Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the first Bradicheck-less Conference Championship Sunday since 2010! Is it weird that the NFL's Final Four doesn't include the Patriots? Absolutely! Am I upset about it? Not in the slightest! It's nice to have some fresh faces fighting for a chance to go to the Super Bowl instead of the same teams playing for the AFC title year after year.
In fact, this will be just the second time in the last 20 seasons that the AFC representative won't be either New England, Pittsburgh, Baltimore or a team quarterbacked by Peyton Manning...and the other one was the 2002 Raiders! So, yeah, it's been a while.
Meanwhile, in the NFC, we've got two of the league's most decorated teams battling it out for another trip to the Super Bowl. The 49ers and Packers have combined to win 11 NFL/NFC titles and are a combined 9-2 all-time in Super Bowls. But it's been nine years since Green Bay's last conference championship and seven years since San Francisco's. So we've got new blood on both ends of this Super Bowl equation (even if Aaron Rodgers is a past Super Bowl MVP).
That leaves us with some fun Super Bowl possibilities, too. How cool would it be if we get a Packers-Chiefs Super Bowl I rematch in the NFL's 100th anniversary season (and 50 years after the AFL's final game, which was a Chiefs win in Super Bowl IV)?! San Francisco and Kansas City will be forever linked because the 49ers traded Joe Montana to the Chiefs way back when. And Ryan Tannehill, of course, used to play for the Dolphins, which adds a level of intrigue if the Titans get there, regardless of their opponent.
Titans (11-7) at Chiefs (13-4): Kansas City-Don't sleep on the Tennessee Titans. This team is dangerous, which I think we've all figured out by now. They've beaten three straight division winners on the road in essentially three playoff games in three consecutive weeks. Now they look to complete the Grand Slam and make it four straight road wins over the AFC division winners. And if they can pull it off, they'll give Tannehill that most unexpected Miami homecoming.
The Titans have also done their opponent a tremendous favor, though. Two tremendous favors actually. The Chiefs went into the playoffs thinking their route to Miami would involve going through both the Patriots and the Ravens. Thanks to the Titans, they don't have to play either one. And...to top it off, the get to play the AFC Championship Game IN KANSAS CITY! None of the first 58 AFL/AFC Championship Games took place in Kansas City. Now the Chiefs are hosting for the second year in a row.
And they really seem like a team of destiny. Especially when you consider what happened last week, it's hard to go against the Chiefs. They erased a 24-point deficit in no time at all and ended up winning the game in a blowout! There aren't many teams capable of doing that. Which just goes to show what type of a team the Chiefs are. And it also gives you the feeling that something special is happening in Kansas City.
Last year might've been good for them. Because of what Bradicheck did to them in last season's AFC Championship Game, they didn't panic when the Texans took that big lead last week. They've been in the situation before and relied on their talent, which is sometimes easier said than done (just ask the Ravens). And Kansas City has some of the most supreme talent in the league.
Derrick Henry is also a supreme talent. What he's done over the past month is ridiculous. It's even more impressive when you consider that the Titans' offense essentially consists of Henry running the ball, yet New England and Baltimore still couldn't do anything about it! I think the Chiefs will employ a different game plan, though. Let Henry get his yards. He's going to get them anyway. Just don't let them do anything else.
More importantly, Kansas City has a ton of explosive offensive weapons, so it's really more about challenging the Titans to keep up with them. And the Chiefs can score quickly, so the Titans' ball control game won't make as much of a difference. Besides, Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes deserve to play in a Super Bowl. Fifty years after their last appearance, the Chiefs will finally get back there.
Packers (14-3) at 49ers (14-3): San Francisco-I'm still not 100 percent sold on the 49ers. But...they're in the NFC Championship Game--and hosting it--so I now have a feeling I've simply missed the boat on them. And, I must say, they had perhaps the most impressive showing of any team last week. They dominated Minnesota from the start, making it pretty clear very early that the NFC Championship Game would be played in California.
Besides the fact that they're hosting, there's another reason to have confidence in the 49ers. They've shown an ability to win in different ways. So, whatever the style of the game, you know they're going to be in it. Take their back-to-back games in Baltimore and New Orleans. The game against the Ravens was a 20-17 defensive battle. Then, the very next week, they go and win a 48-46 shootout in New Orleans! The same thing happened against bad teams. They beat the Redskins 9-0, then scored 51 points against Carolina the next week.
It's that versatility that makes the 49ers incredibly scary. It's not just their ability to play different styles. It's the fact that you don't know how they're going to beat you each week. They can run the ball. But they've also got a ton of receiving threats, anchored by an All-Pro tight end. And I haven't even mentioned Nick Bosa and the defense yet!
With the Packers, meanwhile, I'm just the opposite. I seem to have more faith in Green Bay than a lot of other people. "They haven't beaten anybody good!" is the most common complaint about the Packers. Well, guess what? They beat the teams on their schedule to the tune of a 13-3 regular season and playoff bye. And they did beat a good team last week, beating Seattle to send Cal grad Aaron Rodgers back to the Bay Area for the chance to get to another Super Bowl.
Two of the Packers' three losses this season came in California, though, including a 37-8 blowout against this same 49ers team in Week 12. That's the reason this rematch is taking place at Levi's Stadium instead of Lambeau Field. And it's a valid reason for concern. Because that game wasn't so long ago that the teams are dramatically different. And the Packers' combined 19 points on the West Coast this season aren't gonna be enough to get it done in the NFC Championship Game!
Ultimately, that's why I can't say I see the Packers winning this one. They've won six straight since that loss the first time they played the 49ers. But I think the fact they had to travel is going to be the big difference. A Sunday night game in Lambeau would've been a huge advantage for the Packers. Instead, they have to travel out West. When the 49ers beat the Seahawks in the last game of the regular season to clinch home field, their Super Bowl odds shot up astronomically. That win will pay off with a trip to Super Bowl LIV against Kansas City.
Last Week: 3-1
Playoffs: 5-3
Overall: 159-104-1
Sunday, January 19, 2020
Monday, January 13, 2020
Hammer Dropped
I sure hope that World Series title was worth it. Because to say the Houston Astros won it by "dubious" means sure seems like an understatement now. And Houston's 2017 championship will forever be tainted (as will Boston's in 2018) by the sign stealing scandal that has cost GM Jeff Luhnow and Manager A.J. Hinch their jobs.
After the MLB investigation started and people realized Mike Fiers' story had merit, the question was no longer about whether the Astros would get punished. It was about who would and how severely. Then, when the depths of the Astros' cheating was exposed, the expectation was that MLB would drop the hammer. And that's exactly what happened. Luhnow and Hinch were suspended for a year, the organization got hit with a $5 million fine and, perhaps most importantly, Houston's first- and second-round picks in the next two drafts were taken away. For a team that got good by drafting well and won a World Series with all that homegrown talent, that might be the biggest blow of them all.
The MLB penalties weren't enough for Houston owner Jim Craine, though. A few hours after Luhnow and Hinch's suspensions were announced, Craine did the Commissioner one better. He fired them both. Manfred and Craine both acknowledged that it was mostly a "player-driven" scheme, but Luhnow and Hinch were the ones in charge. And as such, they were the ones responsible for it.
Keep in mind this is the same organization that went out of its way to try and not fire Brandon Taubman, even though that was the only logical (and acceptable) outcome in that situation. After trying to pass the blame and accuse others, they didn't fire him until MLB forced their hand...days later. And the Astros' incredibly terrible mishandling of the Taubman debacle likely had a hand in the severity of their punishment for the sign-stealing. (Taubman, by the way, also received a one-year suspension.)
There was obviously a big problem with the culture in Houston. One that considered Taubman's actions no big deal and condoned a sophisticated system of electronic sign-stealing (which continued even after the Commissioner sent a league-wide memo to all clubs reiterating that the practice was prohibited). That culture emphasized winning over everything, ethics be damned. And that culture was driven by Jeff Luhnow and A.J. Hinch.
They've both claimed that they weren't directly involved in the sign stealing. Luhnow accepted that he's responsible since it happened under his watch, but also said he would've stopped it had he known (sorry, but I have trouble believing that). Hinch evidently DID know what was going on, but did nothing to stop it. If he had, it would've. But how much they both knew and their level of involvement is irrelevant. They were the proverbial "adults in the room." And by not doing anything to stop it, they were complicit.
It's about so much more than sign stealing, too. It's an integrity of the game issue. That's why Rob Manfred came down so hard on the Astros. He even said that while he can't prove their banging-on-the-garbage-can scheme gave them a competitive advantage, the perception across Baseball was that it did. And that was enough for him to come down hard. Harder than people expected, in fact.
Of course, this issue isn't limited to the Astros (or the Red Sox). No one's claiming it is. It's been a problem throughout Baseball ever since replay became a part of the game a few years ago. Which is part of the reason why MLB nailed the Astros so severely. The message has been sent. Using video to steal an opponent's signs WILL NOT be tolerated!
"Everybody's doing it" isn't a defense! The fact of the matter is the Astros are the ones who got caught, so they're the ones who had to pay the price. No one knows if they would've won the 2017 World Series anyway, but the optics certainly aren't good. That surely came into play, too. Whether or not the Astros cheated their way to a championship is irrelevant. The perception is that they did, and it's going to be very hard for them to shake that.
While MLB acknowledged that the sign stealing was mostly player-driven, they were quick to point out who they considered the mastermind of the whole scheme. Alex Cora's name is all over the report. He was Houston's bench coach in 2017, then left to become manager of the Red Sox. Boston went on to win the World Series in Cora's first season as manager in 2018.
However, the Red Sox are subject to a separate investigation regarding alleged electronic sign stealing. And now that the investigation into the Astros is over, MLB will turn its full attention to Boston. Although, it's not hard to find the common link between the two teams.
Cora wasn't suspended for his involvement in Houston's scheme, but that's only because MLB is waiting to conclude its investigation into the Red Sox. Make no mistake, though. He's going to get nailed. And, if the punishments handed down on Monday are any indication, Cora's will be far worse. After all, Hinch and Lunhow were given one-year suspensions even though they had no direct involvement. Cora wasn't just directly involved, he was directly involved in two separate incidents.
Whether or not he's fired, it's safe to say Alex Cora won't be managing the Boston Red Sox in 2020...and probably beyond that. What seems more likely is that he's managed his final game fo for the Red Sox. Judging by the degree of his involvement, it's reasonable to assume Cora's suspension will be significantly longer than those of his now-unemployed bosses in Houston. And it's hard to believe he'll be able to get another Major League managing job anytime soon...if at all.
With the suspensions of Hinch and Luhnow, and the coming suspension of Cora, MLB has hopefully gotten its point across. Stealing signs the old-fashioned way is fine. But when you start using technology to cheat, that's crossing the line. That's affecting the integrity of the game. And when the game's integrity is at stake, expect to pay the price. Just ask the Black Sox or Pete Rose.
After the MLB investigation started and people realized Mike Fiers' story had merit, the question was no longer about whether the Astros would get punished. It was about who would and how severely. Then, when the depths of the Astros' cheating was exposed, the expectation was that MLB would drop the hammer. And that's exactly what happened. Luhnow and Hinch were suspended for a year, the organization got hit with a $5 million fine and, perhaps most importantly, Houston's first- and second-round picks in the next two drafts were taken away. For a team that got good by drafting well and won a World Series with all that homegrown talent, that might be the biggest blow of them all.
The MLB penalties weren't enough for Houston owner Jim Craine, though. A few hours after Luhnow and Hinch's suspensions were announced, Craine did the Commissioner one better. He fired them both. Manfred and Craine both acknowledged that it was mostly a "player-driven" scheme, but Luhnow and Hinch were the ones in charge. And as such, they were the ones responsible for it.
Keep in mind this is the same organization that went out of its way to try and not fire Brandon Taubman, even though that was the only logical (and acceptable) outcome in that situation. After trying to pass the blame and accuse others, they didn't fire him until MLB forced their hand...days later. And the Astros' incredibly terrible mishandling of the Taubman debacle likely had a hand in the severity of their punishment for the sign-stealing. (Taubman, by the way, also received a one-year suspension.)
There was obviously a big problem with the culture in Houston. One that considered Taubman's actions no big deal and condoned a sophisticated system of electronic sign-stealing (which continued even after the Commissioner sent a league-wide memo to all clubs reiterating that the practice was prohibited). That culture emphasized winning over everything, ethics be damned. And that culture was driven by Jeff Luhnow and A.J. Hinch.
They've both claimed that they weren't directly involved in the sign stealing. Luhnow accepted that he's responsible since it happened under his watch, but also said he would've stopped it had he known (sorry, but I have trouble believing that). Hinch evidently DID know what was going on, but did nothing to stop it. If he had, it would've. But how much they both knew and their level of involvement is irrelevant. They were the proverbial "adults in the room." And by not doing anything to stop it, they were complicit.
It's about so much more than sign stealing, too. It's an integrity of the game issue. That's why Rob Manfred came down so hard on the Astros. He even said that while he can't prove their banging-on-the-garbage-can scheme gave them a competitive advantage, the perception across Baseball was that it did. And that was enough for him to come down hard. Harder than people expected, in fact.
Of course, this issue isn't limited to the Astros (or the Red Sox). No one's claiming it is. It's been a problem throughout Baseball ever since replay became a part of the game a few years ago. Which is part of the reason why MLB nailed the Astros so severely. The message has been sent. Using video to steal an opponent's signs WILL NOT be tolerated!
"Everybody's doing it" isn't a defense! The fact of the matter is the Astros are the ones who got caught, so they're the ones who had to pay the price. No one knows if they would've won the 2017 World Series anyway, but the optics certainly aren't good. That surely came into play, too. Whether or not the Astros cheated their way to a championship is irrelevant. The perception is that they did, and it's going to be very hard for them to shake that.
While MLB acknowledged that the sign stealing was mostly player-driven, they were quick to point out who they considered the mastermind of the whole scheme. Alex Cora's name is all over the report. He was Houston's bench coach in 2017, then left to become manager of the Red Sox. Boston went on to win the World Series in Cora's first season as manager in 2018.
However, the Red Sox are subject to a separate investigation regarding alleged electronic sign stealing. And now that the investigation into the Astros is over, MLB will turn its full attention to Boston. Although, it's not hard to find the common link between the two teams.
Cora wasn't suspended for his involvement in Houston's scheme, but that's only because MLB is waiting to conclude its investigation into the Red Sox. Make no mistake, though. He's going to get nailed. And, if the punishments handed down on Monday are any indication, Cora's will be far worse. After all, Hinch and Lunhow were given one-year suspensions even though they had no direct involvement. Cora wasn't just directly involved, he was directly involved in two separate incidents.
Whether or not he's fired, it's safe to say Alex Cora won't be managing the Boston Red Sox in 2020...and probably beyond that. What seems more likely is that he's managed his final game fo for the Red Sox. Judging by the degree of his involvement, it's reasonable to assume Cora's suspension will be significantly longer than those of his now-unemployed bosses in Houston. And it's hard to believe he'll be able to get another Major League managing job anytime soon...if at all.
With the suspensions of Hinch and Luhnow, and the coming suspension of Cora, MLB has hopefully gotten its point across. Stealing signs the old-fashioned way is fine. But when you start using technology to cheat, that's crossing the line. That's affecting the integrity of the game. And when the game's integrity is at stake, expect to pay the price. Just ask the Black Sox or Pete Rose.
Saturday, January 11, 2020
NFL 100: Playoffs, Week 2
It looks like the Browns are poised to hire Josh McDaniels, so, before getting into this week's playoff matchups, some thoughts on the five new head coaches. Assuming McDaniels goes to Cleveland, two teams made absolutely great hires. Two will be looking for coaches again within the next three years. And Carolina, well, I don't know what they're doing!
Dallas hit an absolute home run with Mike McCarthy. Jerry Jones wanted a coach with NFL experience, and McCarthy has that and then some. Things may have ended badly in Green Bay, but he led one of the NFL's other marquee franchises to nine playoff appearances in 12 years. And, he won a Super Bowl, which is more than I can say about any other Cowboys coach over the last 25 years. McDaniels, meanwhile, assuming he doesn't leave the Browns hanging the way he did the Colts two years ago, is the perfect guy in Cleveland. He almost got that job twice previously, and the Browns already have a talented roster. With the right coach, it won't take much to build a winner there. And McDaniels seems like the right coach.
As for the Giants, what are they doing? They also hired a Patriots assistant. Joe Judge. Who's never been a head coach at any level and was completely unimpressive in his introductory press conference. They whiffed on their last two coaching hires. And they go with an unproven guy whose only claim to fame is being an assistant for Nick Saban and Bill Belichick? The Redskins, meanwhile, went with the only guy they interviewed, Ron Rivera (so the Rooney Rule only applies one way?). Frankly, I don't think it's the coaches that are the problem in Washington. Dan Snyder is. He's the Jim Dolan of football, and any coach who works for him is resigning himself to the same fate as anybody dumb enough to coach the Knicks.
Then there's Rivera's former team, the Carolina Panthers. Other owners are not happy with Panthers owner David Tepper, who gave seven years and $60 million to a college coach with all of one season as an NFL assistant on his resume. He might've thought he had to do that or else Matt Rhule would go somewhere else, but he's making quite a commitment by overpaying him so ridiculously. And, frankly, it seems doomed for failure. There's no way Rhule lasts all seven years.
Now on to the Divisional Playoffs. No team without a bye has been to the Super Bowl since the 2013 season, and that streak seems likely to continue. Because the one team that played last week that seemed capable of getting there--New Orleans--was upset by the Vikings. As a result, we don't get the Saints-Packers game we were all looking forward to. It's Packers-Seahawks instead. And there won't be a Patriots-Chiefs rematch, either. Which is just fine with Kansas City.
And I must say, it's refreshing to see they changed the rules and New England isn't required to have a home game this week anymore. As Cris Collinsworth said, it'll have a different feel without them lurking around. (And could Tony Romo have kissed Brady's ass any more at the end of the Patriots-Titans game? He's not going anywhere, Tony!)
Vikings (11-6) at 49ers (13-3): San Francisco-The biggest beneficiary of the Saints' shocking loss last week (other than, obviously, the Vikings) might've been San Francisco. The 49ers went from potentially playing the Seahawks, who already beat them in Santa Clara this season, to facing the Vikings. And they saw their Super Bowl odds get a massive boost as a result.
Kirk Cousins finally got his big time moment last week with that beautiful game-winning touchdown pass to Kyle Rudolph. Now it's Jimmy Garoppolo's turn. The 49ers may be the No. 1 seed in the NFC, but they'll only go as far as their quarterback takes them. He's had plenty of experience watching Brady from the sidelines. But he's never had one himself. This is his chance, though. San Francisco is a better team than Minnesota. The 49ers will host the NFC Championship Game.
Titans (10-7) at Ravens (14-2): Baltimore-My favorite part of Tennessee's upset over New England is how Mike Vrabel beat the Patriots by doing things Bill Belichick would do. He deferred the coin toss for the Belichick-patented double possession. Then there was the brilliant false start-after-false start strategy to waste time in the fourth quarter. I was expecting that to backfire when Brady led New England to a touchdown with 30 seconds left and the Titans didn't have those 90 seconds they wasted. But it was so great that it didn't!
For their reward, the Titans got a trip to play the best team in the NFL and prohibitive Super Bowl favorites. And, unlike the Patriots, the Ravens have both a formidable defense AND a formidable offense, led by MVP frontrunner Lamar Jackson. I'm simply not sure Tennessee has enough weapons to keep up. They did the entire NFL-watching world outside of New England a huge favor last week. But their run will come to an end in Baltimore.
Texans (11-6) at Chiefs (12-4): Kansas City-Maybe last week was the start of something for the Texans. That was an impressive comeback against the Bills, then the Titans did them a huge favor by sending them to Kansas City, where they won earlier this season, instead of Baltimore. And against the Chiefs, the Texans have a much better chance of finally getting over that Divisional Playoff hump and losing that distinction as the only team in the NFL never to play in a Conference Championship Game.
However, the Titans also did the Kansas City Chiefs a huge favor. The Houston matchup is far more beneficial for them than facing Bradicheck in January. Although, I'm not sure it would've made a difference. Because I have a feeling about the Chiefs this year. Especially with the way they played in December. This team got hot at the right time, and the bye week is only going to help them. The Texans will have to wait at least another year for that maiden AFC Championship Game appearance.
Seahawks (12-5) at Packers (13-3): Green Bay-Of the four road teams, Seattle has the most realistic chance of coming away with a win. After all, the Seahawks are 8-1 on the road this season after winning in Philadelphia for a second time last week. Can they make it two straight playoff road victories by stopping the Packers at the Frozen Tundra, though? That seems like a tall order.
Despite going 13-3 and clinching a playoff bye, the Packers still feel like they have something to prove. They "didn't beat anybody" and "aren't as good" as the 49ers or Seahawks, or even the since-eliminated Saints. However, they're not playing New Orleans, which would've been a much tougher matchup. And is it really a good idea to count out Aaron Rodgers at Lambeau Field in January? The Chesseheads will have plenty to cheer about, as the Cal grad sends his team to the Bay Area next week.
Last Week: 2-2
Overall: 156-103-1
Friday, January 10, 2020
No Protests In Tokyo
As the Winter Youth Olympics get underway in Lausanne, Switzerland (the IOC's own backyard), the IOC took care of some housekeeping items. They elected some new members and rubber-stamped Gangwon Province in South Korea (aka PyeongChang) as the next Winter Youth Olympic host in 2024. They also made a pair of announcements involving athletes that will almost certainly come into play during the Tokyo Games.
I'll start with the easy one. They further relaxed the controversial "Rule 40," which had been the subject of legal challenges in a number of countries. Under the previous interpretation, "Rule 40" essentially prohibited athletes from using their name or likeness for commercial purposes in the period directly before and during the Olympics unless it was for an official Olympic sponsor.
This rule was designed to protect the interests of Olympic sponsors, which pay a lot of money for that distinction. However, it had an adverse effect on the athletes since it essentially prevented them from capitalizing on the achievement of making the Olympic team at the most valuable time of their careers.
They eventually realized that this was inherently unfair, so they came up with a compromise. Athletes are allowed to participate in advertising campaigns with their personal sponsors, as long as they're generic, are in place before the athlete makes the Olympic team, and doesn't use the trademarked Olympic terms and logos. This is important. Because those sponsors shouldn't have access to those logos or give any sort of implication that they're involved with the Olympics. Not when other companies (which may be their direct competitors) are shelling out billions of dollars to the IOC for the privilege to use them.
The athletes, meanwhile, can do both. They're Olympians. They've earned the right to refer to themselves as such. They're also represented by their individual sponsors, so it's reasonable that they'd want to thank them and let them share in their accomplishment (which in many cases wouldn't be possible without that support). In the past, they couldn't do that. Now they can.
In a way, it's like NCAA recruiting. Coaches can't say anything directly about a potential recruit until they sign an NLI, but there's no stopping the athlete from doing it. The directive from compliance offices is always "click, don't type," meaning it's fine to retweet something from the athlete, but saying something directly could potentially be considered an NCAA violation.
Under the new guidelines, Olympic athletes are free to thank and receive congratulations from their personal sponsors, as well as participating in generic advertising. Their individual sponsors, however, are still limited in what they can do, which is necessary to provide the Olympic sponsors with exclusivity in their areas and shield them from ambush marketing (which was the original intent of the rule in the first place).
There are undoubtedly going to be some smaller organizations that are still upset they can't promote their affiliation with an Olympic athlete, but that was never going to happen. Not with the amount of money involved. And, frankly, this was a good compromise. The athletes earned the right to call themselves "Olympians." Not their sponsors! Now they can thank the people who helped them get there. Including their sponsors.
While everyone knew changes to Rule 40 were coming, the other new piece of Olympic legislation introduced on Thursday was a little more surprising. In Tokyo, athletes will be prohibited from any sort of racial, political or religious demonstration at any Olympic site or venue, including the field of play and medals ceremonies. Anyone who violates this rule will be subject to three-pronged discipline from their National Olympic Committee, International Federation AND the IOC.
It's important to note that this came directly from the IOC Athletes' Commission. Because that's basically the athletes saying to each other, "There's a time and a place, and the Olympics aren't either." It's disrespectful to their competitors. They've worked for years for their Olympic moment, yet the only thing anybody's going to talk about is the protest that hijacked it.
Athlete activists are nothing new. In fact, they've become more and more prevalent in recent years. Colin Kaepernick and Megan Rapione are obviously examples 1 and 1A, but they aren't the only ones. The last straw might've been last summer, when Americans Race Imboden and Gwen Berry protested on back-to-back days at the Pan Am Games. This on the heels of the World Swimming Championships, where Australia's Mack Horton and Great Britain's Duncan Scott both received widespread attention for refusing to share the podium with China's Sun Yang, who was competing despite a pending doping suspension.
Whether you agree with Horton and Scott or not, you can't argue that it wasn't a bad look all around. It was embarrassing for FINA, disrespectful to Sun (which was the entire point), and incredibly selfish. They took a World Championships medals ceremony, something that is designed to celebrate the achievement of three athletes, and made it all about themselves.
And no one is telling the athletes not to have an opinion or that they can't share it. They can talk about whatever they like on social media or in press conferences or during interviews. Just leave it off the field. People came to see an athletic competition. Not a political demonstration. And you should respect your competitors in the same way you would want them to respect you.
Not everyone is keen on these new regulations. I even saw one article accusing the IOC of hypocrisy by enacting them. It's an issue that concerned the IOC, yes, but it's the athletes themselves who established these guidelines. They're the only ones who can see it both ways. And they're the ones who decided that any sort of protest or demonstration, no matter how legitimate, destroys the dignity of the competition and diminishes the achievement that's supposed to be celebrated.
Let's not kid ourselves, either. There's still going to be plenty of political statements made by athletes at the Tokyo Olympics. There will be outspoken critics of the Russians who are allowed to compete. There will be Americans who'll want to make it known which candidate they support in the Presidential election. And there will probably be that old Olympic standard--the Islamic athlete who refuses to face an Israeli opponent.
What these restrictions aim to do, though, is limit the protests to the appropriate forums. Because that's not what people are coming to see or what the competition deserves. Athletes might want to get their point across, only for it to become divisive because of the way they chose to express it. Is that the message you want to send? The answer is "No." That point has now been made. Very clearly.
I'll start with the easy one. They further relaxed the controversial "Rule 40," which had been the subject of legal challenges in a number of countries. Under the previous interpretation, "Rule 40" essentially prohibited athletes from using their name or likeness for commercial purposes in the period directly before and during the Olympics unless it was for an official Olympic sponsor.
This rule was designed to protect the interests of Olympic sponsors, which pay a lot of money for that distinction. However, it had an adverse effect on the athletes since it essentially prevented them from capitalizing on the achievement of making the Olympic team at the most valuable time of their careers.
They eventually realized that this was inherently unfair, so they came up with a compromise. Athletes are allowed to participate in advertising campaigns with their personal sponsors, as long as they're generic, are in place before the athlete makes the Olympic team, and doesn't use the trademarked Olympic terms and logos. This is important. Because those sponsors shouldn't have access to those logos or give any sort of implication that they're involved with the Olympics. Not when other companies (which may be their direct competitors) are shelling out billions of dollars to the IOC for the privilege to use them.
The athletes, meanwhile, can do both. They're Olympians. They've earned the right to refer to themselves as such. They're also represented by their individual sponsors, so it's reasonable that they'd want to thank them and let them share in their accomplishment (which in many cases wouldn't be possible without that support). In the past, they couldn't do that. Now they can.
In a way, it's like NCAA recruiting. Coaches can't say anything directly about a potential recruit until they sign an NLI, but there's no stopping the athlete from doing it. The directive from compliance offices is always "click, don't type," meaning it's fine to retweet something from the athlete, but saying something directly could potentially be considered an NCAA violation.
Under the new guidelines, Olympic athletes are free to thank and receive congratulations from their personal sponsors, as well as participating in generic advertising. Their individual sponsors, however, are still limited in what they can do, which is necessary to provide the Olympic sponsors with exclusivity in their areas and shield them from ambush marketing (which was the original intent of the rule in the first place).
There are undoubtedly going to be some smaller organizations that are still upset they can't promote their affiliation with an Olympic athlete, but that was never going to happen. Not with the amount of money involved. And, frankly, this was a good compromise. The athletes earned the right to call themselves "Olympians." Not their sponsors! Now they can thank the people who helped them get there. Including their sponsors.
While everyone knew changes to Rule 40 were coming, the other new piece of Olympic legislation introduced on Thursday was a little more surprising. In Tokyo, athletes will be prohibited from any sort of racial, political or religious demonstration at any Olympic site or venue, including the field of play and medals ceremonies. Anyone who violates this rule will be subject to three-pronged discipline from their National Olympic Committee, International Federation AND the IOC.
It's important to note that this came directly from the IOC Athletes' Commission. Because that's basically the athletes saying to each other, "There's a time and a place, and the Olympics aren't either." It's disrespectful to their competitors. They've worked for years for their Olympic moment, yet the only thing anybody's going to talk about is the protest that hijacked it.
Athlete activists are nothing new. In fact, they've become more and more prevalent in recent years. Colin Kaepernick and Megan Rapione are obviously examples 1 and 1A, but they aren't the only ones. The last straw might've been last summer, when Americans Race Imboden and Gwen Berry protested on back-to-back days at the Pan Am Games. This on the heels of the World Swimming Championships, where Australia's Mack Horton and Great Britain's Duncan Scott both received widespread attention for refusing to share the podium with China's Sun Yang, who was competing despite a pending doping suspension.
Whether you agree with Horton and Scott or not, you can't argue that it wasn't a bad look all around. It was embarrassing for FINA, disrespectful to Sun (which was the entire point), and incredibly selfish. They took a World Championships medals ceremony, something that is designed to celebrate the achievement of three athletes, and made it all about themselves.
And no one is telling the athletes not to have an opinion or that they can't share it. They can talk about whatever they like on social media or in press conferences or during interviews. Just leave it off the field. People came to see an athletic competition. Not a political demonstration. And you should respect your competitors in the same way you would want them to respect you.
Not everyone is keen on these new regulations. I even saw one article accusing the IOC of hypocrisy by enacting them. It's an issue that concerned the IOC, yes, but it's the athletes themselves who established these guidelines. They're the only ones who can see it both ways. And they're the ones who decided that any sort of protest or demonstration, no matter how legitimate, destroys the dignity of the competition and diminishes the achievement that's supposed to be celebrated.
Let's not kid ourselves, either. There's still going to be plenty of political statements made by athletes at the Tokyo Olympics. There will be outspoken critics of the Russians who are allowed to compete. There will be Americans who'll want to make it known which candidate they support in the Presidential election. And there will probably be that old Olympic standard--the Islamic athlete who refuses to face an Israeli opponent.
What these restrictions aim to do, though, is limit the protests to the appropriate forums. Because that's not what people are coming to see or what the competition deserves. Athletes might want to get their point across, only for it to become divisive because of the way they chose to express it. Is that the message you want to send? The answer is "No." That point has now been made. Very clearly.
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
Fixing the NFL 100 Team
When the NFL announced that, as a part of the league's centennial celebration, a blue-ribbon panel would select an NFL 100 All-Time Team, you knew it was going to be the subject of massive debate. They even had an entire hour-long postgame show on NFL Network after the latest members of the team were announced each week dedicated to that very topic. And, I've gotta say, some of the criticism is justified. Because I have no idea how they came up with some of the players on the All-Time Team!
Don't get me wrong. They're all Hall of Famers, and they're all worthy of having their busts in Canton. But I really question some of the selections as the "greatest of all-time" at their particular positions. The NFL has been around for 100 years. This team was designed to honor the best of the best. For the most part, they did a good job. But, beyond the obvious selections, some of the choices definitely left people scratching their heads.
For starters, there are only three active players on the list (Tom Brady, Adam Vinatieri, Larry Fitzgerald). Rob Gronkowski was still active when they voted, so, for all intents and purposes, he counts as an "active" player too. There wasn't a single active defensive player who made the team. So, according to the experts on the panel, none of the 39 greatest defensive players in history is currently playing in the NFL!
There also isn't a single running back who's played an NFL snap at any point in the last 15 years on the team. I understand the modern NFL is built around the passing game, but you're telling me that none of the great running backs of the 2000s belongs on the team?! Those seem like two big misses! Also, how was there no place for Jim Thorpe?!
LaDainian Tomlinson, who was a finalist but not selected, was the first to bring up the running back issue on the very first reaction show. They then had Peter King as a guest on one of the reaction shows, and he offered a theory as to why there were so few active players on the list. The NFL told them to encompass the entire 100 years. As a result, he thinks almost too much emphasis was put on players from the early days, and the current players were the ones who suffered.
Another voter who appeared on the reaction show one week suggested another possible reason why there were so few current players on the final team. Their career arc isn't complete, which makes it difficult to judge them compared to those whose careers have been over for years. To an extent, she has a point. Antonio Brown was her example. When they voted two years ago, AB was arguably on a Hall of Fame trajectory. We all know what's happened since! (She also made a passionate case for TO to be on the team, though, so I'm beginning to wonder what her criteria for an "all-time great" is.)
With all that in mind (and with no offense to the blue-ribbon panel), I'd like to offer some suggestions for players who should've been named to the NFL 100 All-Time Team instead, as well as the players they'd be replacing...
Quarterback: Drew Brees and Terry Bradshaw for John Elway and Dan Marino
I started off 7-for-7 on the quarterbacks, which got me feeling pretty good. Then I missed the last three. I had Bart Starr instead of Roger Staubach, but I had Staubach 11th, so that selection doesn't bother me. Why are John Elway and Dan Marino on the All-Time Team, though? I can kinda understand Marino since he set a lot of records, but what did Elway do that makes him one of the best of all-time? Terry Bradshaw won four Super Bowls, which is tied with Joe Montana for second-most all-time. Elway and Marino went a combined 2-4 in Super Bowls. And who broke all of Marino's records? Oh, that's right...Drew Brees!
Running Back: Marshall Faulk for Earl Campbell
Running back might've been the most competitive position of them all for the voters. They only had 12 spots, and there are a number of worthy names who didn't make the cut. Which is really what makes the selection of Earl Campbell so glaring. And, I agree with LaDainian Tomlinson that the lack of running backs from the 2000s isn't a good look. Which is why Marshall Faulk, the best two-way running back in NFL history, is my selection to replace Campbell on the All-Time Team. I'd also move Gale Sayers to kick returner, if only to open up a spot for Jim Thorpe, Red Grange or Bronko Nagurski (the only player on the 75th anniversary not on the 100th).
Wide Receiver: Cris Carter for Paul Warfield
First off, why were there only 10 wide receivers? It seems like there should've been at least as many wide receivers as running backs. Wide receiver also must've been a tough position for the voters because of how prominent the passing game has become in the modern NFL, thus skewing the all-time receiving numbers towards recent players. I still think Cris Carter is one of the 10 greatest receivers ever, though. He's certainly ahead of Paul Warfield. So is Lynn Swann, but I'm not sure who else I'd take off. As for TO, I'm not even sure he's in my top 15.
Offensive Tackle: Jackie Slater for Walter Jones
Jackie Slater's omission was perhaps the most surprising of any. Especially since Walter Jones made the squad. No offense to Walter Jones, but he was no Jackie Slater. He wasn't a Joe Thomas, either. Which actually gets me thinking...where's Joe Thomas?
Defensive End: Michael Strahan and J.J. Watt for Bill Hewitt and Lee Roy Selmon
Defensive end is one position where the voters really missed the mark. That's where the emphasis on historical players over recent ones really stands out. Because J.J. Watt (the active player Peter King was really advocating) is definitely one of the greatest defensive players in history and should be on this team! So should Michael Strahan, and not just because he played for the Giants!
Defensive Tackle: Warren Sapp for John Randle
Remember how good that Bucs defense of the early 2000s was? Apparently the voters didn't! Because I can't fathom how Warren Sapp, the best player on that defense and one of the most dominant defensive tackles ever was left off! Especially because they put John Randle on it, even though Randle and Sapp played at the same time and Sapp was better.
Linebacker: Ray Nitschke for Bobby Bell
It was surprising that Dick Butkus was the only Bears middle linebacker selected. I couldn't think of who I would take off to include Mike Singletary, though. However, I would make one change. We don't need both Chiefs linebackers from the 60s on there. Not when Ray Nitschke is missing. There's a shockingly small number of Lombardi Packers on the All-Time Team. And nobody says Lombardi Packers more than Ray Nitschke.
Safety: Troy Polamalu for Jack Christiansen
Another example where the historical player got the nod over the more recent player. And with only six choices, those slights become even more glaring. But, then again, safety is one of the most underrepresented positions in Canton, so that shouldn't be a surprise. After the obvious choices (Ronnie Lott, Ed Reed, Larry Wilson), there were only three spots left. One of them should've gone to Troy Polamalu. Also, a question about Polamalu...How long will it take the sculptor to get his hair right on his Hall of Fame bust? Have they already started working on it? It's only eight months until Polamalu's induction, after all.
This was an impossible task for this selection committee. I'm sure they were honored to be asked to serve on the panel, then they get jokers like me telling them where they got it wrong. But, you'd have to think, if this was an NFL 150, there would've been room for both the players who made it and some of the deserving guys they omitted...and there'd still be plenty of controversy and debate over the selections!
Don't get me wrong. They're all Hall of Famers, and they're all worthy of having their busts in Canton. But I really question some of the selections as the "greatest of all-time" at their particular positions. The NFL has been around for 100 years. This team was designed to honor the best of the best. For the most part, they did a good job. But, beyond the obvious selections, some of the choices definitely left people scratching their heads.
For starters, there are only three active players on the list (Tom Brady, Adam Vinatieri, Larry Fitzgerald). Rob Gronkowski was still active when they voted, so, for all intents and purposes, he counts as an "active" player too. There wasn't a single active defensive player who made the team. So, according to the experts on the panel, none of the 39 greatest defensive players in history is currently playing in the NFL!
There also isn't a single running back who's played an NFL snap at any point in the last 15 years on the team. I understand the modern NFL is built around the passing game, but you're telling me that none of the great running backs of the 2000s belongs on the team?! Those seem like two big misses! Also, how was there no place for Jim Thorpe?!
LaDainian Tomlinson, who was a finalist but not selected, was the first to bring up the running back issue on the very first reaction show. They then had Peter King as a guest on one of the reaction shows, and he offered a theory as to why there were so few active players on the list. The NFL told them to encompass the entire 100 years. As a result, he thinks almost too much emphasis was put on players from the early days, and the current players were the ones who suffered.
Another voter who appeared on the reaction show one week suggested another possible reason why there were so few current players on the final team. Their career arc isn't complete, which makes it difficult to judge them compared to those whose careers have been over for years. To an extent, she has a point. Antonio Brown was her example. When they voted two years ago, AB was arguably on a Hall of Fame trajectory. We all know what's happened since! (She also made a passionate case for TO to be on the team, though, so I'm beginning to wonder what her criteria for an "all-time great" is.)
With all that in mind (and with no offense to the blue-ribbon panel), I'd like to offer some suggestions for players who should've been named to the NFL 100 All-Time Team instead, as well as the players they'd be replacing...
Quarterback: Drew Brees and Terry Bradshaw for John Elway and Dan Marino
I started off 7-for-7 on the quarterbacks, which got me feeling pretty good. Then I missed the last three. I had Bart Starr instead of Roger Staubach, but I had Staubach 11th, so that selection doesn't bother me. Why are John Elway and Dan Marino on the All-Time Team, though? I can kinda understand Marino since he set a lot of records, but what did Elway do that makes him one of the best of all-time? Terry Bradshaw won four Super Bowls, which is tied with Joe Montana for second-most all-time. Elway and Marino went a combined 2-4 in Super Bowls. And who broke all of Marino's records? Oh, that's right...Drew Brees!
Running Back: Marshall Faulk for Earl Campbell
Running back might've been the most competitive position of them all for the voters. They only had 12 spots, and there are a number of worthy names who didn't make the cut. Which is really what makes the selection of Earl Campbell so glaring. And, I agree with LaDainian Tomlinson that the lack of running backs from the 2000s isn't a good look. Which is why Marshall Faulk, the best two-way running back in NFL history, is my selection to replace Campbell on the All-Time Team. I'd also move Gale Sayers to kick returner, if only to open up a spot for Jim Thorpe, Red Grange or Bronko Nagurski (the only player on the 75th anniversary not on the 100th).
Wide Receiver: Cris Carter for Paul Warfield
First off, why were there only 10 wide receivers? It seems like there should've been at least as many wide receivers as running backs. Wide receiver also must've been a tough position for the voters because of how prominent the passing game has become in the modern NFL, thus skewing the all-time receiving numbers towards recent players. I still think Cris Carter is one of the 10 greatest receivers ever, though. He's certainly ahead of Paul Warfield. So is Lynn Swann, but I'm not sure who else I'd take off. As for TO, I'm not even sure he's in my top 15.
Offensive Tackle: Jackie Slater for Walter Jones
Jackie Slater's omission was perhaps the most surprising of any. Especially since Walter Jones made the squad. No offense to Walter Jones, but he was no Jackie Slater. He wasn't a Joe Thomas, either. Which actually gets me thinking...where's Joe Thomas?
Defensive End: Michael Strahan and J.J. Watt for Bill Hewitt and Lee Roy Selmon
Defensive end is one position where the voters really missed the mark. That's where the emphasis on historical players over recent ones really stands out. Because J.J. Watt (the active player Peter King was really advocating) is definitely one of the greatest defensive players in history and should be on this team! So should Michael Strahan, and not just because he played for the Giants!
Defensive Tackle: Warren Sapp for John Randle
Remember how good that Bucs defense of the early 2000s was? Apparently the voters didn't! Because I can't fathom how Warren Sapp, the best player on that defense and one of the most dominant defensive tackles ever was left off! Especially because they put John Randle on it, even though Randle and Sapp played at the same time and Sapp was better.
Linebacker: Ray Nitschke for Bobby Bell
It was surprising that Dick Butkus was the only Bears middle linebacker selected. I couldn't think of who I would take off to include Mike Singletary, though. However, I would make one change. We don't need both Chiefs linebackers from the 60s on there. Not when Ray Nitschke is missing. There's a shockingly small number of Lombardi Packers on the All-Time Team. And nobody says Lombardi Packers more than Ray Nitschke.
Safety: Troy Polamalu for Jack Christiansen
Another example where the historical player got the nod over the more recent player. And with only six choices, those slights become even more glaring. But, then again, safety is one of the most underrepresented positions in Canton, so that shouldn't be a surprise. After the obvious choices (Ronnie Lott, Ed Reed, Larry Wilson), there were only three spots left. One of them should've gone to Troy Polamalu. Also, a question about Polamalu...How long will it take the sculptor to get his hair right on his Hall of Fame bust? Have they already started working on it? It's only eight months until Polamalu's induction, after all.
This was an impossible task for this selection committee. I'm sure they were honored to be asked to serve on the panel, then they get jokers like me telling them where they got it wrong. But, you'd have to think, if this was an NFL 150, there would've been room for both the players who made it and some of the deserving guys they omitted...and there'd still be plenty of controversy and debate over the selections!
Friday, January 3, 2020
NFL 100: Playoffs, Week 1
We made it! It's playoff time in the NFL, and Week 17 sure didn't disappoint in providing drama. The 49ers got the defensive stop they needed to win the NFC West and the conference's No. 1 seed. The Titans took all the suspense out of the AFC wild card race by dominating the Texans. The Dolphins, meanwhile, pulled the shocker of all shockers, beating the Patriots in Foxboro to take New England's first-round bye and give it to Kansas City.
It'll be both weird and fun to see New England actually playing on Wild Card Weekend, then potentially playing an actual road Divisional Playoff game for the first time since the 2006 season. They're joined by three teams that have never won the Super Bowl, which could actually work in their favor. The first three champions of 2019 were first-time winners (Blues, Raptors, Nationals). So, if the NFL is going to follow that trend and make it a perfect 4-for-4 with first-time champions in the 2019 seasons, it bodes well for the Bills-Texans winner, as well as the Titans and Vikings.
Speaking of the Vikings, they head to New Orleans for a rematch of the "Minneapolis Miracle." The Saints, incredibly, went 13-3 and didn't get a bye! As a result, they've got to play an extra game, then travel to Green Bay instead of staying at the Superdome. Will that make a difference? Or, is it even possible that they'll find another excruciating way to be eliminated from the playoffs this season?
AFC
Bills (10-6) at Texans (10-6): Houston-The playoffs start with what seems to have become the annual Saturday afternoon game in Houston. And this is a tremendous opportunity for both the Bills and Texans. They both lost last week, but this matchup was already locked in, so neither seemed to care. This is the one that matters, and they've both got a great shot to turn around their recent playoff history. Buffalo is looking for its first playoff win since 1995, while Houston is the only team in the league that has never played in a Conference Championship Game.
Buffalo's 10-6 record is by no means a fluke. They belong here. But can they get enough offense against a Houston defense that will only get better with the return of J.J. Watt? The Texans seem to follow the same script every year. They lose one or two games to a middle-of the-road team, but play great when the stakes are the highest. I don't see anything different happening here. The Texans move on, and the Bills have to wait another year.
Titans (9-7) at Patriots (12-4): New England-Welcome to Wild Card Weekend, Bradicheck! It's the round of playoff games played before the Divisional round, where it's no longer a requirement that you host. And, yes, that made your road to a fourth straight Super Bowl a lot more difficult. Although, it might be a good thing that you have an extra game to play. Because that offense needs as much time on the field as it can get!
Their opponent won't be a pushover, either. Ever since Ryan Tannehill took over for Marcus Mariota, the Titans' offense has been very formidable. Which means New England will have to rely on its strength--its defense--to keep Tennessee at bay. Although, the offense will need to hold its own and come up with a big play or two if the Patriots want to guarantee themselves a trip to Kansas City. Make no mistake, though. Their fans may be shell-shocked by the Patriots' playoff home game coming a week earlier, but Belichick always makes sure the players take it one game at a time. They'll do just that and send the Titans packing.
NFC
Vikings (10-6) at Saints (13-3): New Orleans-Two years ago, they played an absolute classic in the Divisional Playoffs. They also played a memorable NFC Championship Game following the 2009 season. So what does the third installment of the Saints-Vikings playoff rivalry have in store for us? Offense. Plenty of offense.
This one has all the makings of a shootout, especially with Drew Brees slinging passes to Michael Thomas left and right. New Orleans will need something more than that to win, though. They'll need their defense to step up, too. Make no mistake, though. The 13-3 Saints are the best team playing this weekend. They're legitimate Super Bowl contenders (see below). And this is probably their last time playing in the Superdome this season. I'd like to think this game will be close, but I can see the Saints getting up big early and running away with it.
Seahawks (11-5) at Eagles (9-7): Seattle-To everyone who said the NFC East didn't "deserve" a playoff team, guess what? The Eagles don't just belong, they're going to be very formidable. Yes, it was four division games against three teams that fired their coaches, but a four-game winning streak to end the season is a four-game winning streak to end the season. And it got them a home playoff game against a team that has to travel cross country for it.
Obviously, Seattle would've preferred to be at home. But this is a different Seahawks team than in years past. They're 7-1 on the road this season. And the Eagles are a good opponent for them. Philly won just four games outside the NFC East (although two of those wins were over the Packers and Bills). As a result, Seattle is the only road favorite of Wild Card Weekend. The Seahawks beat the Eagles 17-9 in Week 12. Their playoff encounter should be a little higher-scoring, but the result should be the same. The Seahawks win.
Super Bowl LIV: Kansas City over New Orleans
Baltimore enters the playoffs as the favorite to win the Super Bowl...and should be. The Ravens have the best offense in football, as well as a tremendous defense. They've won 12 straight since starting the season 2-2, winning both blowouts and close games alike. However, with all that being said, I don't even see them getting to Miami. Because Andy Reid's Kansas City Chiefs are on a similar roll. The Chiefs are peaking at just the right time, winning six straight and earning a first-round bye. And their defense has been unreal during the streak. That's why I see them finishing what they started last year. Kansas City beats New England, then Baltimore, and makes its first Super Bowl appearance in 50 years.
In the NFC, experts are rightly saying that San Francisco's Super Bowl odds increased dramatically with last Sunday night's win in Seattle that gave them the 1-seed. I 100 percent agree with that. The 49ers were not going to win three road games. Frankly, I don't see them winning two home games, either. Because, I've said it all year, and I'll say it again now--the Saints are the best team in the NFC. A lot has been made about the fact it's been six years since a team that didn't have a first-round bye reached the Super Bowl. I think that changes this year. Because the Saints will beat the Packers in Lambeau, then go to San Francisco and avenge their loss in that Week 14 instant classic (which would've made New Orleans the 1-seed had they won instead).
So, I've got that Chiefs-Saints Super Bowl one year later. The Saints back in a Miami Super Bowl 10 years after their last. And Andy Reid finally back for the second time, 15 years after taking the Eagles to the Promised Land. He's one of the greatest coaches of his generation, but doesn't have a Super Bowl ring to show for it. That changes this year. Kansas City's roll will continue, and the Chiefs will end the NFL's 100th season the same way they ended its 50th (as well as the AFL's entire existence). By lifting the Lombardi Trophy.
Last Week: 10-6
Overall: 154-101-1
It'll be both weird and fun to see New England actually playing on Wild Card Weekend, then potentially playing an actual road Divisional Playoff game for the first time since the 2006 season. They're joined by three teams that have never won the Super Bowl, which could actually work in their favor. The first three champions of 2019 were first-time winners (Blues, Raptors, Nationals). So, if the NFL is going to follow that trend and make it a perfect 4-for-4 with first-time champions in the 2019 seasons, it bodes well for the Bills-Texans winner, as well as the Titans and Vikings.
Speaking of the Vikings, they head to New Orleans for a rematch of the "Minneapolis Miracle." The Saints, incredibly, went 13-3 and didn't get a bye! As a result, they've got to play an extra game, then travel to Green Bay instead of staying at the Superdome. Will that make a difference? Or, is it even possible that they'll find another excruciating way to be eliminated from the playoffs this season?
AFC
Bills (10-6) at Texans (10-6): Houston-The playoffs start with what seems to have become the annual Saturday afternoon game in Houston. And this is a tremendous opportunity for both the Bills and Texans. They both lost last week, but this matchup was already locked in, so neither seemed to care. This is the one that matters, and they've both got a great shot to turn around their recent playoff history. Buffalo is looking for its first playoff win since 1995, while Houston is the only team in the league that has never played in a Conference Championship Game.
Buffalo's 10-6 record is by no means a fluke. They belong here. But can they get enough offense against a Houston defense that will only get better with the return of J.J. Watt? The Texans seem to follow the same script every year. They lose one or two games to a middle-of the-road team, but play great when the stakes are the highest. I don't see anything different happening here. The Texans move on, and the Bills have to wait another year.
Titans (9-7) at Patriots (12-4): New England-Welcome to Wild Card Weekend, Bradicheck! It's the round of playoff games played before the Divisional round, where it's no longer a requirement that you host. And, yes, that made your road to a fourth straight Super Bowl a lot more difficult. Although, it might be a good thing that you have an extra game to play. Because that offense needs as much time on the field as it can get!
Their opponent won't be a pushover, either. Ever since Ryan Tannehill took over for Marcus Mariota, the Titans' offense has been very formidable. Which means New England will have to rely on its strength--its defense--to keep Tennessee at bay. Although, the offense will need to hold its own and come up with a big play or two if the Patriots want to guarantee themselves a trip to Kansas City. Make no mistake, though. Their fans may be shell-shocked by the Patriots' playoff home game coming a week earlier, but Belichick always makes sure the players take it one game at a time. They'll do just that and send the Titans packing.
NFC
Vikings (10-6) at Saints (13-3): New Orleans-Two years ago, they played an absolute classic in the Divisional Playoffs. They also played a memorable NFC Championship Game following the 2009 season. So what does the third installment of the Saints-Vikings playoff rivalry have in store for us? Offense. Plenty of offense.
This one has all the makings of a shootout, especially with Drew Brees slinging passes to Michael Thomas left and right. New Orleans will need something more than that to win, though. They'll need their defense to step up, too. Make no mistake, though. The 13-3 Saints are the best team playing this weekend. They're legitimate Super Bowl contenders (see below). And this is probably their last time playing in the Superdome this season. I'd like to think this game will be close, but I can see the Saints getting up big early and running away with it.
Seahawks (11-5) at Eagles (9-7): Seattle-To everyone who said the NFC East didn't "deserve" a playoff team, guess what? The Eagles don't just belong, they're going to be very formidable. Yes, it was four division games against three teams that fired their coaches, but a four-game winning streak to end the season is a four-game winning streak to end the season. And it got them a home playoff game against a team that has to travel cross country for it.
Obviously, Seattle would've preferred to be at home. But this is a different Seahawks team than in years past. They're 7-1 on the road this season. And the Eagles are a good opponent for them. Philly won just four games outside the NFC East (although two of those wins were over the Packers and Bills). As a result, Seattle is the only road favorite of Wild Card Weekend. The Seahawks beat the Eagles 17-9 in Week 12. Their playoff encounter should be a little higher-scoring, but the result should be the same. The Seahawks win.
Super Bowl LIV: Kansas City over New Orleans
Baltimore enters the playoffs as the favorite to win the Super Bowl...and should be. The Ravens have the best offense in football, as well as a tremendous defense. They've won 12 straight since starting the season 2-2, winning both blowouts and close games alike. However, with all that being said, I don't even see them getting to Miami. Because Andy Reid's Kansas City Chiefs are on a similar roll. The Chiefs are peaking at just the right time, winning six straight and earning a first-round bye. And their defense has been unreal during the streak. That's why I see them finishing what they started last year. Kansas City beats New England, then Baltimore, and makes its first Super Bowl appearance in 50 years.
In the NFC, experts are rightly saying that San Francisco's Super Bowl odds increased dramatically with last Sunday night's win in Seattle that gave them the 1-seed. I 100 percent agree with that. The 49ers were not going to win three road games. Frankly, I don't see them winning two home games, either. Because, I've said it all year, and I'll say it again now--the Saints are the best team in the NFC. A lot has been made about the fact it's been six years since a team that didn't have a first-round bye reached the Super Bowl. I think that changes this year. Because the Saints will beat the Packers in Lambeau, then go to San Francisco and avenge their loss in that Week 14 instant classic (which would've made New Orleans the 1-seed had they won instead).
So, I've got that Chiefs-Saints Super Bowl one year later. The Saints back in a Miami Super Bowl 10 years after their last. And Andy Reid finally back for the second time, 15 years after taking the Eagles to the Promised Land. He's one of the greatest coaches of his generation, but doesn't have a Super Bowl ring to show for it. That changes this year. Kansas City's roll will continue, and the Chiefs will end the NFL's 100th season the same way they ended its 50th (as well as the AFL's entire existence). By lifting the Lombardi Trophy.
Last Week: 10-6
Overall: 154-101-1
Thursday, January 2, 2020
Rough Start to 2020
All that euphoria of the calendar flipping to 2020 (I can't believe Y2K was 20 years ago!) was quickly muted with the announcement that former NBA Commissioner David Stern, who had been hospitalized a few weeks ago, passed away on Wednesday afternoon. Then 2020 dealt us another blow later on Wednesday, when Don Larsen also died. That's two notable sports deaths in a decade that's barely 24 hours old! Not the best of starts.
David Stern's impact on the NBA cannot be overstated. He took over as commissioner of a struggling league in 1984. When he retired 30 years later, it was a global behemoth. That growth can be attributed almost entirely to Stern. He was an ahead-of-his-time visionary who, along with Pete Rozelle, is right there on the short list of greatest commissioners ever in the history of the four major sports.
Stern saw the big picture. He knew that the NBA's value was in its stars, and he knew how to market them. He became commissioner in Michael Jordan's rookie year. It's no coincidence that the NBA's rise started in the mid-80s, with Jordan, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird leading the way. Star players playing on good teams in big cities. The Lakers-Celtics rivalry helped the NBA takeoff, and that train hasn't stopped rolling since.
But David Stern was so much more than that. He instituted the Draft Lottery, guaranteeing every non-playoff team a chance at the top pick. He saw the value in new markets, adding six teams to the league, including the NBA's first two Canadian franchises. He started the WNBA, which is entering its 24th season in 2020. He spearheaded the creation of the NBA Development League, now the G-League, a minor league that provides domestic opportunities for players who otherwise would've had to go overseas in order to continue their careers.
Speaking of overseas, the influx of international talent into the NBA is yet another example of David Stern's massive impact. He was one of the driving forces between the greatest and most important basketball team ever assembled, the Dream Team at the 1992 Olympics. The rest of the world got to see NBA stars on the international stage for the first time, and it didn't take very long for them to catch up.
Now the NBA is a truly global league. Under Stern, there were nearly 150 international games, and NBA games were broadcast in more than 200 countries and more than 40 languages. And that's not even mentioning the domestic TV deals, first with NBC, then with current partners TNT and ESPN/ABC. When he started, CBS was showing NBA playoff games on tape delay. Today, Finals games are shown live in countless countries and the league has its own TV network.
It was his idea to take the All-Star Game to Las Vegas in 2007. Which worked (proving Las Vegas is a viable major league market). It was his idea to play the 2010 All-Star Game at Jerry World, which set an attendance record of more than 108,000 fans.
Adam Silver, Stern's successor as commissioner, released a beautiful tribute to his friend and mentor on the NBA website. Stern knew he was leaving the NBA in good hands. And Silver knew that the NBA was in such good shape because of all the work Stern put in to get it there.
Don Larsen, meanwhile, will always be remembered for one signature moment. In the long, storied history of the New York Yankees, Larsen did something that stands out above the rest. In fact, it's a signature moment in baseball history. He threw a perfect game in the 1956 World Series. He didn't even know he was pitching that day until he saw a ball in his shoe when he got to the clubhouse. Little did anybody know, Larsen would earn a permanent place in baseball history that afternoon.
The team released a statement on Wednesday night acknowledging Larsen's status as a franchise icon: "Don's perfect game is a defining moment for our franchise, encapsulating a storied era of Yankees success and ranking among the best single-game performances in Major League Baseball history. The unmitigated joy reflected in his embrace with Yogi Berra after the final out will forever hold a secure place in Yankees lore. It was the pinnacle of baseball success and a reminder of the incredible, unforgettable things that can take place on a baseball field."
Whenever people go to the Yankee Museum, the first thing they want to check out is the "ball wall," which has autographed baseballs of almost everyone ever associated with the Yankees organization. The "ball wall" is 60 feet, 6 inches long, the exact distance between the pitcher's mound and home plate. At one end is a statue of Don Larsen, at the other is a statue of Yogi Berra. They change out the balls from time to time, but Larsen's has never moved and never will. It's in position 1A, as if it's coming out of his right hand.
When MLB Network launched on January 1, 2009, the very first program aired on the network was the original broadcast of Larsen's perfect game. Whether or not it was intentional or just coincidence, on January 1, 2020, the day Larsen died, the YES Network showed David Cone's perfect game...when Larsen threw out the ceremonial first pitch to Yogi Berra, his catcher that day. Frankly, I can't think of a better way to close that circle. It's yet another beautiful connection between Don Larsen and history.
Yankees fans are well aware of the connection between the pitchers of the franchise's three perfect games. Larsen and David Wells attended the same high school, Point Loma in San Diego. And Larsen, of course, threw out the first pitch on "Yogi Berra Day" at Yankee Stadium, when Cone ended up joining their fraternity as the author of the third Yankee perfect game.
There's a great picture of the three of them together from the final game at the Old Yankee Stadium. That club only has three members, and they all appreciated their place in it. It's why Wells and Cone always treated Larsen with reverence whenever they were together. It's why Yankees fans treated Larsen with such reverence, too.
Even as he became advanced in age and became weaker physically, Larsen was a fixture at Old Timer's Day almost every year. And he would draw among the loudest cheers. It'll be weird to not hear his name introduced and see him get that ovation this year.
Regardless, Don Larsen won't easily be forgotten. He'll always hold a special place in Yankees (and baseball) history. And rightfully so. There have only been 23 perfect games in MLB history, and he threw one in the World Series! Not bad for a journeyman pitcher with an 81-91 career record who had one incredible afternoon 63 years ago.
David Stern's impact on the NBA cannot be overstated. He took over as commissioner of a struggling league in 1984. When he retired 30 years later, it was a global behemoth. That growth can be attributed almost entirely to Stern. He was an ahead-of-his-time visionary who, along with Pete Rozelle, is right there on the short list of greatest commissioners ever in the history of the four major sports.
Stern saw the big picture. He knew that the NBA's value was in its stars, and he knew how to market them. He became commissioner in Michael Jordan's rookie year. It's no coincidence that the NBA's rise started in the mid-80s, with Jordan, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird leading the way. Star players playing on good teams in big cities. The Lakers-Celtics rivalry helped the NBA takeoff, and that train hasn't stopped rolling since.
But David Stern was so much more than that. He instituted the Draft Lottery, guaranteeing every non-playoff team a chance at the top pick. He saw the value in new markets, adding six teams to the league, including the NBA's first two Canadian franchises. He started the WNBA, which is entering its 24th season in 2020. He spearheaded the creation of the NBA Development League, now the G-League, a minor league that provides domestic opportunities for players who otherwise would've had to go overseas in order to continue their careers.
Speaking of overseas, the influx of international talent into the NBA is yet another example of David Stern's massive impact. He was one of the driving forces between the greatest and most important basketball team ever assembled, the Dream Team at the 1992 Olympics. The rest of the world got to see NBA stars on the international stage for the first time, and it didn't take very long for them to catch up.
Now the NBA is a truly global league. Under Stern, there were nearly 150 international games, and NBA games were broadcast in more than 200 countries and more than 40 languages. And that's not even mentioning the domestic TV deals, first with NBC, then with current partners TNT and ESPN/ABC. When he started, CBS was showing NBA playoff games on tape delay. Today, Finals games are shown live in countless countries and the league has its own TV network.
It was his idea to take the All-Star Game to Las Vegas in 2007. Which worked (proving Las Vegas is a viable major league market). It was his idea to play the 2010 All-Star Game at Jerry World, which set an attendance record of more than 108,000 fans.
Adam Silver, Stern's successor as commissioner, released a beautiful tribute to his friend and mentor on the NBA website. Stern knew he was leaving the NBA in good hands. And Silver knew that the NBA was in such good shape because of all the work Stern put in to get it there.
Don Larsen, meanwhile, will always be remembered for one signature moment. In the long, storied history of the New York Yankees, Larsen did something that stands out above the rest. In fact, it's a signature moment in baseball history. He threw a perfect game in the 1956 World Series. He didn't even know he was pitching that day until he saw a ball in his shoe when he got to the clubhouse. Little did anybody know, Larsen would earn a permanent place in baseball history that afternoon.
The team released a statement on Wednesday night acknowledging Larsen's status as a franchise icon: "Don's perfect game is a defining moment for our franchise, encapsulating a storied era of Yankees success and ranking among the best single-game performances in Major League Baseball history. The unmitigated joy reflected in his embrace with Yogi Berra after the final out will forever hold a secure place in Yankees lore. It was the pinnacle of baseball success and a reminder of the incredible, unforgettable things that can take place on a baseball field."
Whenever people go to the Yankee Museum, the first thing they want to check out is the "ball wall," which has autographed baseballs of almost everyone ever associated with the Yankees organization. The "ball wall" is 60 feet, 6 inches long, the exact distance between the pitcher's mound and home plate. At one end is a statue of Don Larsen, at the other is a statue of Yogi Berra. They change out the balls from time to time, but Larsen's has never moved and never will. It's in position 1A, as if it's coming out of his right hand.
When MLB Network launched on January 1, 2009, the very first program aired on the network was the original broadcast of Larsen's perfect game. Whether or not it was intentional or just coincidence, on January 1, 2020, the day Larsen died, the YES Network showed David Cone's perfect game...when Larsen threw out the ceremonial first pitch to Yogi Berra, his catcher that day. Frankly, I can't think of a better way to close that circle. It's yet another beautiful connection between Don Larsen and history.
Yankees fans are well aware of the connection between the pitchers of the franchise's three perfect games. Larsen and David Wells attended the same high school, Point Loma in San Diego. And Larsen, of course, threw out the first pitch on "Yogi Berra Day" at Yankee Stadium, when Cone ended up joining their fraternity as the author of the third Yankee perfect game.
There's a great picture of the three of them together from the final game at the Old Yankee Stadium. That club only has three members, and they all appreciated their place in it. It's why Wells and Cone always treated Larsen with reverence whenever they were together. It's why Yankees fans treated Larsen with such reverence, too.
Even as he became advanced in age and became weaker physically, Larsen was a fixture at Old Timer's Day almost every year. And he would draw among the loudest cheers. It'll be weird to not hear his name introduced and see him get that ovation this year.
Regardless, Don Larsen won't easily be forgotten. He'll always hold a special place in Yankees (and baseball) history. And rightfully so. There have only been 23 perfect games in MLB history, and he threw one in the World Series! Not bad for a journeyman pitcher with an 81-91 career record who had one incredible afternoon 63 years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)