After the outstanding show that was the Paris Olympics, they presented a Paralympics that were just as spectacular!  A Paralympics that, once again, served to inspire the world with these amazing athletes and their incredible stories.  Which is the best thing about the Paralympics!  If you don't believe me, watch the 2028 Paralympics and find out!

NFL 2024 (Week 1)

Well, folks, we've reached that time of year again.  Football season.  A time when everyone thinks they're an expert and makes their weekly picks.  Including me.  That's right.  We're back with another season of weekly NFL picks.

For those of you who are new, I always make a pick for the Thursday night game, even though I don't usually post until the weekend.  It's generally only Week 1 and Thanksgiving when I include the Thursday (and Friday) game with the others.  Also, I don't give a crap what the spread is!  I pick the winner of the game.  Whether they cover the spread or they're a six-point favorite that "only" won by three, the win counts the same in the standings.  So, with that done, let's get things started...

Ravens at Chiefs: Kansas City-The season starts with a rematch of the AFC Championship Game.  It's a chance for the Ravens to get some measure of revenge, but they know that beating the Chiefs in the playoffs matters a lot more.  I think Kansas City will go into this game feeling like there's a bit of a monkey on their backs.  They know what's at stake for them this season.  No team has ever won three consecutive Super Bowls.  Beyond that, though, they just want to have a better showing than they did in last year's opener, when they lost to the Lions.

Packers vs Eagles: Green Bay-September having an extra Monday this year gives us the rare Friday night game, with the Packers and Eagles squaring off in Brazil.  Having the Week 1 international game is certainly a new twist, but they also don't have the time zone adjustment, so their body clocks will be relatively normal.  As for the two teams playing in the game, I'm interested to see if there are any lingering effects of how Philadelphia's 2023 campaign ended.  The Packers finished last season going the other way.  Will they start this season the way they finished the last?  All I know is, we've got a great matchup between two heavy-hitters.

Steelers at Falcons: Atlanta-Both teams will have a new quarterback making his team debut.  Atlanta made the big move to get Kirk Cousins, while Pittsburgh is banking on Russell Wilson no longer sucking.  Frankly, I'm shocked that he won the starting job, but I guess we'll find out if being in Denver was the reason.  Still, they're putting a lot of faith in him.  The Falcons are putting a lot of faith in Cousins, too.  Their faith should be rewarded.  In Week 1 at least.

Cardinals at Bills: Buffalo-Shout out to Jessica Pegula, the daughter of the Bills' owners who pulled off the upset of No. 1 Iga Swiatek to make the US Open semifinals!  Could she be lifting a trophy on Saturday, then seeing her hometown team start the season with a win on Sunday?  They're playing Arizona at home, so the Bills should do their part.

Titans at Bears: Chicago-Call me crazy, but I really think the Bears have turned a corner.  Do I think they're a playoff team?  No.  Do I think they're less bad?  Yes.  Although, any success they have this season will revolve around how well Caleb Williams adjusts to life in the NFL.  In that regard, giving him a home game against the Titans to start should provide him with a soft landing.

Patriots at Bengals: Cincinnati-For the first time since Pete Carroll in 1999, somebody other than Bill Belichick will be patrolling the Patriots' sidelines.  Jerod Mayo has his work cut out for him, too.  After that long period of sustained excellence, the bottom has really fallen out for that team.  The Bengals, meanwhile, were the only team in the AFC North to miss the playoffs last season, when they became the first last-place team to finish with a winning record.  The division will be just as tough this year, so they can't afford to falter in a game they should win.

Texans at Colts: Houston-Doesn't it seems like Houston and Indianapolis meet in Week 1 a lot?  It may just be me, but it really does feel that way.  Anyway, there's plenty to like about this young, exciting, good Texans team.  They might've been a little ahead of schedule last year, but nobody is sleeping on them this season.  It seems silly to call a Week 1 game a "must win," but if Houston wants to seize early control of the AFC South, getting a road division win right off the bat would be a good way to start.

Panthers at Saints: New Orleans-Things haven't been going well in Carolina over the past few seasons.  The Panthers traded up to take Bryce Young No. 1 overall last season, then were even worse and saw the Bears take Caleb Williams with the No. 1 pick that should've been theirs.  I don't see things getting much better this season, either.  It's a division game, so you know it'll be a grind.  I can't picture New Orleans losing it, though.

Vikings at Giants: Giants-Even though it feels like forever, it was just January 2023 when these two met in a playoff game.  A lot has changed since then.  Mainly, Minnesota has fallen off dramatically and the Giants regressed back to the mean and the reality that they played a tough schedule last year.  They've put their faith in Daniel Jones, although it likely won't last.  Getting a Week 1 home win will keep the critics quiet for at least a week, though.

Raiders at Chargers: Chargers-Jim Harbaugh's triumphant return to the NFL starts against a Raiders team that improved so much at the end of last season under Antonio Pierce that it earned him the full-time head job.  In order to keep it, he'll have to deliver.  That's what Chargers fans are expecting of Harbaugh, too, especially since he's already had NFL success with the 49ers before his run at Michigan.  The Chargers have made a ton of personnel changes and Justin Herbert isn't 100 percent.  I still like them to win for some reason, though.

Broncos at Seahawks: Seattle-It's probably safe to say that the Russell Wilson trade worked out far better for Seattle than it did for Denver.  Well, Wilson isn't involved in this Broncos-Seahawks game on either side.  For Denver, it must feel like an eternity since their last playoff appearance.  Even though the team has improved dramatically under Sean Payton, they still have one massive problem of playing in the AFC West.  Starting the season on the road in Seattle isn't a way to keep pace in that division.

Cowboys at Browns: Dallas-This certainly was an interesting choice for Tom Brady's first game as FOX's top analyst.  They both made the playoffs last season and have expectations to get back this year.  Those expectations are probably more realistic for the Cowboys than they are for the Browns, but this is a chance for both of them to make an early statement.  Look at what the Lions did in Week 1 last year.  I just think Dallas is a better team than Cleveland, though, so the Cowboys are the pick here.

Commanders at Buccaneers: Tampa Bay-After bouncing around to a bunch of different teams and different systems, Baker Mayfield may have found a home in Tampa.  More importantly, he's proven that he is a legitimate NFL starting quarterback.  Which is something Washington has spent quite a while looking for.  They used the No. 2 pick in the draft on Jayden Daniels, hoping he can be that guy.  Whether he is "that guy" or not, expect him to struggle for a few weeks out of the gate.

Rams at Lions: Detroit-That Matthew Stafford-Jared Goff trade is gonna go down as one of the best moves in the history of both these franchises.  Stafford already led the Rams to a Super Bowl title, and there's a really good chance that Goff could lead the Lions to one.  If this Sunday night opener is as good as their Wild Card Game in January, we could be in for a treat.  I really like that Detroit was selected for the spotlight, too.  It shows that the NFL knows this team is good.

Jets at 49ers: San Francisco-Last year, the Jets opened the Aaron Rodgers Era on Monday night and he didn't even make it through their first drive.  So, the NFL took a mulligan and doubled down on the Jets again.  We're gonna see them a lot in prime time over the first half of the season.  And, who knows?, maybe Rodgers will last more than a drive this time!  While I think the Jets are a potential playoff team, this is a tough opener.  The 49ers are better than them.

NFC 2024

Prior to last season, the Detroit Lions had won a grand total of one playoff game in 60 years.  Then they came within 30 minutes of the Super Bowl.  And, dare I say it?, the Lions may be the favorites to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl this season.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that, and I don't think it'll be a situation where the pressure of actually having expectations gets to them.  There were actually expectations on them last season, too, and they delivered, so there's no reason to think they can't again.

There are also expectations in San Francisco.  The 49ers have had quite a run of success over the past few seasons, but both times they've made the Super Bowl, they lost to the Chiefs (including that overtime thriller in February).  They know that their window is closing, though, so it's Lombardi Trophy or Bust for them. 

You've got to think that the pressure's also on in Dallas.  The Cowboys haven't reached the NFC Championship Game since 1996!  That's an eternity in Dallas.  And you know Jerry Jones can't be happy about how they've exited the playoffs in the last three seasons.  Last year's debacle against Green Bay was particularly embarrassing.  No coach's seat is hotter than Mike McCarthy's.  If the Cowboys don't end their nearly 30-year Super Bowl drought, he's likely gone.

So, that's three teams who expect to see themselves in New Orleans in February.  Obviously, only one of them can get there.  And there are plenty of other teams who'll have something to say about that, as well.  The Rams, Eagles and Packers were all playoff teams last season who figure to be in the mix again.  The NFC South was wide open last year and will be wide open again, but you've got to figure the Falcons' addition of Kirk Cousins could be the thing that puts them over the top in that division.

The NFC's three bottom-dwellers, meanwhile, have nowhere to go but up.  I don't think Arizona or Washington will be nearly as bad as last season, and the Panthers just had a lot of bad luck.  Carolina's record resulted in the Bears getting the No. 1 overall pick and taking USC quarterback Caleb Williams.  With him under center, Chicago figures to actually have some semblance of an offense this season, which could lead to a more respectable record.  As a result, I'm not placing the Bears in the "bottom-dweller" category.  I'm not even sure they'll finish last in the division.

NFC East: For much of the past two years, it's been the Cowboys and Eagles battling for NFC East supremacy.  Then, Philadelphia completely fell apart last December and capped the collapse with a wild card loss in Tampa.  Heading into this season, there's no question that Dallas is the top team in the division.  Although, the Eagles should still have enough to be in the wild card mix.  It will be interesting to see if they're still as effective on the ground and with their signature "tush push" without Jason Kelce, who will be excellent on TV!

After a playoff run in 2022, the Giants came back to Earth last season.  They decided to stick with Daniel Jones at quarterback, although this is a make-or-break year for him.  If Jones is healthy and productive, they can challenge for the playoffs.  If not, they're looking at double-digit losses.  Washington is also once again looking at double-digit losses.  The Commanders have a lot of work to do before we can truly consider them playoff contenders.

NFC North: Last season, the Lions rolled through the NFC North pretty much unchallenged.  That won't be the case this year.  The Packers caught fire in December, made the playoffs, upset Dallas and nearly pulled off another against San Francisco.  It didn't take Green Bay long to go right back to being "the Packers," and that figures to continue with Jordan Love now firmly established as an NFL starter.  The Lions are still better than them, but Green Bay will make Detroit work for it.

While it would be a stretch to say the Bears can make it three playoff teams out of the NFC North, I wouldn't be surprised if they're significantly improved this season.  It's funny how they had the No. 1 pick in 2023 and traded it to Carolina...only to end up with the No. 1 pick in 2024 that originally belonged to the Panthers!  If the Bears finally figure out a way to score points, they've already got the defense.  The Vikings' window appears to have closed.  Their battle will be with the Bears for last, not the Lions for first.

NFC South: Tampa Bay won the Super Bowl as a wild card team in 2020, and has won three straight division titles since then.  They could easily make it four straight.  Or they could easily end up missing the playoffs entirely.  So is life in the NFC South, where the teams are pretty evenly matched.  Although, I do think one stands above the others.  Atlanta.

It's been eight years since the Falcons' Super Bowl collapse and seven since they've made the playoffs (or even had a winning record).  Getting Kirk Cousins was just one of several moves they made this offseason to change that, and they really only need to go 10-7 to win the division, which I think they're plenty capable of.  The Saints can certainly sneak in there if either the Falcons or Bucs falters, but I don't see a wild card coming out of the NFC South.  As I said earlier, Carolina's really got nowhere to go but up.  All the way into the playoffs is a stretch, though.

NFC West: How much longer can the 49ers keep it going?  San Francisco is 25-9 with a Super Bowl appearance in the last two years and has been to three straight NFC Championship Games.  They've got all the pieces in place to make another run, too, but it won't be easy.  Because the Rams will be right on their heels.  They rebounded after missing the playoffs in 2022 to earn a wild card last year, and if anyone can wrestle the NFC West title away from San Francisco, it might be them.

Seattle's a very interesting team.  The Seahawks freed themselves of Russell Wilson (what a decision that turned out to be!), made the playoffs in 2022, then just missed a postseason return on a tiebreaker last season.  They'll probably finish in the 9-8 range again.  Which means they'll either just get in or just miss again.  As for the Cardinals, I have no idea!  They aren't good, but they aren't as bad as teams like the Panthers or Commanders, either.  And, in a division with three teams that are better than them, their chances of not finishing last are pretty low.

In the AFC, I have all four of last season's division champions repeating.  In the NFC, I don't.  I have the Falcons winning the South.  I do have all three wild cards from last season getting wild cards again, though, which is a big difference from what I've got in the AFC.  So, six of my seven NFC playoff teams are the same as in 2023, with Atlanta replacing Tampa Bay as the only exception.

Last season, experience played a factor in the NFC Championship Game.  That was one of the big reasons why the 49ers were able to dominate the second half the way they did.  The Lions learned a lot from that game, and they'll carry it over into this season.  More importantly, I think there'll be another key difference.  I have the Lions finishing with the best record in the conference, putting the NFC Championship Game in Detroit.  

Of the four teams that have never reached the Super Bowl, the Lions are the only one who's played in all 58 seasons of the Super Bowl era.  They won't make it 59.  That's right.  I have the Detroit Lions winning the NFC title and playing against the Ravens in Super Bowl LIX.  But, why stop there?  The Lions' last NFL Championship was in 1957.  That was 67 years ago!  This season, they'll capture their first Vince Lombardi Trophy.