With the start of Spring Training games, we also get the start of MLB's experimenting with the automated balls & strikes system. This is something that we all saw coming, especially after it was successfully tried out in the Minor Leagues. It won't be used in the regular season, but that's probably coming as well, perhaps as early as 2026. (Although, I'd imagine it might wait until 2027 since the current CBA expires after next season and that way they can work it into the negotiations.)
Minor League testing revealed that success rate on challenges was roughly 50 percent, and there was an average of 3-4 challenges per game. Using those numbers as their baseline, MLB determined that two challenges per team was an appropriate number (with challenges retained if they're successful). And only the pitcher, catcher or hitter can request a challenge...with no consultation from the dugout. That's a huge point. Because with teams only having two challenges available to them, it's up to the players to decide if it's the right moment to use one.
It didn't take long to get the first ball/strike challenge, either! Cubs pitcher Cody Poteet successfully challenged a ball call in the first inning against the Dodgers on Thursday. The replay was shown on the stadium scoreboard and took almost no time at all, so it really shouldn't affect the pace of play very much. It'll probably take even less time than instant replay challenges, which can sometimes take minutes!
Since this is brand new, there will obviously be a bit of an adjustment period early in Spring Training, just as there was when instant replay and the pace of play initiatives were introduced. And, since it's been used in the Minor Leagues for the past few seasons, the younger players will be more familiar with it than Major League veterans. As a result, Reds manager Terry Francona has encouraged his veterans not to challenge balls & strikes during Spring Training. We'll see how long that lasts!
Much like with instant replay, the ABS challenge system seems to be the best compromise. Some people ("fans" mainly) will always want so-called "robot" umpires calling every pitch. That system is far from perfect, though, and those who've seen it in action, especially the players, don't want it. It would eliminate the art of pitch framing that many catchers have mastered. It would also eliminate the human element of the home plate umpire calling balls & strikes. Which some may argue is a good thing, but has also been a part of baseball since the beginning and most people don't want to lose.
"Robot" umpires wouldn't eliminate the need for a home plate umpire, either, which some people don't seem to understand. There'll still be plays at the plate that require a safe or out call. You'll still need someone to determine if the batter got hit by the pitch or if there's a check swing or foul tip. Or if there was catcher's interference. So, the home plate umpire's not going away regardless.
There's also a flaw in going to a fully ABS system that the Minor and Independent League trials have revealed. Sometimes the ABS calls a pitch a ball or strike when it actually wasn't. The system only registers whether the ball passes through the strike zone when it crosses the plate. It doesn't account for bouncing in front of the plate first or other things like that. In those cases, the home plate umpire can overrule the ABS.
So, going completely to the ABS doesn't seem like it'll ever be a viable option. The system is far too imperfect for that. And the human element of umpiring is still needed for all those judgment decisions. But, umpires are people and people make mistakes. So, in the interest of getting it right, using the ABS with a challenge system is the way to go.
And, as we've seen with instant replay, the umpires want to get it right, too. So, if a challenge system helps them get the call right, they're all for it. And some missed calls are more impactful than others. Is there much of a difference between a 1-1 and a 2-0 count with the bases empty in the first inning? No. The difference between 1-1 and 0-2 with the tying run on third and two out in the eighth, though? Different story. That can be massive!
That's where the strategy element comes in. Especially since it's being left up to the players (at least for now). They have to decide when's the right time to use it. And they'd better be right. Because the last thing you want is to waste challenges and not have any left when you really need one. So, yes, the players need to be aware of the situation and not just challenge for the sake of challenging (which we see in tennis far too often).
Only giving teams two (unsuccessful) challenges apiece is an important detail, too. It was never going to be unlimited. Then you'd have somebody questioning every borderline pitch and games would take forever! They tried three challenges each and found that to be too many. So, two it is. Which seems reasonable and makes sense seeing as that's also the number of instant replay challenges teams get per game.
Instant replay has been tremendous for Major League Baseball. The ABS system is essentially just the ball/strike version of instant replay. And, with a roughly 50/50 success rate, the players will find out that the umpire is right half the time. That may end up causing them to rethink their understanding of the strike zone. At the very least, it might encourage them to limit the use of challenges to pitches that were glaringly missed instead of the borderline ones that could've gone either way.
This Spring Training trial run is simply that. A trial. This isn't like the recent rule changes where Spring Training was used for players to get accustomed to them. So, it'll be very interesting to see how the ABS challenge system is received and how MLB chooses to move forward. Full implementation (using the challenge system) seems likely. It's really just a question of when.
What I hope the end result is, though, is something else entirely. Hopefully it makes people understand how difficult a job umpiring is and gain a greater appreciation of the profession. Because umpires don't set out to get calls wrong or "screw" teams. They were all for instant replay as a tool that can help them get calls right, which is all they want. Same thing with automated balls & strikes. It's a tool. A helpful tool. And if it can help them get it right, they're all for it, too.
I'm a sports guy with lots of opinions (obviously about sports mostly). I love the Olympics, baseball, football and college basketball. I couldn't care less about college football and the NBA. I started this blog in 2010, and the name "Joe Brackets" came from the Slice Man, who was impressed that I picked Spain to win the World Cup that year.
Saturday, February 22, 2025
Balls & Strikes
Tuesday, February 18, 2025
The Rivals Meet Again
When the 4 Nations Face-Off was still just in the idea stage, the ideal scenario in most people's minds was the United States and Canada meeting in the final. Well, everyone got their wish. If that game on Saturday wasn't intense enough (three fights in nine seconds to start the game!), just imagine what it'll be like in the championship game! And this is an exhibition tournament! Now picture them playing for Olympic gold next year!
The 4 Nations Face-Off hasn't just been an unqualified success, it's given the NHL, NHLPA and fans everything they wanted and then some. That first game will definitely go down as one of the most memorable in USA-Canada series history, and the championship game will likely join it on that list. The USA and Canada have met a lot. They haven't all been particularly memorable or significant. Others certainly have. Here, in chronological order, are some of those.
1960 Olympics: This is the only game on the list that didn't feature NHL players. I'm including it, though, because of how important it is in series history. The U.S. and Canada met for the first-ever Olympic hockey gold medal in 1920 and regularly met at the Olympics over those first 40 years. And, since the Soviet Union didn't start competing in the Winter Olympics until 1952, often won gold and silver.
All of those games from 1920-60 had one thing in common. Canada won. That all changed on February 25, 1960, when the United States earned its first-ever victory over the Canadians. That American team would go on to make history for another reason, of course. They took home the gold medal, the first for an American hockey team.
As we all know, Olympic hockey stopped being an amateur tournament in 1998, when NHL players first appeared for their national teams. In the lead up to those 1998 Games, the NHL launched the World Cup of Hockey. The first edition of that tournament (which has been held a grand total of three times in 30 years) was in 1996. Which brings me to the next memorable USA-Canada matchup on our list.
1996 World Cup of Hockey: They met in Philadelphia during the group stage and the United States posted a 5-3 win. They both ended up in the best-of-three final, and Canada won the first game in overtime. The series then shifted to Montreal, where the United States earned a 5-2 victory to force a deciding game. Two days later, the U.S. won again, again by a 5-2 score to become the first-ever World Cup of Hockey champions.
To this day, the 1996 World Cup squad is considered arguably the second-greatest American hockey team ever assembled, behind only the 1980 Miracle On Ice team. Mike Richter was the tournament MVP, and the U.S. roster featured six Hall of Famers: Chris Chelios, Phil Housley Brett Hull, Pat LaFontaine, Brian Leetch and Mike Modano, as well as the likes of Bill Guerin, Gary Suter, Keith Tkachuk and Doug Weight. Ironically, this group would form the core of the 1998 Olympic team, which crashed and burned spectacularly.
Canada also had a disappointing 1998 Olympics. With Wayne Gretzky making his only Olympic appearance as a player, they lost to Dominik Hasek in a shootout in the semifinals. Then they lost to Finland in the bronze medal game and the favorites left Nagano empty handed. So, they both came into the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City with something to prove. And what we got was the gold medal game everybody wanted.
2002 Olympics: If the 1996 American team was their best in the NHL era, the team Canada put together in 2002 was one of the best in hockey history period. They had Hall of Famers left and right. Mario Lemieux, Steve Yzerman, Joe Sakic, Jarome Iginla, Rob Blake, Chris Pronger, Martin Brodeur in goal to name just a few. The American roster was strong, too, but it was no match for a star-studded Canadian team on a mission.
Heading into the Salt Lake Games, it had been 50 years since Canada's last Olympic hockey gold medal. That drought came to an end with a 5-2 victory in the gold medal game. It was 2-1 Canada after the first period and 3-2 after two, then Jarome Iginla and Joe Sakic scored in the third to put the game away and cause delirium North of the Border.
As it turns out, that was just the warmup. Eight years later, it was Canada's turn to host, and the Olympics were being played in an NHL city--Vancouver. If Canada wanted to win gold in Salt Lake, they needed to win gold in Vancouver. What we got was arguably the greatest Olympic hockey game ever played (with the possible exception of the Miracle On Ice game).
2010 Olympics: In case there wasn't enough pressure on the Canadians already, the tension became even higher after the U.S. won the group stage game, 5-3. The U.S. was actually the No. 1 seed in the medal round, while the Canadians stormed through Germany, Russia and Slovakia to set up a rematch for the gold medal. With the entire country of Canada watching. Actually, most of North America was watching.
That gold medal game was an absolute classic. Canada had a 2-1 lead late in the third period, with the Canucks' Ryan Kesler responsible for that go-ahead goal. After the U.S. pulled the goalie, Zach Parise tied the game with 25 seconds left in the third period. That set up one of the most famous goals in hockey history, Sidney Crosby's OT winner that gave the host country the only gold medal it cared about at the Vancouver Games.
Will the final of the 4 Nations Face-Off come anywhere near that level of excitement and national pride? Absolutely not! Not even close! But that doesn't mean it can't be another memorable chapter in the USA-Canada hockey rivalry. After all, that's exactly what everybody wanted when the 4 Nations Face-Off was conceived in the first place!
Monday, February 17, 2025
Don't Overdo It
As soon as the first hit was delivered in the Canada-Sweden game on Wednesday night, it was clear that the players care deeply about the 4 Nations Face-Off. The players are taking the games incredibly seriously and tournament's ratings have reflected how much fans have bought in, as well. Which inevitably (and immediately) led to the calls that the NHL should drop its All*Star Game entirely and just play the 4 Nations every year. Which would be a massive mistake.
Part of the reason the 4 Nations Face-Off has been such a hit is precisely because we don't see tournaments like this very often. This is the first best-on-best hockey tournament with NHL players since 2016. That's a huge part of its appeal, for both the fans and players. Hockey players want to represent their countries, but (mainly because of NHL and IIHF nonsense) rarely get that chance. Now that they finally have that opportunity, they're relishing it.
Next year, NHL players will return to the Olympics for the first time in 12 years. That tournament will feature 12 countries. This is just a warm-up. Since it's a short tournament, it had to include a limited field. In Milan, players from nations like Germany (Leon Draisaitl), Czechia (David Pastrnak) and Switzerland (Roman Josi) will be able to get in on the fun. Pastrnak, especially, has been experiencing some serious FOMO during this event.
That's one of the reasons why the 4 Nations Face-Off shouldn't become a regular thing. While the four countries that were chosen make sense, it would be incredibly unfair to players from every other nation represented in the NHL if they never got the opportunity to play in a showcase of this sort. And, as I said last week, how would you be able to get away with not including Russia? Especially since they'd field a pretty good team?
I think the NHL fears international oversaturation, too. Which is why they're being very deliberate about NOT succumbing to temptation and making this an annual event, which would definitely get watered-down as it went on. That doesn't mean the NHL isn't right to embrace international hockey, though. The league and owners finally get it. It's what the players AND fans want, which is only good for the game. (More people are watching the 4 Nations Face-Off than NHL regular season games by a wide margin.)
Rather, the NHL wants to have an international tournament every other year. In 2026, it'll be the Milan Cortina Olympics. Then, in 2028, a revived World Cup of Hockey, which will be moved to the same in-season February window (after all three previous editions were held in late Summer before the start of training camp). Followed by the 2030 Olympics, another World Cup in 2032, rinse and repeat.
The World Cup of Hockey will be an eight-team tournament. It'll be interesting to see how the teams are selected, though. It's being run by the NHL, not the IIHF, so the decision on Russia's participation is entirely up to the league. Honestly, I don't see how you have a tournament without them. Ditto about Czechia. But who would get the other two spots? Especially when you have three viable choices in Germany, Switzerland and Slovakia. One option could be having the eight Olympic quarterfinalists "qualify" for the next World Cup.
While we're still three years away and a lot of decisions need to be made regarding the format and other details, it was notable that the Commissioner mentioned they were accepting bids from potential host cities in both North America and Europe. Yes, the 2026 Olympics are in Italy. But making the players travel to Europe in February for the World Cup of Hockey seems like it would be a mistake. Especially when they could easily have one group play at an NHL arena in the U.S. and the other play at an NHL arena in Canada. That, to me, would make much more sense travel-wise. Especially since a majority of the players will be based in North America.
Even if the NHL decides not to play the All*Star Game in World Cup years, that doesn't mean it's going away permanently. Nor should it. Because that midseason showcase is too valuable a property to just do away with it entirely. Teams that open new arenas generally get to host an All*Star Game within the first few years. That brings in a massive amount of revenue for the home team and city. Plus, you have the ancillary events like the Skills Competition. Next year's All*Star Game is being used as an Olympic send-off (which was also the intent of the 2022 All*Star Game before the NHL opted out of the Olympics), so the two (international play and the All*Star Game) can coexist.
Could the NHL All*Star Game be better? Sure. The league understands that, too. That's why they keep tweaking the format. They went from conference vs. conference to North America vs. the World to captains picking their teams to a four-team tournament between the four divisions to last year's hot mess combining the four-team tournament with the captains' picks.
Will the All*Star Game ever have the intensity of an international tournament? Absolutely not. Can it be competitive? Sure. It's really up to the players. If they cared about the All*Star Game, people wouldn't be asking these questions. So, ultimately, it's a matter of incentivizing it for them. The 4 Nations Face-Off is still exhibition games. But they have plenty of incentive, which has made all the difference.
Compare that with the dumpster fire that was the NBA All*Star Game. After last year's 211-186 debacle, they tried something new this year. It was somehow even worse! It was so bad that there was more "entertainment" and commercials than actual basketball. It didn't help matters that LeBron announced an hour before the game that he wasn't playing. Format changes can only make so much of a difference when the biggest name in the sport is making it abundantly clear how much he doesn't care. Lack of caring/effort has been what plagues the NBA All*Star Game. That's what needs to be addressed. Otherwise, format changes are just putting lipstick on a pig.
More format changes could be on the horizon again as early as next year. The NBA All*Star Game moves back to NBC next season. It'll be sandwiched by Olympic coverage and will likely have an earlier start as a result. The NBA knows they need to put forth a watchable product. What they've displayed in each of the two years is not it. Could a switch to USA vs. the World be coming?
While the NBA is still predominantly American (70 percent), some of the best players in the league aren't. The international team could include players like Victor Wembanyama (France), Giannis Antetokounmpo (Greece), Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (Canada) and Nikola Jokic (Slovenia). Filling out the international roster might be tougher (and it would be easier for foreign-born players to make the All*Star team), but the point is you could do it. And it would be a good game (assuming the players care).
International basketball can be just as great as international hockey. Just look at the quality of the Olympic tournament! NBA players were representing their countries and, most importantly, they cared. That amazing tournament was the result! The USA-Serbia semifinal and the gold medal game between the USA and France were two of the best basketball games I've seen in quite a while.
Regardless, both the NBA and NHL need to figure it out. Because the All*Star Game is too much of a money-maker for the league to simply do away with it. They just need the players to buy in. Otherwise, they might as well just turn them into the joke the Pro Bowl has become!
Sunday, February 16, 2025
Live From New York
As Saturday Night Live celebrates its 50th anniversary, you can't help but be nostalgic about all the great moments that have happened on the show over the past five decades. Plenty of those moments have involved sports, obviously. Athletes have hosted (some were good at it, others not so much). Athletes have made cameos. Athletes have been impersonated. And there have been more sports-themed sketches than I can count!
My favorite episode hosted by an athlete has to be the 2001 episode with Derek Jeter. The most ridiculous sketch that night was "Yankees Wives," when he dressed in drag along with David Wells and David Cone (who only appeared in that sketch). There was also an outstanding piece during "Weekend Update" where he had a point/counterpoint with Red Sox fans on the topic "Derek Jeter sucks/No I don't."
Peyton Manning's episode in 2007 was also great. Carrie Underwood was the musical guest in that episode, so it was going to be a win-win with me regardless. But Peyton was legit funny, too! (If you haven't seen his monologue from the time he hosted the Espys, I highly recommend you should.) The best sketch of the night was probably the "United Way" digital short where he keeps screaming at kids telling them how much they suck at football. He also had a separate "Weekend Update" appearance several years ago where he excitedly gives his review of Emily In Paris, complete with a beret.
Speaking of "Weekend Update" appearances, Caitlin Clark had one last season that was absolutely memorable! Michael Che likes to make jokes at women's sports' expense. Caitlin Clark showed up, as herself, to call him out and made him read some women's sports jokes that completely eviscerate him! Add comedic chops to the list of Caitlin Clark's many talents!
The most recent athlete to host SNL was Travis Kelce in 2023, fresh off the first Chiefs-Eagles Super Bowl. It was such a great episode, and he did such a great job as host! As she was making the talk show rounds this week, Heidi Gardner mentioned that episode and actually apologized to Taylor Swift for a sketch where she's lying in bed with him the entire time! There's also an absurd sketch where he takes his American Girl doll to tea and another where Jason shows up.
Other athlete hosts have included Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky and Jeff Gordon (among others). J.J. Watt and John Cena's episodes were great. The Rock is part of the Five-Timers Club. It isn't just athletes, either. George Steinbrenner has hosted SNL (the actual George Steinbrenner, not the Larry David Seinfeld version)!
One athlete who didn't host, but left a memorable impression nonetheless was Carmelo Anthony. In 2011, there was an episode where Elton John was both the host and musical guest. The first sketch of the night was ESPN Classic: Ladies Shot Put. One of the "competitors" was Carmela St. Knix, who "stands 6'8 and used to live in Denver." This was right after Melo was traded from the Nuggets to the Knicks.
Charles Barkley has hosted four times, but I actually think his best SNL "appearances" are in the Inside the NBA parodies. Kenan Thompson plays Chuck in those sketches because of course he does! It's just one of the many spot-on impressions of sports figures that Kenan does. His Lavar Ball is absurd, and his David Ortiz is great!
Kenan's version of Big Papi always talks about food and reads promos for ridiculous sponsors. It all came together when they did the SNL at Home episodes during COVID. "Big Papi's Big Dominican Lunch" was three minutes of brilliance! After reading off all the ingredients, the step-by-step instructions were: 1. buy a big-ass pot, 2. cook everything in the pot. Then, at the end, we got Big Papi's recipe for chicken pot pie: 1. eat a chicken, 2. smoke a little pot, 3. eat a whole pie.
While I'm not as familiar with SNL's early years, there are a couple memorable sports moments I've learned about through the documentaries that have been released as part of the anniversary celebration. In 1985, Hulk Hogan and Mr. T co-hosted an episode where Billy Crystal had both of them laughing hysterically throughout one sketch. Then, in 1986, Billy Martin hosted the season 11 finale. In an obvious play on George Steinbrenner's constant firing and rehiring him as Yankees manager, Billy gets "fired" by Lorne in the second-to-last sketch before setting the studio on fire at the end of the episode. Only Jon Lovitz was saved, and they weren't even sure if SNL would stay on the air or be cancelled.
SNL is still going strong nearly 40 years later, so we know the answer to the cancellation question! It was actually in the Fall of 1986, during season 12, when sports and SNL converged. Because of that memorable World Series Game 6 between the Mets and Red Sox, a scheduled airing of SNL was cancelled for the first time in its history. They still did the show live, but it didn't air until two weeks later, with an apology from Ron Darling for the game going long at the top of the episode.
Another SNL-sports intersection came in February 2001. That was Week 2 in the original XFL and the featured game between the Los Angeles Xtreme and Chicago Enforcers went into double overtime. As a result, the SNL episode hosted by Jennifer Lopez started 45 minutes late. Lorne was NOT happy! And NBC immediately changed its policy so that any live sports coverage is cut off at 11:00 (with exceptions) whenever there's a new episode of SNL.
Jennifer Lopez also hosted the new episode of SNL that followed NBC's Olympic coverage on the second-to-last night of the Vancouver Games in 2010. During Olympic coverage that night, Bob Costas correctly predicted that there would be "one or two Olympic gags" in that episode. The one I remember most was where she was playing a news anchor doing the sports highlights and was terrified for the ski jumper when the ramp just ended and they went flying into the air.
That's just a sampling of the memorable athlete hosting gigs and sports-related moments on Saturday Night Live over the years. I'm sure there are plenty I'm forgetting. It's a standard go-to, especially around major events like the Super Bowl and the NCAA Tournament (the "NCAA Tournament Best of the White Guys" video was another classic). It makes sense, too. Because Saturday Night Live has always offered a satirical commentary on what's going on in the world and important in people's lives. Sports have always been important to people (and, let's be honest, easy to make fun of), so they've always been an easy target. And they will continue to be as long as SNL is on the air.
Thursday, February 13, 2025
Mixing It Up
From a business perspective, it makes complete sense. The US Open is already the highest-attended annual sporting event. Adding a day means six more sessions for which they can sell tickets (day and night sessions at both Arthur Ashe & Louis Armstrong Stadiums, day session reserved seats at the Grandstand, grounds passes). Arthur Ashe stadium seats 24,000 people, so that's at least 45,000 more tickets to be sold right there, plus 14,000 per session at Louis Armstrong Stadium. The USTA isn't exactly hurting for money, but if you had the opportunity to make even more, why wouldn't you take it?
It doesn't actually change the schedule too much, either. In fact, the schedule is unchanged after the first round. The first round was extended to take place over three days instead of two, but, otherwise, everything is the same. They're simply able to spread the matches out a little more, which means (presumably) fewer matches on each court and an earlier finish. More significantly, it decreases the congestion on Monday and Tuesday, which helps with scheduling doubles matches.
Speaking of doubles, the other bit of US Open news that just came out definitely was surprising. The mixed doubles tournament is being completely revamped and will no longer be played at the same time as the main draws in singles and men's/women's doubles. Instead, it'll be held during the week before the main draw. Not only that, it'll be limited to 16 teams and played over two days.
Matches will be fundamentally different, too. Sets will be significantly shorter, played to four instead of six, with no-ad scoring and a tiebreaker at 4-4. If it gets to a third set, that's a 10-point match tiebreak (which is a change that was already made a few years ago). The only exception is the final, which will be played to the traditional six (still with no-ad scoring) in the first two sets before the third set match tiebreak.
The USTA, of course, is extolling the virtues of this revamped mixed doubles tournament. Specifically, they mentioned the increased exposure for mixed doubles by making it, essentially, a separate event. Every match will be played in one of the two main stadiums, with ESPN2 covering both days, including the semifinals and final in primetime for the first time. The thought process is that mixed doubles will no longer be overshadowed by the other events.
Another argument being made is that it'll be easier for the players to enter mixed doubles since they won't have to worry about how it impacts their singles or doubles schedule. The top players generally avoid playing mixed doubles for that very reason. That obviously played into the decision, too. They want the marquee names in mixed doubles. The hope is that now they won't have an excuse not to play. Or, even better, it will motivate them to play when otherwise they might not have. A $1 million winner's prize is likely being used as another incentive to draw the top players to mixed doubles.
This idea didn't just come out of the blue. Last year, they had a "Mixed Madness" event inside Arthur Ashe Stadium during US Open Fan Week that was very well-attended and a tremendous success. The positive feedback they received from players, broadcast partners and fans likely served as inspiration for this revamped mixed doubles showcase.
Players, at least according to the press release, are on board with this change. Jessica Pegula enjoys playing doubles and said she's excited to play mixed doubles during the first week. Taylor Fritz participated in the "Mixed Madness" event last year and also sees the virtue of this format. He even mentioned his experience with mixed doubles at the United Cup (the mixed-gender version of Davis Cup) and the Olympics.
Mixed doubles was added as a medal event at the Olympics in 2012, and plenty of top singles players jumped at the opportunity to go after another Olympic gold. The Olympics is usually the only time we see some of these players play doubles, let alone mixed doubles. It's obvious why. It's because it's the Olympics.
At the Olympics, you expect that. Winning a medal for your country is all you care about. At Grand Slams, meanwhile, the focus is on singles. It's rare to see a top player play both singles and doubles, let alone all three. The hope seems to be that more players will be willing to enter mixed doubles if it's a separate, stand-alone event.
That seems to be at least part of the motivation for this massive change to mixed doubles at the US Open. Eight teams will get direct entry based on the combined singles rankings of the two players. The other eight will be wild cards. Nothing is mentioned about doubles rankings. They want singles players, particularly marquee names, to play mixed doubles and think this is a way to get them to do that. That's why the language in the first paragraph of the press release very deliberately said "a blockbuster field of the sport's biggest stars."
Personally, I don't know how I feel about this change. Part of me has a feeling that it'll actually have the opposite effect. Mixed doubles will fall further into insignificance, almost as if it's being relegated to the first week because it's not important enough to be featured with the other events. It also feels gimmicky with the no-ad scoring and shorter sets. Plus, there are players who make their livelihoods through doubles (both single-gender and mixed) who it seems like are trying to be pushed out in favor of bigger names.
But, at the same time, maybe it'll be a massive success. So maybe they're on to something. And mixed doubles is a great event, so giving it the spotlight and getting the top singles players to sign on may be exactly what's needed to let everybody know that. I guess we'll find out. And, who knows, if this works, the other Grand Slams might follow.
Monday, February 10, 2025
The Four Nations (and a Fifth)
The NHL is currently on a break for the Four Nations Face-Off, which is replacing the All*Star Game this season. It's meant as an appetizer for next year's Olympics, when NHL players will represent their countries for the first time since 2014. Of course, with only four nations (the United States, Canada, Sweden and Finland) participating, plenty of NHL stars who aren't from those countries won't be playing in the tournament. So, it won't be until next year when we really get to see a best-on-best tournament that includes the likes of Leon Draisaitl (Germany), Roman Josi (Switzerland) and David Pastrnak (Czechia), to name just a few.
Sweden and Finland being the other nations to play in the tournament makes perfect sense, too. They have the most NHL players from outside North America and were the only countries capable of fielding an entirely-NHL roster (which is important since this also an NHLPA event). There's really only one other country that has enough NHLers to field a team, but can't.
I'm, of course, talking about Russia. Russia's been persona non grata in the international sporting community for the better part of a decade and is currently suspended by the IIHF until at least the 2026 World Championships. It's ultimately up to the IOC whether they'll be allowed to field a team Milan Cortina, and they're in the tentative field. It would be shocking if Russia ends up playing in the Olympic tournament, though.
It's hard to imagine a best-on-best hockey tournament without Russia, and I'd imagine they'll wait to have the next World Cup of Hockey (which is currently scheduled for 2028) until Russia is eligible to play. For a four-team invitational, though, you can easily get away with it. Especially since the quality of the field doesn't really drop with just the two North American and the two Scandanavian teams.
Imagine if Russia was in the field, though! They'd have the best goaltending in the tournament, and it wouldn't even be close! I seriously don't know how you'd score on any of those three goalies! Then you throw in the offensive firepower the Russians would have, and they'd arguably be the favorites. A Russian roster might look something like this, and it would be pretty formidable:
Goalies: Sergei Bobrovsky (FLA), Igor Shesterkin (NYR), Andriy Vasilevskiy (TB)
Defensemen: Nikita Zadorov (BOS), Dmitry Orlov (CAR), Ivan Provorov (CBJ), Dmitry Kulikov (FLA), Alexander Romanov (NYI), Artem Zub (OTT), Mikhail Sergachev (UTA)
Forwards: Andrei Svechnikov (CAR), Valeri Nichushkin (COL), Evgenii Dadonov (DAL), Vladimir Tarasenko (DET), Kirill Kaprizov (MIN), Artemi Panarin (NYR), Evgeni Malkin (PIT), Pavel Buchnevich (STL), Alexey Toropchenko (STL), Nikita Kucherov (TB), Ivan Barbashev (VGK), Alex Ovechkin (WSH), Vladislav Namestinkov (WPG)
But, alas, Russia (or whatever name they're given at the time) won't be playing in the Four Nations Face-Off. If this tournament becomes a regular thing (which I doubt...I think it's designed to be a one-off), I'd be curious to see how they'd work Russia in. Would you make it a five-team event where they all play four games instead of three? It's most likely irrelevant, but still an interesting question to ponder. Just as it's an interesting question to ponder how well Russia would've done this year.
Russia's absence will do nothing to impact the quality or competitiveness of this tournament, though. We've been waiting nine years for a tournament of this type. There hasn't been an NHL-level international tournament since the 2016 World Cup of Hockey. Players like Auston Matthews and Connor McDavid are representing their countries internationally at the senior level for the first time. So, yeah, it's a big deal. And you can bet all four teams are playing to win.
They'll each play two games in Montreal before the action shifts to Boston for the third round robin game next Monday. Then the top two meet for the gold medal next Thursday night. I can see any of the four teams winning. And whoever does will immediately be installed as the Olympic favorites.
Let's start with the United States. This is arguably the greatest generation of American NHL talent ever, and it'll be exciting to see them all playing together on the same team for the first time. I'd argue that the U.S. has the strongest goaltending in the tournament. Connor Hellebuyck is the clear starter, but Jake Oettinger and Jeremy Swayman aren't exactly slouches. And there's a ton of offensive firepower in the likes of Auston Matthews, Jack Hughes, Jack Eichel and the Tkachuk brothers (among others).
Canada, meanwhile, will need to rely on its offense. The Canadian collection of forwards is far and away the best group. Nathan MacKinnon, Connor McDavid and Sidney Crosby are all on the same team. And, oh yeah, they've got the best defenseman (Cale Makar), too. Goaltending could be a problem, though. They don't have a Patrick Roy or Martin Brodeur or Roberto Luongo in net. In fact, Canada has the weakest goaltending group in the tournament. I'm assuming Adin Hill of the Golden Knights will be the starter. It's really between him and the Blues' Jordan Binnington. The goalie options for Canada were so bad that Montreal's Sam Montembeault made the roster as the third goalie.
Finland (which, don't forget, won the Olympic gold in 2022) has the most solid goalie situation. Nashville's Juuse Saros is the clear starter. I actually think the Finnish roster is the strongest overall group. They don't have as many big names as the U.S. or Canada, but, I'm telling you, Finland is the sleeper team in this tournament. Although, they did lose their best defenseman (the Stars' Miro Heiskanen), so let's see if that's a factor at all.
As for Sweden, they've got all of the best defensemen. Victor Hedman, Mattias Ekholm, Rasmus Dahlin, Gustav Forsling and Erik Karlsson on the blue line. And a forward group that includes the likes of William Nylander, Elias Pettersson, Filip Forsberg and Mika Zibanejad. I'm curious to see which goalie they settle on as the starter, though. The Devils' Jacob Markstrom is hurt, which was a big loss, so it's down to Linus Ullmark or Filip Gustavsson. It's really a toss-up between the two.
What I'm about to say will sound crazy, but I actually think Canada has the weakest roster overall. Based strictly on the fact that they have the best goaltending and will score enough, I've got the United States making the final. Their opponent in the gold medal game is a tough call between Sweden and Finland, but I think Sweden has a slight edge. So, my gold medal matchup is the United States vs. Sweden.
By winning that gold medal game, the United States will have the privilege/burden of being considered the favorites at the Milan Cortina Olympics. I'm also curious to see how much different the Olympic rosters will look. Because there are some big names who aren't playing in the Four Nations Face-Off (for whatever reason). (Canada, for example, doesn't have Conor Bedard or Mathew Barzal, and the U.S. is missing Matty Beniers and an injured Quinn Hughes.) Does the winner keep its Four Nations team mostly intact? Or will the Olympic roster feature multiple changes? You'd have to think the results might dictate that, and that some players are definitely playing for spots on their nation's Olympic team.
Ultimately, whichever of the four teams wins doesn't really matter. That's not the point of the tournament. It's designed to get us excited for the NHL's return to the Olympics in 2026. And a tournament featuring 92 NHL players representing four of the biggest hockey nations sure is a great way to do that! Just imagine how much better it'll be in Milan when all of the other countries are there too!
Sunday, February 9, 2025
Appreciate the Greatness
In the two weeks since the Conference Championship Games, there's been plenty of whining about the matchup and people claiming they won't watch because they don't want to see the Chiefs and Eagles. Most of the hate, of course, is directed at the Chiefs, who are making their fifth Super Bowl appearance in six years and going for their third straight title. And I get it. People who aren't Chiefs fans are tired of seeing them win, for whatever reason. Which, frankly, is ridiculous!
Everything Nate Burleson said after the AFC Championship Game was 100 percent correct. The Chiefs are just the latest team to be hated for, essentially, being too good. Before them, people had the exact same complaints about the Bradicheck Patriots. And, as the excellent 30 for 30 "Four Falls of Buffalo" (which aired last Sunday night) reminded us, 30 years ago, it was the Bills. Which is more than a little ironic when you consider what team's fans dislike the Chiefs the most.
Most of those Chiefs complaints seem to center around officiating and the fact that they seem to receive beneficial calls. Roger Goodell even addressed it at his Super Bowl press conference, and the NFL Referees Association released its own statement the next day. They both said the exact same thing. It's ridiculous to even suggest.
Your perception is your reality, obviously, so statements from the commissioner and the officials' union will do nothing to do anything to change anybody's mind. But, if you look at it objectively (not with a Chiefs-hating lens), you'll see how absurd it is. Even taking the questions of integrity out of the equation, why would the NFL be stupid enough to risk a $20 billion-a-year business trying to rig a certain result?
It's asinine to think they'd be that dumb simply because you don't like a particular team. If it was your team, would you have a problem with it? Of course not! That's the other reason why it's so crazy to suggest that! If your team was on the receiving end of the favorable calls that the Chiefs get, would you think it was good call? If so, that might just be proof that the officiating is fair (whether people want to believe it or not).
All of that talk about nonsense overshadows what we've been witnessing over the past six years. Greatness. The Chiefs are the first team ever to reach the Super Bowl five times in six seasons, and they're looking to be the first to win three in a row. (That's another thing that's been annoying me in the two weeks since the championship games. Packers fans chiming in with their reminders that the Chiefs wouldn't be the first team to win three straight championships. They wouldn't be. No one's claiming they would. They would, however, be the first to win three straight Super Bowls, which is an important distinction that has been made time and again.)
Anyway, if you don't want to see the Chiefs anymore, there's a very simple way for that to not happen. Beat them! The fact that no one has been able to isn't a sign of a rigged system. It's a sign that what we've been seeing in Kansas City over the past six years is actually something pretty special and will be appreciated as such in time. Frankly, it should be appreciated as such now. Because what Andy Reid, Patrick Mahomes, Travis Kelce & Co. is unprecedented.
The Chiefs win so many different ways, too. The AFC Championship Game was the first time all season they've scored 30 points. Meanwhile, they're 17-2 (and one of the losses came in Week 18, when they didn't care at all). So, they're not outscoring you like in years past. They've been winning because of their defense, with some late Mahomes Magic sometimes sprinkled in. And the fact that they win so many close games, especially with late comebacks, shows just how good they really are. The Chiefs are never out of the game.
Take their three Super Bowl wins. They've all followed a similar script. The Chiefs trailed in the fourth quarter of all three. In the last two years, they've kicked a late field goal (for the win against the Eagles, for the tie last year). Last year, they were down by a field goal in overtime, too...and drove for the game-winning touchdown. So, basically what I'm saying is that you need to play all four quarters against them. If you don't, they'll make you pay.
(Also, this stuff has nothing to do with the game, but they're just quirky little stats that I found interesting. This is FOX's third time covering a Chiefs Super Bowl. They've had a different broadcast crew each time. In Super Bowl LIV, it was Joe & Troy, then Burkhart & Olson two years ago. Now, it's Burkhart & Brady. Speaking of Brady, prior to Super Bowl LV, we'd never had a home team win the Super Bowl. Then we got it back-to-back with the Bucs and Rams. And that could be immediately followed by the first-ever Super Bowl three-peat. It's also just weird that Kansas City can make it four in six years with the wins coming against the same two opponents: San Francisco & Philadelphia, twice each.)
Super Bowl LIX: Chiefs (17-2) vs Eagles (17-3): Kansas City-I think this year's game will be very similar to what we've seen in the Chiefs' last two appearances. The Eagles are better than they were two years ago, when it was really left up to Jalen Hurts and the defense was a clear weakness. That's not the case anymore. Philadelphia's defense is the biggest positive difference for them this season. And, not to mention, they had Saquon Barkley rushing for 2,000 yards.
Saquon has shown all season that he's a master at the big play. It's why he won Offensive Player of the Year. You obviously have to be aware of his presence, which opens up things for Hurts. Saquon is still the Eagles' No. 1 offensive option, so the run game will be key. If the Eagles are able to run the ball as efficiently as they hope, they'll wear out the Kansas City defense. If the Chiefs can stop the run and get off the field, that puts the onus on the Eagles' defense stopping Mahomes.
As we've seen time and again, one of Kansas City's greatest strengths is its ability to hang around. The Chiefs are never out of a game. And the longer you let them stay within striking distance, the better the chances they'll take advantage. So, the Eagles not only need to control possession, they need those long drives to end with points. Preferably seven. If they can do that, they have a very real chance of winning. If not, we're likely looking at a three-peat.
Seemingly no matter what over the past three years, the Chiefs have found a way to stay motivated and used it to fuel their success. They've been thinking about a three-peat since the confetti fell in Las Vegas last year. And, I've learned better than to bet against Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes. That's why I think we'll see NFL history in New Orleans. Kansas City lifts the Lombardi Trophy for the third straight time, cementing its status as one of the greatest NFL dyansties of all-time.
Conference Championships: 1-1
Playoffs: 8-4
Overall: 185-99
Friday, February 7, 2025
Next Stop: Italy
Can you believe we're only a year away from doing this whole Olympic thing again? There was only six months between the end of the Tokyo Summer Games and the start of the Beijing Winter Games, which not only felt way too close, it felt like it wasn't nearly enough time, and the 2022 Olympics suffered as a result. Now, we're back to normal, with a year and a half between the Olympics in Paris and Milan, which allows for the proper amount of excitement and anticipation heading into the Winter Games.
It'll also be great to have a Winter Olympics that feels "normal" after the Games set up shop in Asia for a little while. Not so in 2026, though. The Winter Games will be spread throughout Northern Italy, a classic setting with a breathtaking Alpine backdrop. The Winter Olympics are headed back to Italy a mere 20 years after the 2006 Games in Torino.
At those 2006 Olympics, cross country skier Stefania Belmondo, a 10-time medalist and native of the region, was given the honor of lighting the cauldron. It seems unlikely that she'll do it again next year in Milan. Simply because Italy has such a rich Winter Olympic history (even within the past 20 years), that there's no shortage of candidates. Such as...
Gianluigi Buffon: No, he isn't an Italian Winter Olympian. But, with the Opening Ceremony being held in the home stadium of both AC Milan and Inter Milan, it wouldn't be a surprise to see a member of Italy's beloved "Azzuri" involved. And who better than the goalkeeper who led them to a fourth World Cup trophy a few months after Italy last hosted the Winter Olympics?
Sofia Goggia: Sofia Goggia was involved in Milan-Cortina's final presentation to the IOC, and she's from Lombardy, where the alpine skiing events will take place. She's won a downhill medal at each of the past two Olympics. Her gold in PyeongChang was Italy's first-ever in the event. Then in Beijing, Goggia rallied to take silver three weeks after tearing her ACL.
Barbara Fusar-Poli & Maurizio Margaglio: The ice dancers won a World Championship and an European Championship, and they represented Italy at three Olympics. They retired after winning bronze in Salt Lake City, but returned for their home Olympics four years later...and were in the lead after the compulsory dance. Fusar-Poli & Margaglio ended up finishing sixth in what would end up being their final international competition before turning to coaching.
Enrico Fabris: Without question, one of the hometown stars at the Torino Olympics was Enrico Fabris. He won bronze in the 5000 meters, Italy's first-ever speed skating medal, then led the Italians to their first-ever speed skating gold in the team pursuit. Fabris added an individual gold in the 1500 meters, making him one of the most decorated athletes in 2006.
Carolina Kostner: Kostner's Olympic career spanned four Games. Her only medal was a bronze in 2014. But her list of accolades is much longer than that. Kostner was the 2012 World Champion and six-time World medalist. She also won 11 medals at the European Championships, including five gold. A month after the 2018 Olympics, Kostner finished her competitive career by finishing fourth at the World Championships...in Milan.
Giorgio Di Centa: One of the signature moments of the Torino Games was Italy's victory in the men's cross country relay. That star-studded relay team featured three individual Olympic medalists. Giorgio Di Centa skied the leadoff leg on the relay, then added a second gold in the 50 kilometer freestyle, which he won by 0.8 seconds (the closest finish in the event in Olympic history). He was presented with his medal at the Closing Ceremony...by his sister, seven-time Olympic medalist Manuela.
Stefani Constantini & Amos Mosaner: In the 2022 mixed doubles curling tournament, Constantini & Mosaner came seemingly out of nowhere to go 9-0 in round robin play, a full three wins better than anybody else. They then beat Sweden in the semis and Norway in the final to finish the tournament a perfect 11-0 and win Italy's first-ever Olympic curling medal. Constantini is now the skip of the Italian women's team, which won silver at the 2023 European Championships.
Gerda Weissensteiner: Weissensteiner competed at six Winter Olympics from 1988-2006, first in luge, then in bobsled. As a luger, she won gold in 1994. She converted to bobsled in 2002 and capped her career with a bronze at her home Games four years later. With that bronze, Weissensteiner became the first Italian Olympian to medal in two different sports.
While I think some (or all) of those athletes will be involved in the final stages of the Olympic Torch Relay, I don't see any of them actually lighting the cauldron. Because two Italian winter sports legends stand above the rest, and it would be a shock to see anybody else being given the honor. And, since the new Olympic tradition is to have a man and a woman do it together, I'll say they'll both get the nod. Lighting the Olympic cauldron in Milan on February 6, 2026 will be...
Arianna Fontana: Fontana is the most decorated short track speed skater and the most decorated Italian woman in Olympic history. She has 11 career Olympic medals, including at least one at every distance. Fontana has medaled in the 500 meters at the last four Winter Games, and is the two-time defending champion in the event. She also has four silver and five bronze on an Olympic resume that began in Torino when she was just 15 (and won a bronze in the relay to become Italy's youngest Winter Olympic medalist).
Armin Zoeggler: Sharing the honors with Fontana will be Armin Zoeggler, who has his own place in Olympic history. He competed in luge at six Winter Games from 1994-2014...and won a medal in every one of them. Zoeggler is the only athlete in Olympic history (Summer or Winter) to medal in the same individual event at six consecutive Games. That includes back-to-back golds in Salt Lake City and Torino. He capped his brilliant career with a bronze in Sochi, the record sixth straight medal.
Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Get the Gold Jackets Ready
In this year's Super Bowl program, there's a cool article about the Pro Football Hall of Fame announcement. Specifically, it's about how the new Hall of Famers find out they've been elected. They call it "The Knock." "The Knock" was started by former Hall of Fame President David Baker, originally at a hotel in the Super Bowl city before moving around the country, with Baker coming to them, during COVID.
Since Baker's presidency ended in 2022, it's been a Hall of Famer (generally a friend or former teammate) doing the knocking. The article ends with saying how much everybody loves it! And it got me thinking about this year's Hall of Fame vote (which obviously takes place sometime in January now, since they need to let everybody know and arrange for them to take the stage at NFL Honors). Specifically, who'll get the honor of knocking on their door and telling them they're Hall of Famers?
This year, they've changed the voting procedure, too. There's nothing different for the Modern Era candidates. The five who make it to the final round will almost certainly be elected. With the Senior/Coach/Contributor nominees, though, is very different.
The three categories have been combined and will be voted on separately than the Modern Era players. There are five finalists across the three categories, but only a maximum of three can be elected. That's a vast difference from prior years, when whoever was chosen as the finalist from each category was almost always voted in. Obviously, that's not the case anymore.
If nobody gets 80 percent of the vote (which seems unlikely), then the top vote-getter will be the only one to join the Modern Era Hall of Famers. So, we'll have anywhere between four and eight men elected. Although, it seems likely that number will be eight.
Who will those eight be, though? Let's start with the combined categories. Maxie Baughan, Sterling Sharpe and Jim Tyrer were nominated as Seniors, along with Mike Holmgren in the Coach category and Ralph Hay as a contributor. I think it'll be these three (as well as my guess for who gets to give them the news).
Ralph Hay, Contributor (1918-22 Canton Bulldogs): Patriots fans who really wanted Robert Kraft to be the Contributor Finalist used the argument that "you need to be a football historian to know who Ralph Hay is" against him. That's exactly why Hay should be in the Hall of Fame. The initial meeting that led to the creation of the NFL was held in his Canton car dealership (which is why the Hall of Fame is in Canton). Football is the only sport where the league's founder isn't in the Hall of Fame. Time to rectify that. Frankly, he should've been part of the Centennial Class. (Since Hay passed away in 1944, there's obviously no need for someone to give him the news.)
Mike Holmgren, Coach (1992-98 Packers, 1999-2008 Seahawks): I was a little surprised Mike Holmgren was selected as the Coach Finalist over some of the others under consideration, but he certainly deserves it. He was the first Packers coach since Vince Lombardi to win the Super Bowl and led Green Bay to six playoff appearances in seven seasons. Holmgren then went to Seattle and led the Seahawks to their first NFC Championship. He's one of just seven coaches to take two different teams to the Super Bowl. (Who better to give him the news than his quarterback in Green Bay, Brett Favre?)
Sterling Sharpe, Wide Receiver (1988-94 Packers): Keeping with the Packers theme, Sterling Sharpe gets the nod as the Senior inductee. He only played seven years before he was forced to retire with a neck injury. Sharpe was really good in those seven years, though. He was like a freight train, man! Choo choo baby! (If you don't get that reference, look it up on YouTube.) Sharpe never missed a game in those seven seasons, was a First Team All-Pro three times, and had 18 touchdown catches in his final season. (His brother, Shannon, is already in the Hall of Fame, so they share that moment as siblings.)
Now, let's move on to the Modern Era Finalists. It's not a rule that all five who reach the final round will get in, but who are we kidding? Once they get to that point, it's highly unlikely they won't get in. And I'm curious to see which direction the voters will go with so many first-ballot guys who look like sure-fire Hall of Famers. But do you put them in over the players who've been waiting a while?
It was a surprise that Antonio Gates didn't get in as a first-year eligible candidate last year. He seems like the only lock for selection this time. The other four are anybody's guess, though.
Antonio Gates, Tight End (2003-18 Chargers): Making Gates wait a year is what got me thinking maybe Eli Manning and Adam Vinatieri might have to wait a year, as well. I have no doubt Gates will be selected in his second year on the ballot, however, likely as the headliner of this year's class. He's one of the most prolific receiving tight ends in NFL history and arguably the best undrafted free agent in NFL history. His 116 touchdowns are the most-ever by a tight end. (How about Chargers tight end Kellen Winslow letting Chargers tight end Antonio Gates know that they're both Hall of Famers?)
Jared Allen, Defensive End (2004-07 Chiefs, 2008-13 Vikings, 2014-15 Bears, 2015 Panthers): Jared Allen's been eligible for five years and this is his fifth time as a finalist. I think this may finally be the year he gets in, too. He was a dominant defensive end for the Chiefs for four years, then was traded to the Vikings and played six dominant years in Minnesota. In a 12-year career, Allen led the NFL in sacks twice and finished with 136 of them. (His knock is a tricky one since he doesn't have any Hall of Fame teammates, so how about fellow defensive end and 2024 inductee Julius Peppers, his NFC North rival for so many years?)
Terrell Suggs, Linebacker/Defensive End (2003-18 Ravens, 2019 Cardinals, 2019 Chiefs): That outstanding Ravens defense of the early 2000s is about to get another Hall of Famer. Terrell Suggs was too good not to be a first-ballot selection! The Defensive Rookie of the Year in 2003 and Defensive Player of the Year in 2011, he's 12th all-time in sacks and the NFL's career leader in tackles for loss. Suggs won a Super Bowl in Baltimore and another with Kansas City in his final season. (One Ravens linebacker welcomes another to the Hall of Fame, Ray Lewis gives him the news.)
Torry Holt, Wide Receiver (1999-2008 Rams, 2009 Jaguars): They need to do something about the wide receiver backlog before Larry Fitzgerald shows up on the ballot and jumps to the front of the line. Last year, Andre Johnson got in and Torry Holt made it to the second cut, which leads me to believe he's ahead of Reggie Wayne in the voters' minds (even though Wayne would be my choice). Holt's also been waiting longer, so I think he's more likely to get in than Wayne. (He and his Hall of Fame quarterback, Kurt Warner, hook up one more time.)
Eli Manning, Quarterback (2004-19 Giants): My final selection was the toughest one. Because Eli Manning is such a controversial Hall of Fame candidate that I'm really not sure when he'll get in. My guess is it'll most likely be a while. I'm going with him, though, because I don't know who else I'd pick over him. His candidacy is built almost entirely on his postseason success, which is too much to ignore (and will likely result in his eventual induction). I'm very curious to see what kind of support he gets from the actual voters and if a first-ballot election is even possible. (If he does get in, there's no other choice, it would obviously be Peyton telling him.)
Sunday, February 2, 2025
This Season's NFL Awards
The Eagles and Chiefs have landed in New Orleans and Super Bowl Week has begun. And among all of the Super Bowl Week activities is the annual NFL Honors on Thursday night. It used to be on Saturday, but they moved it to Thursday in 2022, which was a great decision. And, since the NFL Honors includes two major announcements (this season's award winners, as well as the Hall of Fame class), I've got to break them down into two separate posts. I'll start with the NFL Awards.
This season, they took a page out of Baseball's book and announced finalists for each of the awards. In baseball, there are three finalists for each of the awards. In football, there are five, and there's virtually no overlap. For a while, the MVP and Offensive Player of the Year almost always went to the same player. This season, only Saquon Barkley, Joe Burrow and Lamar Jackson are finalists for both. Burrow's actually a finalist for three, since he's up for Comeback Player of the Year, too.
After Joe Flacco controversially won Comeback Player of the Year over Damar Hamlin last year, they changed the criteria for the award. Now they actually spell it out instead of leaving it up to each voter's interpretation. The Comeback Player of the Year should go to a player who overcame "illness, physical injury, or other circumstances that led him to miss playing time the previous season." Not just somebody who no longer sucks. I'm curious to see who it'll end up going to. Because I think the top two candidates fit different definitions. One the old (Sam Darnold), one the new (Joe Burrow).
That isn't the only award where I really have no idea who'll win. I'm confident in a few, but for others, no clue. But I'll give it my best shot anyway...
Assistant Coach of the Year: Ben Johnson, Lions-Detroit was the highest-scoring team in the league this season. They scored 40 or more points six times, including two games where they had 52. They also had the highest average scoring margin in the league and finished second in the NFL in passing. That offense was something to behold, and it's a big reason why Johnson is now the Bears' head coach.
Coach of the Year: Dan Quinn, Commanders-A case could be made for all five finalists. Washington's success was the most unexpected, though, which is why Quinn gets the nod here. The Commanders weren't supposed to be good. They ended up winning 12 games, made the playoffs, and completely changed the culture around the franchise.
Comeback Player of the Year: Joe Burrow, Bengals-I can easily see Sam Darnold winning. Under the previous definition, I think that would be a no-brainer. But Darnold is coming back from being a backup for the 49ers. Burrow missed most of last season with an injury, then had the best season of his career this year. I also think they'll want to make sure he gets something, and this seems like the most likely.
Defensive Rookie of the Year: Jared Verse, Rams-It's really incredible to think that there are two Rams and two Eagles among the five finalists. Four of the five best defensive rookies in the league this season were on the field in the same playoff game. As for who'll win, I've gotta think it'll be Rams linebacker Jared Verse. He had 66 tackles and 4.5 interceptions for the NFC West champs.
Offensive Rookie of the Year: Jayden Daniels, Commanders-Probably the easiest one of them all. In any other year, Brock Bowers would be the favorite after putting up ridiculous numbers. Unfortunately, those numbers pale in comparison to what Jayden Daniels did this season in Washington. His heroics breathed new life into the Commanders, who may have finally found their franchise quarterback at long last.
Defensive Player of the Year: Zack Baun, Eagles-Baun has one of the best stories of anyone in the NFL. We'll probably hear it plenty this week. He went from a backup/special teamer with the Saints to a starter and Defensive Player of the Year finalist for a team that's playing in the Super Bowl. Baun had 151 tackles this season (third in the NFL), 82 of which were solo. He's the biggest reason for that defense's improvement this season.
Offensive Player of the Year: Saquon Barkley, Eagles-Offensive Player of the Year and MVP are not the same thing. Saquon Barkley isn't the MVP. But he's absolutely the Offensive Player of the Year! He became just the seventh running back in NFL history to run for 2,000 yards, and he could've gone after Eric Dickerson's single-season record, but was held out of the Eagles' final regular season game instead. And how many explosive, long runs did he have? Without question, the best free agent signing of this offseason (and one of the best of all-time), and making the Giants look worse and worse for that Hard Knocks clip they won't be able to live down anytime soon.
MVP: Josh Allen, Bills-Most of the time, you have a general idea who's gonna be the MVP. This year, I have absolutely no clue! It really comes down to Josh Allen vs. Lamar Jackson, and the argument can be made for each. Lamar had 4,000 passing yards and 900 rushing yards. He threw 41 touchdown passes and only four interceptions. Allen's numbers weren't as gaudy, but he had 12 rushing touchdowns and led his team to the AFC Championship Game (with a win over the Ravens in the Divisional Playoffs). However, the Ravens had so many more weapons, including Derrick Henry. Allen did less with more. That, to me, is the difference that swings things in his favor.
Finally, there's the NFL's signature award: the Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year. Travis Kelce won the Nationwide Charity Challenge, which I'm sure fans who are tired of the Chiefs are super excited about. Fortunately for those fans, winning the Charity Challenge doesn't guarantee winning the award. And I don't think Kelce will. I think it'll go to...
Man of the Year: Mike Evans, Buccaneers-Mike Evans is so revered in Tampa that they put him in at the end of the game in Week 18 so he could catch one more pass and get 1,000 receiving yards on the season. He's spent his entire 11-year career with the Bucs and has become just as beloved in the community as he has on the field. His foundation awarded 15 college scholarships this year and has awarded more than $500,000 in scholarships since 2021. Evans also makes a donation to families or children in need for every yard gained and touchdown scored. He donates tickets and holds camps/clincis, too. Evans exemplifies everything the Walter Payton NFL Man of Year Award represents.