NFL Picks, Week 17

With Christmas falling on a Thursday this year, the NFL decided to have three different teams play on both Thanksgiving and Christmas.  Dallas also played in the NFL Kickoff game, and the Cowboys always play (usually against the Lions) on the Thursday night after Thanksgiving.  So, this is the Cowboys' fourth Thursday game this season!  That's a quarter of the schedule!  And the Packers have become the Saturday night team.  This is their second straight Saturday night game, and it wouldn't be a complete shock if they end up playing on Saturday again next week.

We obviously won't know which games are picked for Saturday and Sunday night next week likely at least until after the 49ers-Bears game.  If I had to guess, I'd say the chances of seeing San Francisco again are pretty good.  And it could very well be Broncos-Chargers and/or Panthers-Bucs, too.  But that all depends on what happens this week.

Cowboys (6-8-1) at Commanders (4-11): Dallas-Christmas Day in the Nation's Capital.  This matchup looked so much better when it was set in May than it does now.  That's what happens with late-season games sometimes, though.  Washington's been out of it for weeks, while it really depends on the week with Dallas.  The Cowboys looked awful against the Chargers after being eliminated on Saturday, so what will their intensity level be?

Lions (8-7) at Vikings (7-8): Detroit-Detroit is hanging by a thread in the playoff race.  The Lions need to win out just to have a chance, and even then, it's a slim one.  Obviously not how they anticipated this season going.  But I guess that's what happens when both of your coordinators leave to become head coaches.  That wild finish against Pittsburgh basically sealed their fate...and was a microcosm of the Lions' season.  They stay alive, but maybe only for a few days until the Packers play on Saturday night.

Broncos (12-3) at Chiefs (6-9): Denver-When they put this one on Christmas night, it sure seemed like a good call.  The team that's won five of the last six AFC championships against a division rival that made the playoffs last season.  The Chiefs' 2025 campaign has obviously been pretty forgettable.  Denver has held up its end of the bargain, though.  Losing to Jacksonville might've been the best thing for the Broncos.  Especially losing in that way.  It reminded them they aren't invincible heading into the playoffs.  Kansas City, meanwhile, will be down to its third quarterback in as many games.

Texans (10-5) at Chargers (11-4): Chargers-The Saturday afternoon NFL Network special is between two playoff-bound AFC teams.  The Texans aren't officially in yet, but they just need to win one of their last two.  The Chargers play the Broncos next week and would love it if that game is for the division.  At the very least, this one is for seeding between two wild card teams, which looks like the most likely scenario.  I'm taking the Chargers, but with the way Houston's defense has played over the past few weeks, it'll be anything but easy for Justin Herbert & Co.

Ravens (7-8) at Packers (9-5-1): Green Bay-How did the Packers lose that game last week?!  I'm still amazed by that Bears comeback that basically sealed Green Bay's fate as a wild card team.  And a dangerous one at that!  The Ravens, meanwhile, know their playoff chances are on life support.  They need to win out and have Pittsburgh lose in Cleveland this week to get in as the AFC North champions.  Otherwise, Baltimore will be watching the playoffs at home.  Which is exactly what'll happen.

Cardinals (3-12) at Bengals (5-10): Cincinnati-Last week in Miami, the Bengals' offense showed what it can do.  They won't be in the playoffs, which is great news for the playoff-bound teams in the AFC.  They've got a real chance to finish with a 7-10 record and set the stage for next season.  They scored 45 points last week and play home games against Arizona and Cleveland to wrap up their schedule.  Can they match that offensive output against the Cardinals, who've lost seven in a row?

Steelers (9-6) at Browns (3-12): Pittsburgh-Death, taxes and Mike Tomlin finishing with a winning record.  Some things are constants.  And the Steelers can wrap up their first AFC North title since 2020 with a victory in Cleveland.  This is what they envisioned when they signed Aaron Rodgers for one last hurrah.  They're looking at a difficult playoff game as the 4-seed, but that's not a concern for right now.  All they can do is secure the home game.  Which they should this week, rendering next week's showdown with the Ravens meaningless.

Saints (5-10) at Titans (3-12): New Orleans-Don't look now, but the Saints have won three in a row.  They had those back-to-back one-score games against the two division leaders, then took it to the Jets last week.  Yes, it was the Jets.  But it's not like the Saints are a playoff team.  Neither are the Titans, who also took it to their opponent last week in an upset of Kansas City.  Make it four straight for New Orleans, which win or lose next week, has to be encouraged by this finish.

Jaguars (11-4) at Colts (8-7): Jacksonville-Remember when the Colts had the best record in the AFC?  Sure seems like forever ago, doesn't it?  Now it's looking like they'll miss the playoffs entirely.  And it's the Jaguars who have control of the AFC South.  Jacksonville's still alive for the No. 1 seed, in fact.  And with the teams the Jaguars have beaten and the way they've beaten them this season, they're looking like they'll be a tough out on the playoffs.

Buccaneers (7-8) at Dolphins (6-9): Tampa Bay-Tampa Bay was 6-2.  The Bucs are 1-6 since.  Here's the crazy thing, though.  None of that will matter if they win both of their remaining games.  Because that would be enough to give them the tiebreaker over Carolina and another NFC South title.  For next week to matter, they need to win this week.  And who knows how the Dolphins will look after two utterly listless performances against Pittsburgh and Cincinnati?

Patriots (12-3) at Jets (3-12): New England-No team benefitted from Denver's loss to Jacksonville more than the Patriots.  Suddenly, Mike Vrabel's squad is right back in the mix for the 1-seed in the AFC.  And that's exactly what they looked like on Sunday night in Baltimore.  What's crazy is that they still haven't clinched the AFC East yet.  The division may go all the way to Week 18.  Finishing off another season sweep of the Jets will set them up to be in the driver's seat going into the season finale.

Seahawks (12-3) at Panthers (8-7): Carolina-Seattle's crazy two-point conversions on Thursday night should've been an indication what was in store last week.  Once the dust settled, the Seahawks were sitting on the No. 1 seed in the NFC...at least for the time being.  If they win out, it's theirs.  But you know the Panthers will have something to say about that this week.  After beating Tampa Bay in that first-place showdown, Carolina now controls its own fate in the NFC South.  They win here, they know all they need is a tie next week to clinch a home playoff game.

Giants (2-13) at Raiders (2-13): Giants-This matchup is just as big as the games between two playoff contenders.  The loser clinches the No. 1 pick in the Draft.  So, the Giants and Raiders both have plenty to play for.  Except they both have more incentive to lose.  Last season, the Giants had a chance to lock up the No. 1 pick and screwed it up by beating the Colts (badly) in Week 17.  That's the sort of thing the Giants do.  They'll win and give the Raiders the No. 1 pick.

Eagles (10-5) at Bills (11-4): Philadelphia-For the first time in two decades, we have a repeat NFC East champion!  The Eagles are the only team in the NFL to have already clinched their division and pretty much guaranteed the 3-seed in the NFC.  So, I'm curious to see if they play their starters and for how long in this one.  It means everything for the Bills, who clinched their playoff spot when the Colts lost to San Francisco and still have a chance at winning the AFC East once again.  Speaking of San Francisco, might this be a preview of a matchup we see again six weeks from now?  There are many who think it could be.

Bears (11-4) at 49ers (11-4): San Francisco-Mike Tirico told a funny story at the end of last week's Sunday night game.  He said how he was at a Bears practice in August and they were talking about how they had the Week 17 Sunday night game, but it would probably get flexed out.  Not only was it not flexed, it has huge implications for the entire NFC playoff race.  The 49ers can get the No. 1 seed if they win out.  The Bears clinch the North if they win, and, if they do, they'll go into Week 18 with a shot at the 1-seed themselves.  So, yeah, it's a massive matchup.

Rams (11-4) at Falcons (6-9): Rams-It's crazy how the NFC is so tight that one crazy loss can change everything.  The Rams went from the 1-seed to the 5-seed and, even if they win out, can see the 49ers jump them.  It doesn't change the fact that they're the best team.  The road will just be a lot harder (potentially).  And it's not like they'll have an easy time in Atlanta.  The Falcons have given good teams tough games all season (and also lost to the Jets).

Last Week: 10-6
Overall: 153-86-1

Making the Olympic Team

We're two months away from the gold medal game of the Olympic hockey tournament in Milan.  That would be a big deal regardless, but it's made even bigger by the fact that this'll be the first Olympics with NHL participation since 2014.  Anticipation is obviously high for NHL players at the Olympics for the first time in a dozen years, especially after the success of the Four Nations Face-Off last season. 

The Four Nations Face-Off was designed to be a little bit of a preview who we might see representing their countries in Milan.  The Olympic tournament will obviously have more teams, though, so this time we'll see all of the NHL's best players (minus the Russians) representing their countries.  And they'll be doing in pretty soon.  The Olympics are right around the corner, and so is the announcement of each team's roster.  They all announced six players over the summer, but we'll be finding out the full rosters soon enough.

In the past, they've announced the U.S. Olympic roster at one of the intermissions during the Winter Classic.  This worked well since NBC broadcast both the Winter Classic and the Olympics, but NBC obviously isn't one of the NHL's TV partners anymore.  So, I don't know if they're planning on doing it again this time or not.  It would seem to make the most sense to do that, though.  Especially since the Panthers' Matthew Tkachuk has already been named to the team and Rangers coach Mike Sullivan will be the coach of Team USA.

While the Four Nations provided a preview of what we'll see in Milan, the roster that we saw at that tournament will not be the same.  The players understood that better than anybody.  Making the team for the Four Nations didn't guarantee you a place on the Olympic team and vice versa.  In fact, being snubbed from the Four Nations roster served as a great motivator for so many players.  And some of them have almost certainly earned a spot on the Olympic team.

Two players who come to mind are Clayton Keller of the Mammoth and the Sabres' Tage Thompson.  Neither was on the team for the Four Nations (although, Thompson was an alternate), but they both represented the United States at the World Championships...and led the U.S. to its first gold medal since 1933.  Keller was the team captain and had 10 points in 10 games.  Thompson scored the winning goal in the final.  They both did everything they needed to do and then some.  It would be a surprise if they aren't on the Olympic team.

So, if they're in, who's out?  My guess would be Chris Kreider and Josh Bailey.  Kreider was a healthy scratch for the first two games of the Four Nations, while Bailey was the last guy to make the team, and a bit of a surprise at that.  Vincent Trocheck could also be vulnerable, but he might stay on for his ability to win faceoffs.  Should a third forward (Logan Cooley?  Matty Beiners?  Jason Robertson?) be added, Trocheck would be the next guy to go.

Quinn Hughes didn't play at the Four Nations, either.  He was on the original roster, but had to withdraw due to injury.  He tried to return for the championship game, but ultimately wasn't added (partly because traveling from Vancouver to Boston for only one game wasn't practical).  Hughes is healthy now, though, and arguably the best American-born defenseman in the NHL.  He'll obviously be on the Olympic team.  Which means at least one of the seven defensemen who did play at the Four Nations won't.

Jake Sanderson was the defenseman added to the Four Nations roster as the replacement.  So, it would stand to reason that he'd be the one to come off with a healthy Quinn Hughes reclaiming his spot.  Although, I think the American defense could look very different.  Because Seth Jones and John Carlson weren't on the Four Nations roster, either, and I can also see one or both of them making the team this time (Carlson was on the 2014 Olympic team...the last with NHL players).

Of the six players who were named to the Olympic roster over the summer, none were goalies.  Which is kind of interesting.  Since goalie is the one position that's pretty locked in.  Connor Hellebuyck of the Jets will be the starter.  Jake Oettinger of the Stars will be the backup.  It's really a question of whether the Bruins' Jeremy Swayman on the Canucks' Thatcher Demko will be the third goalie.  Except that's not really a question, either.  Swayman was the third goalie at the Four Nations and the starter at Worlds.  It would be shocking if he doesn't get that spot.

United States General Manager Bill Guerin basically admitted that when he was asked why there were no goalies among the initial six names.  Everyone already knows who at least two of the three goalies will be, but he didn't want it to look like he was committing to Hellebuyck as the starter.  It also allowed Guerin to name six skaters on the initial roster (Auston Mathews, Jack Eichel, Matthew Tkachuk, Brady Tkachuk, Quinn Hughes, Charlie McAvoy).

There are also several players who would otherwise be locks, but are currently injured.  Matthew Tkachuk has missed most of the season.  J.T Miller and Adam Fox are both out.  Will they be selected anyway, counting on their being back in time for the Olympics?  (Tkachuk was one of those original six chosen over the summer.)  Or will their injuries keep them out and give someone else who wouldn't necessarily have been on the team otherwise a spot on the Olympic roster?

Teams had 23-player rosters at the Four Nations.  At the Olympics, it'll 25-man rosters.  So, assuming they do an even split, that'll be 14 forwards and eight defensemen plus the three goalies.  With that in mind, here are my choices for the 2026 U.S. Olympic men's hockey roster (*-already named to preliminary roster):

Goalies: Connor Hellebuyck (Jets), Jake Oettinger (Stars), Jeremy Swayman (Bruins)
Defensemen: *Quinn Hughes (Wild), *Charlie McAvoy (Bruins), Brock Faber (Wild), Adam Fox (Rangers), Noah Hanifin (Golden Knights), Seth Jones (Panthers), Jaccob Slavin (Hurricanes), Zach Werenski (Blue Jackets)
Forwards: *Jack Eichel (Golden Knights), *Auston Matthews (Maple Leafs), *Brady Tkachuk (Senators), *Matthew Tkachuk (Panthers), Matt Boldy (Wild), Cole Caufield (Canadiens), Kyle Connor (Jets), Jake Guentzel (Lightning), Jack Hughes (Devils), Clayton Keller (Mammoth), Dylan Larkin (Red Wings), J.T. Miller (Rangers), Jason Robertson (Stars), Tage Thompson (Sabres)

Whether it's announced at the Winter Classic or not, we'll know the actual U.S. Olympic hockey roster soon enough.  And, regardless of who's on it, the pressure will be on.  After silver at the Four Nations and gold at Worlds, the United States will be one of the favorites for Olympic gold in Milan.

Survivor's Greatest Athletes

Survivor just crowned its Season 49 winner.  Now the anticipation builds even more for the historic Season 50, which will feature the largest cast (24 people) in Survivor history.  Plenty of athletes and other athlete-adjacent personalities have been on Survivor of the years, but none will be part of that historic anniversary cast.  Which is a shame.  Because, while there's definitely been some stunt casting (Jimmy Johnson), there are other who were definite "players" who'd be worthy of inclusion. 

They're still out there playing the game, living in the jungle, sleeping on dirt with everybody else.  And some of the athletes/sports personalities have played it better than others.  Some have even made Survivor history.  Former Cowboys quarterback Gary Hogeboom found the first-ever hidden immunity idol and used it on himself during Survivor: Guatemala.  Throw in the challenge of being obviously extremely athletic, and it makes you an instant threat.  Especially if you're famous enough to be recognizable (just ask newly-elected Hall of Famer Jeff Kent about that).

Originally, my thought for this post was to cast an all-sports season of Survivor.  But then I opted against it for a few reasons.  Instead, I decided to rank the top 10 athletes to have been on Survivor throughout the series' long history.  Some have authored memorable moments, others are known for their strong personalities or their incredible gameplay.  (And since there are more than 10 athletes who've played Survivor, some tough cuts had to be made.)

10. Cliff Robinson (Survivor: Cagayan)
The late Cliff Robinson is one of the more accomplished former athletes to have appeared on Survivor.  The long-time Portland Trail Blazer played 18 years in the NBA before being cast on Survivor: Cagayan, where he was on the same tribe as eventual winner and Survivor legend Tony Vlachos.  Cliff was voted out the first time he went to Tribal Council because he was percived as such a strong physical threat.

9. Elizabeth Beisel (Survivor: Island of the Idols)
Island of the Idols was such a bad season, for so many reasons.  Elizabeth ended up opting not to attend the reunion because of the controversy surrounding the season...despite being a member of the jury.  She proved to be a great strategic player, though, which allowed her to get far in the game.  Ultimately, she ended up being voted out after somebody else's immunity idol play negated seven votes against them.  It's also highly unlikely she'll ever play Survivor again, seeing as her broadcasting career has taken off and she'll almost certainly be Rowdy Gaines' successor as NBC's Olympic swimming analyst in 2032.

8. Jeff Kent (Survivor: Philippines)
He tried to blend in, but there was one woman on his tribe, Dawson, who recognized him from watching baseball and tried to out him.  She got voted out right after that, but Jeff made it to the merge and was eventually a member of the jury.  His game wasn't flashy, but that was the point.  He made strong alliances, which is what helped him get so far in the game.  (Fun fact: Jeff wasn't the only minor celebrity cast that season.  Lisa Whelchel from The Facts of Life made it to the Final Tribal Council.)

7. Scot Pollard (Survivor: Kaoh Rong)
Scot went down in history as one of those Survivors who got voted out with an immunity idol in his pocket.  He ended up as one of the main villains that season, which is what led to his blindside while holding an idol.  However, Scot lasted 27 days (which is longer than Survivor currently is) and made it to the jury, so he still had a hand in deciding that season's winner.

6. Crystal Cox (Survivor: Gabon)
At the time, Crystal was an Olympic gold medalist.  She no longer is, having had her 2004 medal in the women's 4x400 relay stripped.  Anyway, Crystal was one of the first athletes to go really far on Survivor.  She ended up making it nearly all the way to the end, getting voted out at the final six with just three days left in the game.

5. Gary Hogeboom (Survivor: Guatemala)
You knew Gary would have to be on this list somewhere!  I settled at No. 5 because of his historic role in finding the first-ever hidden immunity idol...and using it successfully when he was set to be voted out!  It only delayed the inevitable, and the reason he was voted out is because he was such a threat (both physically and socially).  He also gets bonus points for having the foresight to tell everyone his name was "Gary Hawkins," just in case they were football fans and recognized the name "Gary Hogeboom."

4. Noelle Lambert & Ryan Medrano (Survivor 43)
These two are a package deal, so they go together.  Noelle, obviously, had a leg amputated.  Not only did it not hold her back, she was one of the best physical players out there.  Her threat level is actually what ultimately got her voted out in eighth place.  That was one spot better than her ally Ryan, who was voted out in ninth both because of his physical prowess and lack of talking strategy with anybody.

My favorite thing about this pair, though, is what their Survivor friendship turned into.  Noelle played D1 lacrosse at UMass-Lowell both before and after losing her leg, then transitioned to para-track & field.  She represented the U.S. at both the Tokyo and Paris Paralympics.  Ryan has cerebral palsy, which qualifies him for the Paralympics, so Noelle encouraged him to try para-track & field as well.  He ended up winning two silver medals in Paris.

3. Brad Culpepper (Survivor: Blood vs. Water, Survivor: Game Changers)
Brad competed alongside his wife (a returning player) on Survivor: Blood vs. Water, and didn't do well.  He pissed off a lot of people, got voted out early, and ended up out of the game after losing at Redemption Island Arena.  (His wife, meanwhile, ended up finishing second.)  Still, Brad was such a strong character that the former NFL defensive tackle was brought back for Survivor: Game Changers.  In Game Changers, he played an entirely different game with an entirely different result.  Brad had a strong alliance, controlled a lot of votes, and won immunity when he needed to.  Ultimately, he made it to the Final Tribal Council and finished second.

2. Eva Erickson (Survivor 48)
Three players from Survivor 48 are coming back for Season 50.  Eva isn't one of them, even though she should've been.  The former hockey player and Brown Ph.D. candidate (she checked after the shooting and said she was fine, but also provided the chilling update that she was in the same building and had left just 15 minutes earlier) was the first openly-autistic player in Survivor history and ended up becoming a fan favorite.  Not only that, she didn't have a single vote cast against her the entire game and finished as the runner-up.

1. Ethan Zohn (Survivor: Africa, Survivor: All-Stars, Survivor: Winners at War)
When it comes to athletes on Survivor, Ethan's the OG.  He played minor league pro soccer before winning Survivor: Africa, where he used his $1 million prize money to found the charity "Grassroots Soccer."  He later returned for Survivor: All-Stars and Survivor: Winners at War, the historic, all-winners 40th seasons.  Ethan's return trips weren't as successful, but the fact that he was invited to come back twice in all-returner seasons (including the all-winners season) speaks to his place in the Survivor pantheon.  He's also a ridiculoulsy nice guy and a two-time cancer survivor.

NFL Picks, Week 16

I know it was a combination of blind luck and coincidence more than anything else, but still, it worked out pretty well that the NFL had three games for first place in the NFC this week--and another where the fourth division can be clinched.  And, this one is obviously the result of planning, but having one of those be Packers-Bears on Saturday night certainly guarantees the NFL will win the ratings battle against the College Football Playoff.  I'm sure there will be some people watching Oregon-James Madison.  Just nowhere near as many.  Not when you have the NFL's longest rivalry with first place on the line!

Thursday Night: Seattle (Win)

Eagles (9-5) at Commanders (4-10): Philadelphia-Philadelphia plays two of its last three against Washington (with a trip to Buffalo in between), which is a good chance for them to get on a roll heading into the playoffs.  After these two met in last season's NFC Championship Game, there were expectations that holding off the two matchups until late in the year meant they could be battles for the division title, but that obviously won't happen.  Instead, the Eagles are on the verge of something that hasn't been done in the NFC East in more than 20 years--win back-to-back division titles.  The last team to do it?  The Eagles!  Winning four in a row from 2001-04.

Packers (9-4-1) at Bears (10-4): Green Bay-Losing Micah Parsons was a big blow for the Packers.  Obviously.  But I don't think it's totally catastrophic.  Yet.  Anyway, this is the biggest game at Soldier Field in years, as it'll almost certainly decide the NFC North.  Yes, there are two games left after this.  But a Bears win gives Chicago a game-and-a-half lead and all but relegates Green Bay to a wild card.  Here's another chance for the Bears to prove they're for real like they did on Black Friday.  Except I think the Packers will do what they did two weeks ago at Lambeau and eke out a win.

Bills (10-4) at Browns (3-11): Buffalo-Last week changed everything for Buffalo.  Instead of seeing the Patriots clinch the division, now the Bills find themselves only a game out with Cleveland and the Jets still on their schedule.  I'm not saying their string of division titles will definitely continue.  New England still has to be the favorite to win the division.  They've still got plenty left to play for, though.  And they can potentially wrap up their spot this week heading into next week's showdown with the Eagles.

Chargers (10-4) at Cowboys (6-7-1): Dallas-Every time the Cowboys want to think they still have a chance at getting back into the playoff race, they go and lose to a team like Minnesota.  By the time they face the Chargers, they could officially be eliminated.  But they're still a tough out, especially at home.  The Chargers haven't clinched their spot yet, but are in good shape to return to the playoffs.  They can clinch with a win and a Colts or Texans loss, while a loss essentially hands the AFC West to Denver.

Chiefs (6-8) at Titans (2-12): Kansas City-Well, this is a weird position to be in.  There's three games left and Kansas City has already been eliminated.  The Chiefs have to win out just to finish above .500.  And they have to do it without Patrick Mahomes, who already had surgery on his torn ACL.  Not the year they anticipated by any means, but missing the playoffs this season could end up being a good thing in the long run for a lot of those Chiefs players who've played a lot of football over the past seven years.  With all that said, I'm curious to see how they'll play during this stretch run and if this is it for Travis Kelce.

Bengals (4-10) at Dolphins (6-8): Miami-Cincinnati is favored on the road in this game.  Why?  What is this obsession with the Bengals?  They're 4-10!  They're seriously the most overrated team in football, and Joe Burrow's one of the most overrated quarterbacks!  And, let's not forget that Miami was on a four-game winning streak until it was snapped in Pittsburgh on Monday night.  There's no reason why the Dolphins shouldn't be the favorites in this one.

Jets (3-11) at Saints (4-10): New Orleans-It would be easy to just chalk this one up as another meaningless showdown between two bad teams that are out of it.  Which it still is.  The Saints have upended the NFC South though!  Three of their four wins are in the division, and they swept Carolina!  Tampa Bay and Carolina are tied for first place because of the Saints!  And, let's not forget, those wins over Tampa Bay and Carolina have come in the last two weeks.  Playing the Jets at home is a good recipe to make it three in a row.

Vikings (6-8) at Giants (2-12): Minnesota-These are two very different last-place teams.  The Giants are in line for a top-five pick, maybe even No. 1.  The Vikings are out there trying to remind everyone not to forget about them.  They're in last place only because the NFC North is so good.  Minnesota wants to see what it can get from J.J. McCarthy, so these last three games are still important for them.  Not to mention the fact that finishing 9-8 is still possible.

Buccaneers (7-7) at Panthers (7-7): Carolina-This one doesn't have the same importance as their Week 18 matchup will.  But, make no mistake, it's incredibly important nonetheless.  The winner here won't only have the one-game lead, they'll have the tiebreaker edge going into that decisive matchup (which we can probably safely assume will be put in one of the national windows).  Tampa's owned the division for several years, so you know they won't let the Panthers just take it.  But, with the game in Charlotte, I'm inclined to go with the home team.

Jaguars (10-4) at Broncos (12-2): Denver-Who would've figured that Jaguars-Broncos in Week 16 would end up being a marquee matchup between two first-place teams?  Yet, that's exactly what we've got in the Mile High City.  Jacksonville has already proven it can go on the road and beat good teams.  They beat the 49ers.  They beat the Chiefs.  Winning in Denver in December is a different task, though.  The Broncos keep their winning streak going and move one game closer to making sure everybody has to go there in January.

Falcons (5-9) at Cardinals (3-11): Atlanta-There isn't really much to say here.  The Falcons are one of the most disappointing franchises compared to expectations.  Especially when you consider how good they've looked in some of their wins over playoff teams.  Yet, here they sit at 5-9, completely out of it.  They're still in better shape than Arizona, though.  It's another lost season for the Cardinals, who can't blame it all on the misfortune of being in the NFC West with three playoff-bound division rivals.  Jacoby Brissett has put together a nice career as a quality NFL backup.  He isn't an NFL starter, however.

Steelers (8-6) at Lions (8-6): Detroit-Detroit might be the best 8-6 team that's likely to miss the playoffs around!  Part of the Lions' undoing this season has been just their absolutely brutal schedule, a consequence of finishing first last season.  Every week, they've got a tough opponent it seems.  And every week, it seems like a must-win.  Last week, they lost to the Rams.  This week, they get the Steelers at home.  I think Detroit wins and stays alive, which is all they can do at this point.  A Lions loss will all but eliminate them (it would clinch a playoff berth for both the 49ers and the Bears-Packers winner).

Raiders (2-12) at Texans (9-5): Houston-Houston is that one team every AFC playoff contender is looking at and hoping doesn't get in.  None of those teams want anything to do with the Texans in the postseason.  Unfortunately for them, the Texans are indeed coming.  If they beat the Raiders and Jacksonville loses in Denver, suddenly there's a tie atop the AFC South!  Which will likely be the exact situation we're looking at heading into the final two weeks of the season.

Patriots (11-3) at Ravens (7-7): New England-They flexed it into Sunday night, and with good reason.  Baltimore's playoff hopes are hanging by a thread.  They know they likely have to win out, but that won't be easy with their remaining schedule consisting of New England, Green Bay and Pittsburgh.  The Patriots, meanwhile, missed their chance to clinch the AFC East last week, so suddenly there's a little more urgency on their side, too.  A loss, and suddenly a home playoff game isn't anywhere close to a guarantee anymore.

49ers (10-4) at Colts (8-6): San Francisco-When was the last time a Monday night interconference game carried this much playoff heft for so many teams (not just the two participating)?  There are four AFC teams who have playoff clinching scenarios based on a Colts loss, and I already mentioned what a 49ers win does to the Lions.  So, a San Francisco victory here literally helps the playoff chances of half-a-dozen teams.  Not to mention their own.  They secure their wild card and keep the NFC West in play with two home games remaining.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-5
Overall: 144-80-1

Bringing Back Russia & Belarus

It's been 10 years since Russia was banned by World Athletics.  The country's doping problems that led to their track & field ban eventually resulted in the Russian Olympic Committee being suspended, as well.  At the last three Winter Olympics, in fact, they've competed under three different names (Russia in 2014, "Olympic Athletes from Russia" in 2018, "ROC" in 2022).  In Milan Cortina, there will be a fourth name--"Individual Neutral Athletes."

Russia's doping suspension is long over.  Their current status is a result of their invasion of Ukraine, which happened almost immediately after the 2022 Olympics concluded.  Belarus was also included for their role in supporting the invasion.  For the last four years, only select Russian and Belarusian athletes have been approved for neutral status, where they aren't allowed to use their country's flag, name or national colors.  They've both been completely excluded from team sports.

While Russia's flag and anthem are still banned by WADA because of RUSADA's non-compliance with World Anti-Doping Code, their current IOC suspension is because they violated the Olympic Charter.  More specifically, the Russian Olympic Committee annexed a handful of regional Olympic Councils in occupied Ukrainian cities.  The ban is indefinite, and you'd have to figure it will extend at least until the war is over.

Those bans can't (and won't) go on forever.  And we've already seen Russia and Belarus slowly start becoming integrated back into the Olympic family.  It's up to each international federation, and some have been more willing than others to welcome them back.  They're both still banned entirely by World Athletics, while there were a number of Russians and Belarusians competing at this year's World Aquatics Championships.  And, of course, tennis and hockey players from the two countries never stopped playing.

So far, Individual Neutral Athletes have qualified for Milan Cortina in four sports.  Seven Russians will compete in cross country skiing, figure skating, short track speed skating and ski mountaineering.  There will also be two Belarusian women--one in cross country skiing and another in figure skating.  That number will likely go up over the next six weeks as qualifying wraps up in the various sports.  Although, there will be no Russian hockey team in either the men's or women's tournament.

Eventually, Russia and Belarus will be welcomed back into the world sporting family.  Russia, especially, is too important to be permanently excluded.  There are many European nations that don't necessarily agree.  The wounds from the Russian doing scandal are still fresh and too deep.  But I think even they realize it's inevitable that Russians will once again be competing under their own banner and playing in team sports.  The question is really how and when they'll be reincorporated.

IOC President Kirsty Coventry may have given us a clue as to how that'll happen.  At the Olympic Summit last week, she suggested starting small, encouraging international federations to allow youth teams and athletes to compete under the national flag and anthem.  The IOC statement said that athletes "have a fundamental right to access sport across the world, and to compete free from political interference or pressure from government organizations."  Her argument is, basically, that athletes who have nothing to do with the war shouldn't be penalized just because of what country they're from.

Coventry also acknowledged that this reintegration can take time.  It'll be up to the sporting bodies to define what constitutes a "youth" event.  And there will likely be resistance from some national federations, especially in Europe.  But it's still a glimmer of hope, and Russia could very well compete under its own identity at next year's Youth Olympics in Senegal.

This isn't the first time it's been suggested that Russian youth athletes should be allowed to represent their country.  In 2023, UEFA moved to allow the Russian U-17 team back into its competitions.  However, they had to reverse course after numerous UEFA members threatened to boycott.  Whether the IOC receives similar pushback remains to be seen.

FIFA's on the verge of doing something similar.  The FIFA Council announced a new under-15 event to begin next year that will be "open to all 211 FIFA member associations," including Russia & Belarus.  The boys' tournament is scheduled for next year, with the girls' tournament set for 2027.  Gianni Infantino's stance is basically the same as Kirsty Coventry's: "Young athletes should always be able to participate in sports competitions and not be excluded based on the political situation in their country."

Of course, the same possibility exists that some teams might just refuse to play Russia, which would obviously complicate things.  Some within the European soccer community wonder how practical it would be to readmit Russia without some sort of political settlement in place.  It's worth noting, however, that despite being banned from participating in their tournaments, Russia has maintained its membership in both FIFA and UEFA.  The federation isn't suspended like the Russian Olympic Committee is.

Regardless of when Russia's readmitted to world sport in full, there will be resistance.  That resistance, which is to be expected, can't be used to determine the timing, though.  Because if they were to wait until every other country in the world is on board, Russia would never be welcomed back.  And that's a preposterous thing to even suggest.  Which is why they just need to suck it up and reinstate Russia and Belarus and deal with whatever pushback they receive.

Do I support a full readmission of Russia and Belarus right now?  Not really.  I think the stance that's been taken where the war needs to end before it can even be considered is the right one.  The doping suspension is over, so you can't use that as the reason anymore.  If not for the war, they would've been readmitted already.

And, make no mistake, Russia and Belarus will eventually make a full return to international sport.  When that happens and what it'll look like remain to be seen.  But it will happen at some point.  And starting small by letting youth athletes back into the fold is a reasonable first step.  Then, by the time those youth athletes are seniors in a few years, the country will be fully integrated.  At that point, Russia will have been excluded from international sport for more than a decade and a return would, in some ways, feel overdue.  As long as the war is over, that is.

NFL Picks, Week 15

I can't remember an NFL season like this one.  It's been a wild and crazy year, as evidence by the fact that it's mid-December and nobody has clinched a playoff spot yet.  Even in the most competitive seasons, one division is such a runaway that a team wraps it up early.  Not this year, though!  That could change this week, though, as there were finally playoff clinching scenarios finally published on NFL.com for the first time this season.

Thursday Night: Tampa Bay (Loss)

Browns (3-10) at Bears (9-4): Chicago-Things are so tight in the NFC that one loss dropped the Bears from the No. 1 seed to the No. 6 seed.  It won't get any easier for Chicago, either.  Their final three games are Packers, 49ers, Lions.  So, with that gauntlet to end the season, they absolutely need to beat Cleveland.  There's no other way to put it.  This is a must-win game for the Bears.

Ravens (6-7) at Bengals (4-9): Baltimore-You know the Ravens don't forget what happened on Thanksgiving.  That loss was followed by another one in Pittsburgh, all but erasing all of the progress Baltimore had made to get back into the division race.  Fortunately, they get a chance at redemption against Cincinnati almost immediately.  If they don't get the win, their playoff chances are all but gone.  They'll need to win out to have any shot.

Chargers (9-4) at Chiefs (6-7): Chargers-When these two met in Brazil to start the season, the Chargers won.  Maybe we should've read more into that and seen it as the start of this year's sea change in the AFC West.  The Chiefs won't win the division and are looking at missing the playoffs entirely.  The Chargers can really put the final nail in their coffin by going into Kansas City and getting the victory.  With the way this season has been going for the Chiefs, don't be surprised if that does happen.

Bills (9-4) at Patriots (11-2): New England-Kansas City's streak of division titles has ended, and Buffalo's will, too, if the Patriots beat the Bills this week.  It was their win in Buffalo that really got New England going and let everyone know that Mike Vrabel's team is for real.  Their 10-game winning streak was interrupted by their bye, but the Patriots can clinch their first AFC East title since Bradicheck by finishing the season sweep of the Bills.  The Bills know that they're likely looking at a wild card regardless, but that becomes a lot tighter with a loss here.

Commanders (3-10) at Giants (2-11): Giants-Call me crazy, but I actually like the Giants in this one.  Injuries are obviously the biggest culprit to blame for Washington's season, but this certainly isn't how the Commanders expected to follow up their surprise NFC Championship Game appearance.  With Washington reeling and a rested Giants team knowing that they have a chance to go on a little run here (they have Vikings, Raiders coming up after Washington), I can see them picking up their third win of the season.

Raiders (2-11) at Eagles (8-5): Philadelphia-Suddenly, the Eagles are on a three-game losing streak that has made them look very mortal.  The Bears even showed everyone how to stop the tush push.  That losing streak has dropped them to the No. 3 seed in the NFC, which is perhaps the most significant takeaway since that means a road game in the Divisional Playoffs.  What's one way to halt a skid?  Playing the Raiders in the snow.

Jets (3-10) at Jaguars (9-4): Jacksonville-Turns out this isn't just a meaningless December game between two bad teams.  The Jets are still the Jets, but the Jaguars come into the game as the first-place Jacksonville Jaguars.  And they took over the division lead in pretty dominant fashion last week against the Colts.  You've got to consider them the favorites to take the AFC South.  They go to Denver next week, so they can't afford a slip up against the Jets.

Cardinals (3-10) at Texans (8-5): Houston-Silly us for counting Houston out!  The Texans aren't just coming.  They've made it all the way back.  They're very much in the playoff conversation, currently holding down the 7-seed and just a game out in the AFC South.  I still wouldn't consider them the division favorites, but they've never made the playoffs as a wild card before, and there's a definite possibility of that happening.  Especially with that ridiculous defense!

Packers (9-3-1) at Broncos (11-2): Denver-They picked a great week to give both networks a doubleheader.  Because the 4:25 slate this week is fantastic!  Denver is currently the No. 1 seed in the AFC.  Green Bay is currently the No. 2 seed in the NFC.  These two have played a classic Super Bowl once before, and it's not crazy to think they could meet in one again two months from now.  The Broncos clinch a playoff berth with a win.  The Packers could drop out of first place with a loss.  So, yeah, this is a big game for both.

Lions (8-5) at Rams (10-3): Rams-Detroit kept its playoff hopes alive with last week's win over Dallas, but things don't get any easier for the Lions, who now have to head to SoFi and face the Rams.  A loss doesn't eliminate them, but it sure makes things harder.  As for the Rams, they might be the best team in the NFC (if not all of football) and are currently the No. 1 seed.  They've got the Seahawks and 49ers right on their heels, though, so they need the win just as much as Detroit does.  With a win, they'll become the first NFC team to clinch a playoff spot.

Panthers (7-6) at Saints (3-10): Carolina-Tampa Bay's collapse on Thursday night could have major repercussions in the NFC South.  In fact, the Panthers could be in first place by the end of the day.  Carolina is 6-3 since starting the season 1-3 and has enough wins over good teams to know they're legit.  They also have some confounding losses, including one at home against New Orleans!  Here's their chance to rectify that and knock off the Saints, giving them a one-game lead heading into next week's showdown with Tampa (who they haven't played yet).

Titans (2-11) at 49ers (9-4): San Francisco-Of all the teams that had the ridiculously late Week 14 bye, perhaps no one needed it more than the 49ers.  Although, that could actually end up being a good thing for San Francisco, who'll be fresh and rested for the stretch run.  Starting that run with a home game against the Titans sure helps, too.  Tennessee is coming off a win, though, beating the Browns last week in Cleveland.

Colts (8-5) at Seahawks (10-3): Seattle-Well, I sure didn't see this one coming!  I don't think anybody did!  I guess Philip Rivers won't be part of the Hall of Fame class.  The desperate Colts returned to their roots as a QB retirement home by bringing the 44-year-old out of a five-year retirement to start against the Seahawks, resetting his Hall of Fame clock (now he isn't eligible until 2031).  Not that it'll matter much, unfortunately.  Indianapolis is in free fall, and I doubt Rivers can change that, especially against Seattle.

Vikings (5-8) at Cowboys (6-6-1): Dallas-Since there are three good late games, there was some very vocal clamoring for one of those to be flexed to Sunday night and Cowboys-Vikings to be flexed out.  Yeah right!  There was no chance of that happening!  The Cowboys are one of the biggest draws in the NFL regardless of their record.  There's no way they were getting flexed out of prime time.  Especially since the Eagles' losing streak (which started in Dallas) has made their playoff chances much more realistic.

Dolphins (6-7) at Steelers (7-6): Pittsburgh-After blowing their entire lead in the AFC North, the Steelers played a great game last week to beat the Ravens and stay on top.  Were they helped by the officials a little?  Sure.  But that doesn't change the fact they won the game.  Now they get the Dolphins on Monday night with a chance to solidify that position.  It's been a while since we've seen a playoff game in Pittsburgh, but, if the Steelers win here, the prospects of there being one this year get that much better.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 9-5
Overall: 132-76-1

One Solution: Fewer Bowls

After Notre Dame wasn't selected for the College Football Playoff, they removed their name from consideration for the other bowl games.  It was somewhat controversial and seen by some as Notre Dame being sore losers, but they're not the only ones.  Iowa State and Kansas State both opted out of bowl games, as well, because their coaches had already accepted another job.  They both got fined by the Big XII because of it.  And several other teams that were being considered as replacements passed on the opportunity (for various reasons).

This isn't a new thing that started this year.  For the last few seasons, in fact, teams and/or players have been opting out of bowl games for a multitude of reasons.  That's one of the big reasons why they moved the start of the transfer window in football to January.  So that it was after the bowls and rosters weren't decimated by players entering the portal.  And there have been numerous individual players who decided that they didn't want to impact their NFL Draft prospects by risking injury in a meaningless bowl game.

These opt-outs have created some interesting situations as the bowls scramble to find replacements.  Last year, Marshall opted out of the Independence Bowl at the last minute, leaving Army in limbo before Louisiana Tech stepped in to fill the spot.  Last season's Alamo Bowl featured two Big 12 teams playing each other (BYU vs. Colorado), and this year's Birmingham Bowl will be a matchup between Georgia Southern and Appalachian State, two teams who aren't just in the same conference.  They're in the same division!

Appalachian State only got into a bowl because so many teams opted out.  The Mountaineers finished 5-7 and weren't otherwise bowl-eligible, but became bowl-eligible once they needed to fill spots and started going down the list of 5-7 teams.  If there aren't enough teams, the 5-7 teams are ranked in order by their NCAA APR.  Appalachian State is one of three 5-7 teams playing in a bowl game this season, along with Rice and Mississippi State.

Three 5-7 teams are playing in bowls because three teams that were otherwise bowl-eligible opted out.  Which means that there were exactly enough teams to fill all of the spots in the College Football Playoff and bowl games.  And that's only because Delaware and Missouri State, who typically wouldn't be eligible while transitioning from FCS to FBS, were invited to bowl games since they had enough wins and there wouldn't have been enough teams without them.

It's gotten to the point where if you reach the magic number of six wins, you're not just bowl eligible.  It means, unless you opt out, you're definitely going to a bowl game (or the playoff).  And, since opt-outs have become a regular occurrence, you don't even need to have six wins.  You can be 5-7 and still have a chance at playing in a bowl.  A "reward" for your "great" season.

The four first-round losers in the College Football Playoff are still considered "bowl" teams even though they don't technically play in a bowl.  Likewise, since the four quarterfinals and two semifinals are all bowl games, four teams will play in two bowls under the current 12-team CFP format.  That doesn't change the math, though.  There are 41 postseason games and 82 postseason berths available. 

In the last two years, they reached 82 exactly.  In 2023-24, they only had 79.  In 2022-23, the number was 80.  In 2021-22, there was one extra bowl, and they had the 84 necessary teams exactly.  The last time there were more bowl games than eligible teams was 2019-20, when there were 79 teams for 78 spots and Toledo was left out.  So, it's been six years since a bowl-eligible team didn't play in a bowl game because they weren't selected for one (as opposed to voluntarily declining a bid).

Proponents of bowl games and the bowl system will insist that the number of bowl games isn't a problem.  They see value in them and even embrace the quirkiness of some of the lesser bowls.  And I don't dispute that there's some value.  For programs that haven't had success or have a young team, a postseason game, any postseason game, can be a wonderful experience.  And those teams do see it as a reward. 

Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, you have teams like Notre Dame deciding that playing in a bowl game that isn't part of the College Football Playoff simply isn't worth it.  Especially now that it's a 12-team playoff, if you aren't selected, a bowl game will be seen as nothing more than a consolation prize.  Playing in a non-CFP bowl game is the football equivalent of playing in the NIT, and how many basketball teams do we see opt out of the NIT each year?  I have a feeling Notre Dame has started a similar trend in football.

Let's be honest here.  This is something we already knew.  Most bowl games are essentially the football version of the NIT.  That's become even more obvious now that it's a 12-team playoff.  It'll become even worse when/if the playoff expands to 14 or 16 teams.  Which will make the lesser bowls even more irrelevant to top programs than they already are.

A lot of this, of course, is ESPN's doing.  ESPN doesn't just broadcast a majority of the bowl games, they own and operate many of them.  That's why there are so many.  A lot of which are extremely unnecessary.  ESPN knows this, too.  These bowl games still exist, primarily, to give them programming during the final week in December.  They don't make money, either for ESPN or their host city.  But they're something for ESPN to put on TV, which is apparently enough.

Here's my question, though: If there were, say, five fewer bowls, how many people would miss them?  Would anyone even notice?  And reducing the pool of bowl-eligible teams from 82 to 72 would serve multiple purposes.  It would improve the quality since you'd have fewer 6-6 teams playing in bowls.  You wouldn't have the matchups of two 6-6 teams from Group of 5 conferences playing in a bowl nobody cares about in a half empty stadium.  Most importantly, you'd have a pool of replacements ready to go without having to ask multiple 5-7 teams to fill spots.

If and when the College Football Playoff expands, it seems inevitable that some bowl games will be casualties.  There simply won't be the interest, either from fans or from teams.  Nor will there even be enough teams.  And that might not be such a bad thing.  Because there are too many bowls.  There has been for a while.  Having fewer bowl games would solve a lot of problems.  It would truly be one of those situations where less is more.

It's Never Gonna Happen

Congratulations to Jeff Kent on being elected to the Hall of Fame.  A very deserving honor for not just the best second baseman of his era, but the all-time leader in home runs at the position.  To hit the most home runs by anyone ever to play a position, any position, is certainly Hall of Fame-worthy.  Just ask Kent's Giants teammate.

That's the ironic thing about Kent's selection.  He was just the second-best player on those Giants teams.  He was the second-best player from those Giants teams on this ballot!  The best player on those teams, of course, was Barry Bonds, whose candidacy met the same fate with the Era Committee that it suffered year after year on the BBWAA ballot.  And, because he didn't get at least five votes, he won't be on the ballot the next time this group of players is considered in 2028.  If he doesn't get at least five votes again in 2031, when he's eligible to return to the ballot, that's it.  He won't be considered again.  Which, frankly, might be a good thing.

Don't get me wrong.  I think Barry Bonds is a Hall of Famer.  I always have, and my opinion's not gonna change.  He's the all-time and single-season home run leader, and he won the MVP every freaking year when he was in his prime!  Personally, I think Barry Bonds is on the shortlist of the greatest players of all-time.  The fact that it's unlikely he'll ever actually be a Hall of Famer has absolutely nothing to do with his playing ability and everyone knows that.  If his career was being judged just on that, he would've given a speech in Cooperstown in his first year of eligibility.

Same thing with Roger Clemens.  He wasn't just the greatest right-handed pitcher of his era.  He's one of the best of all-time.  Clemens has more Cy Young Awards than anybody and is third on the all-time strikeouts list.  If you watched baseball at all from the mid-80s to the mid-2000s, you knew you were watching a Hall of Famer every time he pitched.  Like Bonds, the reason he isn't has nothing to do with his playing ability.  Like Bonds, he won't be giving a speech in Cooperstown anytime soon.  Likely never.

We all know the reason why Bonds and Clemens are in this situation.  They're the poster children for the Steroid Era, a period in baseball history that many would like to forget and are now trying to erase.  Except, the problem is, you can't erase it.  The Steroid Era happened.  Pretending it didn't doesn't change that.  Hindsight might be 20-20, but people knew what was going on while it was happening and did nothing about it.  To suddenly act like the Steroid Era isn't part of the game's history is absurd.  Yet, that's exactly what they're trying to do.

It isn't just Bonds and Clemens, of course.  Alex Rodriguez.  Mark McGwire.  Sammy Sosa.  Manny Ramirez.  They'd all be slam dunk choices without their ties to steroids.  Even Gary Sheffield is in ballot purgatory because of his association.  Rafael Palmeiro fell off the BBWAA ballot after failing to even reach the required 5 percent threshold.

Those were some of the biggest names in baseball during the late 90s and early 2000s.  The fact that none of them will be in the Hall of Fame is, frankly, a glaring omission.  The late 90s and early 2000s happened.  There's plenty of video from the era to prove it.  And these players feature prominently in those clips.  You can't tell the story of baseball during that era without them.  Yet none of them will ever be Hall of Famers.

Induction into the Hall of Fame is the greatest honor a baseball player can receive.  And there is a character clause that voters are encouraged to consider when they cast their ballot.  They're the gatekeepers of history, and they take that role very seriously.  They feel that, because of their association with steroids, players like Bonds, Clemens & Co. violated the character clause and, as such, don't deserve the honor.  Which, while I don't agree with it, is a position I can at least respect.

As we saw throughout their decade on the BBWAA ballot, and again in the Eras Committee vote, Bonds, Clemens & Co. will simply never enough support to come anywhere close to the required 75 percent for election.  There are people who'll never vote for them no matter what.  There are those who will vote for them no matter what, even though they know it's essentially a burn vote.  There are also probably some who personally think they should be in, but strategically choose not to vote for them because they know they won't get in and want to support other candidates.

Their presence on the ballot, though, creates the same problem that we saw throughout their time on the BBWAA ballot.  The screening committee determined that Bonds and Clemens were worthy of at least consideration, even though they knew exactly how it would go.  Only eight names were placed on the ballot, and they were among those eight.  Because of that, two otherwise worthy candidates weren't on the ballot.  And, each member of the committee only had three votes.  So, any votes for Bonds and/or Clemens weren't votes for somebody else.  (Which would be a more relevant point had Carlos Delgado finished one vote shy of induction.)

Bonds, Clemens & Co. created ballot congestion on the main Hall of Fame ballot FOR A DECADE!  That ballot congestion is still being cleaned up.  Now that they've flipped over to the Eras Committee, they're only considered once every three years, so that alleviates the problem slightly.  As does the new rule that takes them out of consideration until 2031, when their names will appear on a Hall of Fame ballot for what will almost certainly be the final time.  Which, really, is a travesty.

I have no issue with the stipulation that they have to skip the next cycle if they don't get the requisite support.  After all, the BBWAA has, for years, had the rule that you need to get 5 percent of the vote to stay on the ballot, so putting in something similar for the Eras Committee does make sense.  (Although, I'd adjust it for the smaller sample size.  Requiring five votes seems like a lot, especially when there was only a total of 48 votes available to spread among the eight candidates.  Maybe you need three of the 16 votes to stay on?)  And, even though they change the committee members annually, it doesn't seem likely they'll suddenly have the support three years later. 

My problem is how, if they don't get five votes again the next time they appear on the ballot (whenever that is), they become permanently ineligible.  Particularly the "permanently ineligible" part.  Because that term should be reserved for those who aren't allowed to be on a Hall of Fame ballot for reasons other than not getting enough votes.  (And even Pete Rose isn't "permanently ineligible" anymore.  He'll almost certainly appear on the Eras Committee ballot in 2027.)

Although, maybe it's a good thing that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens will likely no longer be eligible for Hall of Fame consideration after 2031.  Because we'll at least know for certain something we all already understand intellectually.  It won't end the debate about them, but it will at least bring some closure and some clarity.  Whether you (or I) think they should be or not, neither one is ever getting into the Hall of Fame.

NFL Picks, Week 14

After a week full of upsets, we're primed for a Week 14 that features several big matchups.  Teams that are tied for the division lead meet in the AFC North and AFC South, first place is also on the line in an NFC North rivalry game, and the Sunday night game is basically for playoff elimination.  And no one can clinch this week, which is rare this late in the season.  It does mean we've got a great December's worth of games ahead of us, though.

Thursday Night: Dallas (Loss)

Seahawks (9-3) at Falcons (4-8): Seattle-There are four possibilities for the Seahawks this week.  They'll either be tied with the Rams for first, tied with the 49ers for second, it'll be a three-way tie, or, best of all, they'll be in sole possession of first.  They could even conceivably be the No. 1 seed in the NFC.  Every remaining game is that significant for all three NFC West teams.  Of course, all of the scenarios where the Seahawks control their own fate require a win over Atlanta.  Losing to the Falcons really isn't an option.

Bengals (4-8) at Bills (8-4): Buffalo-Just when we thought the Bengals were out of it, they go and dominate Baltimore on Thanksgiving night.  They've still got a long way to climb and probably need to win out to even think about the playoffs.  But there's still a chance.  The Bills, meanwhile, know their chances of catching the Patriots hinge on a win here.  If they don't beat Cincinnati, they know they're likely staring at a wild card.

Titans (1-11) at Browns (3-9): Cleveland-Game two of Shadeur Sanders as the Browns' starter didn't go quite as well as game one.  That's the difference between playing the Raiders and playing the 49ers for you!  Fortunately for Cleveland, the Titans are more Raiders than 49ers.  In fact, Tennessee is probably worse than the Raiders.  That should bode well for Shadeur to pick up win No. 2.

Commanders (3-9) at Vikings (4-8): Minnesota-Two playoff teams last season that have had very different experiences in 2025.  Washington's simply had too many injuries, while the law of averages caught up with Minnesota after the Vikings won so many close games last year.  They were obviously each expecting this matchup to have playoff implications.  Instead, they're both out of contention.  This is a chance, though, for J.J. McCarthy to show what he's got over the last month of the season.

Dolphins (5-7) at Jets (3-9): Miami-Miami hopefully won't wear those ridiculous black helmets they wore the first time they played the Jets.  Although, the Jets showed off their field design, which leads me to believe they'll be the ones wearing a ridiculous alternate uniform instead.  The Dolphins have won three straight and, while they're still well out of the playoff race, they've definitely got some positive momentum going.  They might just save Mike McDaniel's job yet.

Saints (2-10) at Buccaneers (7-5): Tampa Bay-Suddenly, the Bucs have some competition in the NFC South.  Their lead over Carolina (who's on their bye this week) is only a half-game, and, with a loss to the lowly Saints, they'll be tied.  Fortunately, Tampa Bay's still in the driver's seat.  Four of their last five games are against their division rivals (including both matchups with the Panthers).  Their first meeting with the Saints ended 23-3.  Don't expect this one to be much different.

Colts (8-4) at Jaguars (8-4): Jacksonville-If this game had been a few weeks ago, I'd say the Colts were the clear favorites in this one.  That was when they had a two-game lead and before their back-to-back losses to Kansas City and Houston.  The Jaguars, meanwhile, have won three straight to even up the division.  These two will meet again in Indianapolis in Week 17, but Jacksonville will have the edge heading into that one.

Steelers (6-6) at Ravens (6-6): Baltimore-At one point, Pittsburgh was 4-1 and had a 2.5-game lead in the division.  The Ravens were 1-5 then.  Baltimore is 5-1 since, with the only loss coming on Thanksgiving night against Cincinnati.  The Steelers, meanwhile, are 2-5 over that same span, including two straight defeats.  Suddenly, they're looking at being left out of the playoff field entirely.  Problem is, their momentum is going in the wrong direction.  And they'll be looking up at the Ravens for the first time all season after this one.

Broncos (10-2) at Raiders (2-10): Denver-The Patriots finally have their bye this week, so a win would move the Broncos up to the No. 1 seed in the AFC with four games left.  Those games are against Green Bay, Jacksonville, Kansas City and the Chargers, none of which are easy.  Which means they need to take care of business against the Raiders.  No excuses if they don't.  Especially because that could mean the AFC West is suddenly back in play.

Bears (9-3) at Packers (8-3-1): Green Bay-Chicago got its statement win on Black Friday against Philadelphia, and now the Bears aren't just in first place, they're the No. 1 seed in the NFC.  In order to keep it, they'll have to earn it.  Two of their next three games are against the Packers, who I still think are the best team in that division.  They've both got brutal remaining schedules, so this is an important game for both.  And the Bears will no longer be the NFC's No. 1 seed after it.

Rams (9-3) at Cardinals (3-9): Rams-Last week's loss at Carolina didn't just knock the Rams out of the 1-seed in the NFC.  It dropped them right back into a first-place tie in the NFC West.  Fortunately for them, they haven't played the Cardinals yet.  They can't get caught in a trap and look past Arizona, but they're far too disciplined for that.  I still think the Rams are the best team in the NFC, if not the entire NFL.  Last week's glitch shouldn't faze them.

Texans (7-5) at Chiefs (6-6): Kansas City-Kansas City's string of AFC West titles is all but over.  The Chiefs' main concern is keeping their string of playoff appearances alive.  Which makes the Sunday night game effectively a must-win.  Not only would a loss drop them to 6-7, they'd also have losses to all of the teams they're battling for a wild card.  Instead, they'll flip-flop Houston and still very much have a chance.

Eagles (8-4) at Chargers (8-4): Chargers-Have we learned something about the Philadelphia Eagles over the last two weeks?  The Cowboys had that big second half comeback, then the Bears totally shut them down.  Things won't get any easier with a Monday night trip to SoFi, where they'll face a Chargers team that wants to make a statement nearly as much as Chicago did.  If the Chargers want to be taken seriously not just as playoff contenders, but a team that can win in January, beating the Super Bowl champions would go a long way towards doing that.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 8-8
Overall: 123-71-1

Draw Reaction

That World Cup Draw Ceremony was...something.  And not in a good way.  That was bad even for FIFA.  After 90 minutes of mindless, tedious crap, they finally got on with the one thing people watching were actually interested in--the World Cup draw.  Once they finally got down to business, we found out who'll be playing who next summer.  Well, for the most part.  We, of course, still don't know the six teams that'll come out of the qualifying playoffs in March (which caused plenty of its own confusion during the draw ceremony).

And, I must say, the draw couldn't have worked out better for the Americans!  (At least the group play draw!)  Mexico also ended up with a pretty favorable group.  Canada, on the other hand, has their work cut out for them.  They might have to play Italy in their opening game!  And they're not the only ones with a difficult group.

Group A: Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, UEFA D (Czechia/Ireland/Denmark/North Macedonia)
El Tri should have no problem getting out of the group, regardless of who wins that European playoff.  If it's Denmark, they've got a great shot at the second automatic spot.  South Korea can't be counted out, either.  Except the Koreans got a little unlucky in that their group will play entirely in Mexico, so they won't have the crowd support from Korean-Americans.  South Africa, meanwhile, gets the honor of playing in the tournament's opening game--against Mexico at Azteca on June 11.

Group B: Canada, UEFA A (Wales/Bosnia & Herzegovina/Italy/Northern Ireland), Qatar, Switzerland
"UEFA A" was the Pot 4 team none of the Pot 1 teams wanted to see Wayne Gretzky pull out.  And it was his native land that ended up drawing the short straw!  Canada-Italy would be a great matchup to start the tournament, but it sure wouldn't be easy for the Canadians.  (Although, Canada was the lowest-ranked team in Pot 1, so in that way it worked out.)  This is all assuming Italy wins that European playoff, of course, but even if it's Wales or Northern Ireland, that's a difficult matchup.  So is Switzerland.  Fortunately, eight third-place teams advance to the knockout phase.  Canada may need to rely on that backdoor method.

Group C: Brazil, Morocco, Haiti, Scotland
Brazil-Morocco is an intriguing game to open group play.  Brazil, of course, is Brazil.  Morocco became the first African side ever to make the semifinals at the last World Cup and is the strongest of all the African teams.  That should be the first match at MetLife Stadium, too.  They're a clear top two, but Scotland can't be counted out.  And congratulations to Haiti on making it back to the World Cup for the first time since 1974!  The fact that they simply get to play Brazil will be such a source of national pride!

Group D: United States, Paraguay, Australia, UEFA C (Slovakia/Kosovo/Turkey/Romania)
In 1994, the United States played Romania at the Rose Bowl in its final game of group play.  The Americans' third game of group play in 2026 is again in LA, this time at SoFi Stadium.  For that reason, a part of me really wants Romania to win the UEFA playoffs--simply so that can be the third game again.  Regardless, this was about as much of a dream draw as the USA could've asked for.  Winning the group is not an unrealistic expectation.

Group E: Germany, Curacao, Ivory Coast, Ecuador
Curacao's first-ever World Cup game will be against Germany.  That's incredibly cool, but also has a chance of being incredibly overwhelming.  Germany has disappointed at the last few World Cups, but should get out of this group no problem.  Whether the Ivory Coast or Ecuador will join them (maybe both) is the real question.  That Ivory Coast-Ecuador opener could answer it.

Group F: Netherlands, Japan, UEFA B (Ukraine, Sweden, Poland, Albania), Tunisia
Whoever emerges from that UEFA playoff could really affect the complexion of this group.  Japan was the first team to qualify and is consistently the best team in Asia.  The Netherlands is one of the favorites.  It could be smooth sailing for those two if Albania somehow ends up being the fourth team in the group.  If it's Poland or Sweden, this group becomes that much more difficult.  Especially since Tunisia isn't exactly a pushover

Group G: Belgium, Egypt, Iran, New Zealand
Talk about an easy group!  Belgium should coast into the Round of 32!  Although, it's also an incredible opportunity for the other three teams, one of which has to finish second and advance to the knockout phase.  There was also a little stroke of luck with Iran ending up in Group G.  This group has two games in Vancouver.  Considering how difficult it might be for Iranian fans to get visas into the U.S., it certainly worked out well that Iran can play its last two games in Canada.  (They can also play their first game in Seattle and set up their base camp in Canada.)

Group H: Spain, Cape Verde, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay
Like fellow World Cup debutant Curacao, Cape Verde gets welcomed to the Big Leagues in a big way--World No. 1 Spain.  This ended up being a very favorable draw for La Roja.  Uruguay should be tough, but they'll likely both have clinched spots in the Round of 32 when they face each other in the last game (most likely in Houston).  Can Saudi Arabia pull another upset like they did against Argentina in Qatar?  If they do, that could get them into the Round of 32, as well.

Group I: France, Senegal, FIFA 2 (Iraq/Bolivia/Suriname), Norway
France went into the 2002 World Cup as the defending champions and dropped their opening game to Senegal.  Who'll be their opening World Cup opponent 24 years later?  Senegal!  And Norway was the Pot 3 team everybody was hoping to avoid--both because of how they rolled through qualifying and because of Erling Haaland.  This has definite "Group of Death" potential.  Those are three good teams!

Group J: Argentina, Algeria, Austria, Jordan
Maybe this one should be called "Group A" instead.  Although, the only non-A country in this group does start with J, so maybe Jordan isn't the odd man out after all!  Anyway, Argentina ended up with a group nearly as favorable as Belgium.  Austria's tough and was impressive in European qualifying, reaching its first World Cup since 1998.  I'd expect they'll finish second in the group.

Group K: Portugal, FIFA 1 (DR Congo/New Caledonia/Jamaica), Uzbekistan, Colombia
Pretty Boy will be 41 and playing in his sixth World Cup next summer.  As Alexi Lalas said during the draw show, he'll suck all the energy out of Group K, which he most likely will.  I'm not sure this group will be the cakewalk for Portugal that many expect, though.  Colombia is No. 13 in the world and made the final at the 2024 Copa America, which was played in many of the same stadiums as the World Cup will be.  I wouldn't be surprised if Colombia wins the group.

Group L: England, Croatia, Ghana, Panama
When Colombia was drawn into Group K, leaving just Croatia in Pot 2 (and, thus, automatically in Group L), the faces of the English and Croatia contingents immediately fell.  That was certainly not the opening game either team wanted.  Croatia's the only top 10 team that wasn't in Pot 1, so one of the other top teams was gonna end up stuck with them in their group.  It certainly won't be easy going for an English side that many think is good enough to win the World Cup.  Throw in Ghana and a Panama team that obviously plays in the United States often and is very comfortable in the stadiums that will be used for the World Cup and that's three tough games for both European squads.  (It's also hilarious that England could play games in both Boston AND Philadelphia in the Summer of 2026!)

Who's Hall Headed?

Baseball's Winter Meetings always begin with the announcement of the results of the Era Committee's Hall of Fame vote.  With no sure-fire first-ballot candidates on the BBWAA ballot, there's a chance, albeit slim, that they won't elect anyone.  Which means the Contemporary Baseball Era Committee could provide us with the only new Hall of Famers in the Class of 2026.  Unless they also pitch a shutout, which is unlikely but certainly possible.

This ballot, frankly, is fascinating.  Because when Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens exhausted their eligibility on the BBWAA ballot, it shifted the issue of their Hall of Fame candidacy over to the Era Committee.  They're both on the ballot, and they brought the controversy surrounding their candidacy with them.  The writers fell into two camps: The Pro Bonds & Clemens Camp and the No Bonds & Clemens Camp.  Very few changed their minds about either.  They either voted for them every time or didn't vote for them every time.

How will the Era Committee view them?  It's a much smaller sample size, and it consists of eight Hall of Famers, some of whom were their contemporaries, as well as eight executives and media members.  You'd have to think that even with the smaller sample size, the opinion on Bonds and Clemens will still be split.  And, because of that, they almost certainly won't get the 12 votes required for induction.

Here's where things get tricky, though.  How many votes will Bonds and Clemens get?  Because each voter only gets four.  So, however many they get obviously won't go to somebody else.  And will that be enough to keep any of the other candidates out?  Their presence on this ballot will end up causing the same headaches their presence on the writers' ballot did for 10 years.

They also changed the rules this year and made it so that any player who doesn't receive at least five votes is ineligible for the ballot the next time their era comes up (in this case, for the 2029 induction class).  If they don't receive five or more votes twice, they're ineligible for future ballots.  This is both good and bad.  It weans out those who clearly have no chance of getting in.  But the whole point of Eras Committees is to give these players a second look, and voting patterns change, as do the way players' careers are viewed.

So, operating off the assumption that Bonds and Clemens won't have enough support, who, if anyone, has the best chance of getting in?  It might be two long overlooked stars from the 1980s.  Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly are exactly the type of player that Eras Committees are designed to give a chance at the Hall of Fame.  And this could very well be their year.  Or at least one of them.

Let's start with Dale Murphy.  He played 15 years for the Braves during an era when they were pretty bad (his last year in Atlanta was 1990...the year before their dominant run began).  But that doesn't change the fact he was one of the best players in the National League in the 1980s.  Murphy won back-to-back MVPs in 1982-83 and five straight Gold Gloves in center field.  He was also a four-time Silver Slugger.

Mattingly was one of the best players in the AL during that same time frame.  He spent his entire career with the Yankees, but didn't play in the postseason until his last year.  (Although, it should be noted, the Yankees weren't exactly bad during that era.  They had the best record in the American League for the 80s.  They just didn't finish in first and it was before the wild card.)  Anyway, Mattingly won nine Gold Gloves, three Silver Sluggers and an MVP.  Not to mention how highly regarded he was throughout baseball as more than just a player.  And the committee knows first-hand that his career was cut short due to injuries.

Harold Baines was controversially elected to the Hall of Fame in 2019.  Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly were both better than Harold Baines.  So, if that's the benchmark we're using, they both belong in the Hall of Fame, as well.  I don't think even the Baines supporters would dispute that.

Two other "newcomers" transitioning over from the BBWAA ballot for the first time are Gary Sheffield and Jeff Kent.  I had them both among my 10 throughout their decade on the main ballot.  Kent was one of the elite second basemen in the game during his prime and hit the most home runs ever by anyone at the position (351).  Sheffield, meanwhile, hit 500 home runs, a statistical threshold that used to mean almost guaranteed induction.

The last two players on the ballot are Carlos Delgado and Fernando Valenzuela.  Delgado, to me, is very similar to Fred McGriff, another first baseman who got his long-overdue election a few years ago.  He's also similar to Jose Ramirez in that he was consistently good for a remarkably long amount of time.  Delgado holds so many Blue Jays franchise records and hit more home runs, 473, than any other Puerto Rican-born player.

Fernando Valenzuela took the Majors by storm in 1981, when he was both the Rookie of the Year and Cy Young winner for the Dodgers' World Series championship team.  He passed away just before the 2024 World Series, and the Dodgers have won both World Series since then.  Fernandomania will always be a great, fun chapter in baseball history.  It doesn't make him a Hall of Famer, though.  Especially not in an elite group like this.

Of the eight players on the ballot, there are six I would say I'd want to vote for.  And my "no" on Delgado definitely isn't firm.  I'm just not as solid a "yes" on him as I am for Bonds, Clemens, Mattingly, Murphy, Kent and Sheffield.  But, since the voters are limited to four votes apiece, I've got to drop two.  Those two are Jeff Kent and Gary Sheffield.  Leaving me with a final ballot of Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy.

As I mentioned at the top, I highly doubt either Bonds or Clemens gets in.  Which leaves Mattingly and Murphy.  And I've really got a feeling that Dale Murphy will be elected.  If he does, just imagine how nuts it'll be if Andruw Jones gets in, too.  That would be a lot of Braves Gold Glove centerfield defense making its way to Cooperstown in July!