Before I start, I'd like to reiterate that my preseason pick to win the World Series was the Dodgers. I could've sworn I said Dodgers-Tigers back in March, but I just went back and checked it and saw that I actually had Detroit losing to Texas in the ALCS. Whoops! (For the record, I correctly called four of the five NL teams, missing only with the Braves, who I had instead of the Pirates, but only went 2-for-5 in the AL, hitting with Anaheim and Detroit.)
Anyway, I meant to say Dodgers-Tigers six months ago, and I don't see any reason to go any different way now. I simply think LA and Detroit are the two best teams...and they're both built for October. So, instead of leading up to the big reveal, the World Series pick came at the beginning. As for how I think the rest of October will go...
AL Wild Card: The Royals are such a great story. It's so good to see them in the playoffs for the first time in nearly 30 years. As for the A's, it's almost too generous to say they limped into the playoffs (I can't say into October, since they technically might not even make it to October). I guess that's what they get for preparing for the playoffs in July and trading their cleanup hitter for absolutely no reason. At least they're not going to have to worry about losing Game 5 to the Tigers! Speaking of trading Cespedes, Jon Lester gets the ball in the Wild Card Game. This is why Oakland got him. But Kansas City is countering with James Shields, which is the reason they got him. Combine that with an absolutely electric crowd and a team that actually played well down the stretch, and I think we see the Royals moving on to play the Angels.
ALDS: Kansas City winning the Wild Card Game would be good for the Angels. Because I think Oakland is more inclined to give Anaheim a series than the Royals would be. That assessment is based simply on pitching depth. That Oakland rotation is probably better than Anaheim's, which has very little behind Jered Weaver and C.J. Wilson (especially with Garrett Richards out). The Royals, though, wouldn't be able to use Shields until Game 3. Regardless, the Angels are better than both the Royals and the A's, so I think they win the series either way. Let's say they sweep Kansas City or beat Oakland in four.
Tigers-Orioles is interesting. Because Detroit's strength is its pitching and Baltimore's strength is its hitting. I don't care that the Tigers won "only" 90 games or that they're starting the series on the road. They're built for the postseason, even more so that they have David Price now. Their rotation is so deep that Anibal Sanchez will likely head to the bullpen in the playoffs. Baltimore led the Majors in home runs and was the kings of the walk-off (maybe that was just against the Yankees), but runs are always harder to come by in the playoffs. The Tigers have won a Game 5 in Oakland in each of the last two years. This year Game 5's in Baltimore, but I don't see the result changing.
ALCS: It's in the ALCS that the Angels' pitching will hurt them. Because the Tigers have a definite advantage in that department. Plus, an Angels-Tigers ALCS would give us the added fun of Cabrera vs. Trout live on the field. This is the Angels team everyone was expecting when they got out and signed Albert and Josh Hamilton. But you also have a sense that the Tigers know their window is closing. They've won four straight division titles, but only been to the World Series once (and got swept). And if they don't go this year, I have a feeling they might blow the whole thing up this offseason, when Max Scherzer will be a free agent. Plus, I'd really like to see Torii Hunter in the World Series. As for a number of games, let's play it safe and say Tigers in six.
NL Wild Card: I'd love to say I see the Pirates doing the trick two years in a row, but I honestly can't. Pittsburgh burned Gerrit Cole on Sunday, while San Francisco is riding its horse, Madison Bumgarner. The Pirates have been the better team since the All-Star Break, but the Giants are probably the better team overall. I'm Bumgarner wasn't pitching, I'd probably say Pittsburgh, but his presence on the mound gives the edge to San Francisco. Besides, it's an even-numbered year. The Giants win the World Series in even years.
NLDS: If any team in the National League is going to stop the Dodgers, it'll be the Nationals. Washington's better than it was two years ago, when they got upset by the Cardinals in the Division Series. Jordan Zimmermann was an All-Star who threw a no-hitter yesterday...and he's their Game 3 starter. It's an uphill climb for whoever comes out of that Wild Card Game. Neither one of them has the horses to hang with the Nationals. San Francisco probably has a better chance with Bumgarner and Tim Hudson, but I think Washington has a pretty easy time with either one. Nationals in four.
You know the Dodgers wanted home field very, very badly. If only because it meant playing the wild card winner instead of the Cardinals. LA was better than St. Louis last year, but the Cardinals won the NLCS. On the other hand, that might be a good thing. Because Clayton Kershaw wasn't very good in that series, and the last thing St. Louis needs is the best pitcher in baseball to have extra motivation. St. Louis is throwing Wainwright against him in Games 1 & 5, and the Cardinals annoyingly win in the playoffs every year. If you want to get them, you're better off facing them in a five-game series. And with Kershaw and Greinke throwing three of those five games, I like the Dodgers' odds of doing just that. LA in five.
NLCS: This was my preseason call for NLCS, and they're far and away the two best teams in the National League. I hope it happens, too. Because it has the potential to be an epic playoff series. (And because it would finally end the San Francisco-St. Louis back-and-forth cycle.) They've both got excellent pitching, they've both got excellent hitting, and they've both got pretty good stories. The Expos/Nationals franchise has never been to the World Series (one of only two teams that hasn't), while, amazingly, it's been 26 years since the Dodgers have been there. Like the Tigers, the Dodgers have come agonizingly close over the past few seasons, only to come up short. Not this year. By just a hair, I'll take Kershaw, Greinke, Hanley and Puig over Strasburg, Gio, Harper and the Zimmerman(n)s. Dodgers in seven.
World Series: Justin Verlander deserves a chance to get back to the World Series and finally earn a win on baseball's biggest stage. He's 0-3 all-time in the Fall Classic, and the Tigers won just one game against the Cardinals (2006) and Giants (2012). Verlander was the best pitcher in baseball a few years ago. Now that title belongs to Clayton Kershaw. And, regardless of what the final standings said, the Los Angeles Dodgers are the best, most complete team in baseball. For both the Dodgers and Tigers, it's World Series or bust. Unfortunately, only one of them can win. I've thought all season that the Los Angeles Dodgers would be that team. Not only do the Dodgers have the dominant starting pitching, they have an advantage none of the other National League teams would have in the World Series. Their four outfielder problem won't be a problem in the World Series. Because all four of them can play. Insert Ethier at DH and the lineup becomes that much deeper. The Tigers, meanwhile, would definitely be hurt by the lack of a DH at Dodger Stadium. Because they'd have to figure out a place to put Victor Martinez (left field?) or lose his bat entirely. That's enough to make a difference. The Dodgers win the World Series. In six.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Saturday, September 27, 2014
The Rest of Week 4
I've got a bone to pick with the NFL. Every team gets a Thursday night game. I get that. I'm fine with that. So, why then, knowing the baseball schedule and knowing that Derek Jeter's final home game was going to be on Thursday night, did they schedule the Giants' Thursday night game opposite Jeter's Yankee Stadium finale? Why couldn't the Thursday night game be Cincinnati-Cleveland or another matchup New Yorkers don't care about? No! Instead they make us choose between Derek Jeter and the Giants. Not cool.
Anyway, rant over. At least the Giants won, making 3-for-3 in blowouts on Thursday nights (4-for-4 if you count Seahawks-Packers, but I'm only talking about CBS Thursday night games here). You know what, rant not over. Because this week is the start of byes and I can't, for the life of me, figure out why there are six. You made it a point to have eight divisions of four, so why aren't there four byes each week for eight weeks? Instead you've got a couple weeks with six, a couple weeks with two and a couple weeks with four. It makes no sense! And, as a result of the six byes, there are only 10 games on Sunday afternoon this week.
Thursday Night: Giants (Win)
Packers (1-2) at Bears (2-1): Chicago-What's wrong with the Packers? That's the question a lot of people have been asking at this early point in the season. It's not time to worry about Green Bay yet, but those concerns do seem valid after barely beating the Jets at home and losing to the Lions (without putting up much of a fight). Chicago has recovered since that Opening Day loss to Buffalo, but the Bears won't have the national spotlight shining on them this week. Regardless, Jay Cutler is my backup fantasy quarterback who I'm starting this week during the Broncos' bye, so I need another big game from him and the Bears offense.
Titans (1-2) at Colts (1-2): Indianapolis-See, all it took was playing a division game for the Colts' offense to look like the Colts' offense. They play another one this week. Look for the Colts to be 2-2 and right back in the thick of the AFC South race.
Dolphins (1-2) vs. Raiders (0-3): Miami-The first of three London games this year, and this is rough trip for Oakland, which is the "home" team in this one despite it taking place more than 5000 miles away...and at 10:00 in the morning local time. What makes the trip worse for the Raiders is that they were in New England last week...so they haven't been in California since last Friday. Oh, and did I mention the Raiders aren't good? Yeah, all signs point to a Dolphins victory.
Lions (2-1) at Jets (1-2): Detroit-Detroit and the Jets. Not sure what to make of this one. The Lions are probably a little better than I think, and the Jets certainly aren't as good as they think. They almost beat the Packers, then came close against the Bears, and I forget who the Jets player was that said it, but he blamed both losses on the officials (even though another Jets score would've only tied each game). I wonder whose fault it'll be when the Lions win 27-10.
Buccaneers (0-3) at Steelers (2-1): Pittsburgh-The Bucs have had plenty of time to recover from last Thursday night's shellacking at the hands of the Falcons. Tampa Bay's one of only three winless teams, joining Jacksonville and Oakland. A trip to Pittsburgh doesn't improve their chances of finally breaking into the win column.
Panthers (2-1) at Ravens (2-1): Carolina-One of the better games of this week involves two of the three teams most embroiled in the NFL's domestic violence problems. They both seem to have weathered the storm to an extent, although Carolina's defense certainly had its flaws exposed last week against the Steelers. Even with the game in Baltimore, I think the Panthers rebound and get the W this week. Cam Newton will get it done.
Bills (2-1) at Texans (2-1): Houston-Both of these teams suffered their first loss last week, the Bills falling to San Diego and Houston getting its butts kicked by the Giants. The Texans haven't been home since Week 1, so you can bet they're chomping at the bit to get back to Reliant Stadium. And they've got J.J. Watt. With a victory, Houston will be the first team in the NFL to better last season's win total.
Jaguars (0-3) at Chargers (2-1): San Diego-If we've learned anything about the Jaguars over the first three weeks of the season, it's that their defense is still terrible. I'm not sure their offense is much better, either, but at least they're scoring points this season. Regardless, they're not flying cross country and winning in San Diego.
Falcons (2-1) at Vikings (1-2): Atlanta-Matt Cassel broke his leg and is out for the year, which means the Vikings are Teddy Bridgewater's team now. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Because Bridgewater's going to be the quarterback as the Vikings begin life without Adrian Peterson, and life without Adrian Peterson begins now. Because he's not coming back. At least not this season. And the Vikings have absolutely no clue what they're doing without Adrian Peterson.
Eagles (3-0) at 49ers (1-2): San Francisco-Philadelphia's the only undefeated team in action this week, and they've got a tough trip to Santa Clara for a matchup with a 49ers squad that's desperate for a win. This really is almost a must-game for San Francisco after back-to-back losses to Chicago and Arizona. When the 49ers' backs are against the wall, they tend to play well. I don't see that changing this week, and we'll only have two undefeated teams by Sunday night.
Saints (1-2) at Cowboys (2-1): New Orleans-Speaking of Sunday night, this should be a fun one between New Orleans and Dallas. The Saints finally got their first win last week against Minnesota, while Dallas made that amazing comeback after falling behind 21-0 in St. Louis. The Cowboys are 2-1, and both of their victories came on the road, but they beat two teams that aren't the caliber of New Orleans. Now that the Saints finally have a win, I think they're just getting going.
Patriots (2-1) at Chiefs (1-2): New England-The Royals are going to the playoffs! Congratulations to them. They'll probably be hosting the AL Wild Card Game on Tuesday night. As for the Chiefs' game across the parking lot on Monday night, I don't see it going very well for the home team. They are, after all, playing the Patriots.
BYE: Arizona (3-0), Cincinnati (3-0), Cleveland (1-2), Denver (2-1), Seattle (2-1), St. Louis (1-2)
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-5
Season: 30-19
Anyway, rant over. At least the Giants won, making 3-for-3 in blowouts on Thursday nights (4-for-4 if you count Seahawks-Packers, but I'm only talking about CBS Thursday night games here). You know what, rant not over. Because this week is the start of byes and I can't, for the life of me, figure out why there are six. You made it a point to have eight divisions of four, so why aren't there four byes each week for eight weeks? Instead you've got a couple weeks with six, a couple weeks with two and a couple weeks with four. It makes no sense! And, as a result of the six byes, there are only 10 games on Sunday afternoon this week.
Thursday Night: Giants (Win)
Packers (1-2) at Bears (2-1): Chicago-What's wrong with the Packers? That's the question a lot of people have been asking at this early point in the season. It's not time to worry about Green Bay yet, but those concerns do seem valid after barely beating the Jets at home and losing to the Lions (without putting up much of a fight). Chicago has recovered since that Opening Day loss to Buffalo, but the Bears won't have the national spotlight shining on them this week. Regardless, Jay Cutler is my backup fantasy quarterback who I'm starting this week during the Broncos' bye, so I need another big game from him and the Bears offense.
Titans (1-2) at Colts (1-2): Indianapolis-See, all it took was playing a division game for the Colts' offense to look like the Colts' offense. They play another one this week. Look for the Colts to be 2-2 and right back in the thick of the AFC South race.
Dolphins (1-2) vs. Raiders (0-3): Miami-The first of three London games this year, and this is rough trip for Oakland, which is the "home" team in this one despite it taking place more than 5000 miles away...and at 10:00 in the morning local time. What makes the trip worse for the Raiders is that they were in New England last week...so they haven't been in California since last Friday. Oh, and did I mention the Raiders aren't good? Yeah, all signs point to a Dolphins victory.
Lions (2-1) at Jets (1-2): Detroit-Detroit and the Jets. Not sure what to make of this one. The Lions are probably a little better than I think, and the Jets certainly aren't as good as they think. They almost beat the Packers, then came close against the Bears, and I forget who the Jets player was that said it, but he blamed both losses on the officials (even though another Jets score would've only tied each game). I wonder whose fault it'll be when the Lions win 27-10.
Buccaneers (0-3) at Steelers (2-1): Pittsburgh-The Bucs have had plenty of time to recover from last Thursday night's shellacking at the hands of the Falcons. Tampa Bay's one of only three winless teams, joining Jacksonville and Oakland. A trip to Pittsburgh doesn't improve their chances of finally breaking into the win column.
Panthers (2-1) at Ravens (2-1): Carolina-One of the better games of this week involves two of the three teams most embroiled in the NFL's domestic violence problems. They both seem to have weathered the storm to an extent, although Carolina's defense certainly had its flaws exposed last week against the Steelers. Even with the game in Baltimore, I think the Panthers rebound and get the W this week. Cam Newton will get it done.
Bills (2-1) at Texans (2-1): Houston-Both of these teams suffered their first loss last week, the Bills falling to San Diego and Houston getting its butts kicked by the Giants. The Texans haven't been home since Week 1, so you can bet they're chomping at the bit to get back to Reliant Stadium. And they've got J.J. Watt. With a victory, Houston will be the first team in the NFL to better last season's win total.
Jaguars (0-3) at Chargers (2-1): San Diego-If we've learned anything about the Jaguars over the first three weeks of the season, it's that their defense is still terrible. I'm not sure their offense is much better, either, but at least they're scoring points this season. Regardless, they're not flying cross country and winning in San Diego.
Falcons (2-1) at Vikings (1-2): Atlanta-Matt Cassel broke his leg and is out for the year, which means the Vikings are Teddy Bridgewater's team now. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Because Bridgewater's going to be the quarterback as the Vikings begin life without Adrian Peterson, and life without Adrian Peterson begins now. Because he's not coming back. At least not this season. And the Vikings have absolutely no clue what they're doing without Adrian Peterson.
Eagles (3-0) at 49ers (1-2): San Francisco-Philadelphia's the only undefeated team in action this week, and they've got a tough trip to Santa Clara for a matchup with a 49ers squad that's desperate for a win. This really is almost a must-game for San Francisco after back-to-back losses to Chicago and Arizona. When the 49ers' backs are against the wall, they tend to play well. I don't see that changing this week, and we'll only have two undefeated teams by Sunday night.
Saints (1-2) at Cowboys (2-1): New Orleans-Speaking of Sunday night, this should be a fun one between New Orleans and Dallas. The Saints finally got their first win last week against Minnesota, while Dallas made that amazing comeback after falling behind 21-0 in St. Louis. The Cowboys are 2-1, and both of their victories came on the road, but they beat two teams that aren't the caliber of New Orleans. Now that the Saints finally have a win, I think they're just getting going.
Patriots (2-1) at Chiefs (1-2): New England-The Royals are going to the playoffs! Congratulations to them. They'll probably be hosting the AL Wild Card Game on Tuesday night. As for the Chiefs' game across the parking lot on Monday night, I don't see it going very well for the home team. They are, after all, playing the Patriots.
BYE: Arizona (3-0), Cincinnati (3-0), Cleveland (1-2), Denver (2-1), Seattle (2-1), St. Louis (1-2)
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-5
Season: 30-19
Friday, September 26, 2014
A Finish 2 Remember
Of course Derek was going to do something memorable in his final game at Yankee Stadium. Is anyone surprised? If there's one guy who you know is always going to rise to the occasion and do something special, it's Derek Jeter.
His Yankee Stadium farewell is certainly going to go down as one of those classic Jeter Moments, and you know this game is going to be seen on Yankees Classics sooner rather than later. Just like a bunch of Derek's other classic games. This one will definitely be taking a prominent place in the memory bank. We'll never see another player like Derek Jeter, and we never will again. And I'm choosing not to be sad. I'm choosing to celebrate the career of the last Yankee ever to wear a single-digit number.
The Derek memories are vast, and everyone has their favorites and their reasons why. For example, the Flip Play is one of his signature moments. But I, personally, hate the Flip Play. I think it's incredibly overrated. Every time I see it, it annoys me. Because every time I sit there yelling "Slide!" (Think about it, if Jeremy Giambi slides like he's supposed to, that play never happens.) Anyway, here are my favorite Jeter Moments, in no particular order, with today's game jumping right onto that list.
All of those moments were great in their own right, but I have a favorite that stands out above the rest. The date was July 1, 2004. It was the height of the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. The game was an absolute classic. John Flaherty, the last man on the bench, ended it with a walk-off single in the 13th. Flaherty was batting in Jeter's lineup spot. Jeter was out of the game because, in the top of the 12th, he made a running catch to end the inning, and crashed face-first into the box seats along the third base line. He emerged with the ball, bleeding from his cheek, and he probably would've stayed in if he wasn't due up second in the bottom of the 12th.
Of all the memories Derek Jeter provided us Yankees fans over the years. Twenty seasons, five championships, seven pennants, more than 3700 hits, there's no one like No. 2. Not even close. The Face of the Yankees, the Face of Baseball, one of the classiest men ever to play the game. He will be missed.
His Yankee Stadium farewell is certainly going to go down as one of those classic Jeter Moments, and you know this game is going to be seen on Yankees Classics sooner rather than later. Just like a bunch of Derek's other classic games. This one will definitely be taking a prominent place in the memory bank. We'll never see another player like Derek Jeter, and we never will again. And I'm choosing not to be sad. I'm choosing to celebrate the career of the last Yankee ever to wear a single-digit number.
The Derek memories are vast, and everyone has their favorites and their reasons why. For example, the Flip Play is one of his signature moments. But I, personally, hate the Flip Play. I think it's incredibly overrated. Every time I see it, it annoys me. Because every time I sit there yelling "Slide!" (Think about it, if Jeremy Giambi slides like he's supposed to, that play never happens.) Anyway, here are my favorite Jeter Moments, in no particular order, with today's game jumping right onto that list.
- Opening Day, 1996: His first day as the Yankees starting shortstop. His rookie year, Opening Day in Cleveland. And Derek goes yard. It was just the start of something special.
- Mr. November: It took Tino Martinez to set it up, but in Game 4 of the 2001 World Series, we had November baseball for the first time in history. And it didn't take long for Derek to become "Mr. November," belting a walk-off homer in the bottom of the 10th to tie the series.
- 3000: Derek sure had a flare for the dramatic didn't he? Why wouldn't his 3000th hit be a home run? And why wouldn't it come off a brand-name pitcher like David Price? As Michael Kay said on YES that day, "History, with an exclamation point!"
- The Farewell Speech: When the Yankees closed the Old Stadium, you knew it was going to be special. (They played the Orioles in that one, too. Baltimore picks good years to end the season in the Bronx.) When the game ended in a Yankees win, with all of the stars through the years there, you knew there was going to be one last magic moment. And that moment wasn't even a play. It was The Captain speaking for all those generations of Yankees, taking the microphone and thanking the fans.
- Mariano's Farewell: Did he draw some inspiration from seeing his friend and fellow Core Four member hang it up last season? I think so. Derek's goodbye was completely different, but his role in Mariano's was equally special. Derek and Andy Pettitte came out of the dugout to take Rivera out of the game, Derek told Mo, "It's time to go," and Rivera wept on Pettitte's shoulder.
- Game 4, 2000 World Series: The Mets had won Game 3 to get back in the series, but Derek sent a message leading off Game 4, sending a blast over the left field wall at Shea Stadium. The Yankees won the game to go up 3-1, then clinched their third straight title a night later. And Derek was named World Series MVP after hitting .409 in the five games.
- Breaking Lou Gehrig's Yankees Hits Record: It was probably the first great moment at the New Stadium. On September 11, 2009, Derek hit one of his trademark inside-out singles to the opposite field for his 2,721st career hit, breaking Lou Gehrig's franchise record.
- Breaking Gehrig's Yankee Stadium Hits Record: A year earlier, Derek broke another one of Gehrig's records. On the Yankees' final homestand at the Old Stadium, Derek rose to the top. In the 85-year history of the Old Yankee Stadium, with all the Hall of Famers and baseball legends that have worn Yankees pinstripes in that time, no one had more hits than Derek Jeter.
- His Final All-Star Game: To all the idiots who said that Jeter didn't deserve to be on the AL All-Star Team this year, you simply don't get it. Yes, he deserved to be there. And yes, he deserved to start. And the ending John Farrell gave him was perfect, too. He went out to his position in the top of the fourth, only to have Alexei Ramirez of the White Sox come in before the inning started so Derek could get the ovation he richly deserved. (It reminded me a little of the 1999 All-Star Game in Boston, when he started, then gave way to Nomar.)
- Jeffrey Maier: It's weird that a lot of Derek's memorable plays have come against the Orioles, isn't it? This one, of course, is his walk-off home run in Game 1 of the 1996 ALCS that was "helped" over the fence by the 12-year-old Jeffrey Maier. The Yankees won the series in five, and a dynasty was born.
- His First Hit: Honestly, I don't actually remember his first hit. It was in May of 1995. I was 13 years old. And the game was in Seattle, so I was probably in bed when it happened. But it was the first of many. Only five men in history have had more.
- His First Grand Slam: For years, every time he came up with the bases loaded, they'd throw up that stat saying how many at-bats he had without a grand slam. It was getting to the point where it was ridiculous. Until 2003. When the Yankees were playing the Cubs at the Old Stadium and Derek finally got rid of that zero, crushing one to left center for his only career grand slam.
- Tonight: Yes, it goes on the list. How could it not? It was a very Jeterian ending. Just like a single through the hole to right field or a leaping throw from the outfield grass to nab a runner at first.
- Homering In His Return From the DL Last Season: The 2013 season is one Derek would love to forget. It was completely derailed by injuries. But that didn't stop Derek from producing a very Jeter moment in one of the few games he did play. The first pitch of his first game back from one of his many DL stints, and he hits one out.
- His Last Home Run: At least I hope it's his last. This one is a little more personal for me...because I was sitting in the stands last Thursday against Toronto when he belted his only Yankee Stadium home run of the year. The best part was I got it on video.
All of those moments were great in their own right, but I have a favorite that stands out above the rest. The date was July 1, 2004. It was the height of the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. The game was an absolute classic. John Flaherty, the last man on the bench, ended it with a walk-off single in the 13th. Flaherty was batting in Jeter's lineup spot. Jeter was out of the game because, in the top of the 12th, he made a running catch to end the inning, and crashed face-first into the box seats along the third base line. He emerged with the ball, bleeding from his cheek, and he probably would've stayed in if he wasn't due up second in the bottom of the 12th.
Of all the memories Derek Jeter provided us Yankees fans over the years. Twenty seasons, five championships, seven pennants, more than 3700 hits, there's no one like No. 2. Not even close. The Face of the Yankees, the Face of Baseball, one of the classiest men ever to play the game. He will be missed.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
The Asian/Pacific Games?
Currently taking place a long way away from here (Incheon, South Korea to be exact) and a long way from Americans' collective radar are the Asian Games, the largest international multi-sports event in the world outside the Olympics. This is a very interesting time for the Asian Games. Incheon spent millions, and Hanoi, Vietnam, which was supposed to host the next edition in 2019 pulled out as host due to the cost. Instead, the next edition was moved up to 2018, and Jakarta, Indonesia has been announced as the replacement host.
But, the hosting issues aside, the most interesting news coming out of the Asian Games is that they might not be the "Asian" Games much longer. Or, I should say, just the Asian Games. They've already approved letting the countries from Oceania participate in the Asian Indoor Games, and you'd have to figure participation in the Asian Winter Games, as well as the Asian Games themselves isn't far behind.
I have to say, that makes a lot of sense for everyone involved. When we say "Oceania," we of course mean Australia and, to a lesser extent, New Zealand. Tuvalu and Palau and Fiji and all those other Pacific islands would obviously be included, too, but they're not the reason this is being discussed. This is being discussed because the Asian Games sees the value of adding Australia. And Australia would undoubtedly benefit from the increased competition they often fail to get in regional events, where New Zealand is usually the only nation that's remotely close to the same class.
That overall lack of competition is the main reason why the Australian soccer team left Oceania for Asia following the 2006 World Cup. That move has paid off very nicely. Australia has qualified for the last two World Cups and become one of the top teams in the region. New Zealand, meanwhile, which became the top team in Oceania by default, languishes in the 50s with its world ranking, and its World Cup chances are left to a playoff against another region, which is obviously going to be a very strong opponent (they drew Bahrain in 2010 and won, but lost to Mexico in 2014).
For Australia and New Zealand, being stuck in regional competition with all the small Pacific islands doesn't help them when it comes to bigger events and the opponents are obviously significantly stronger. It also doesn't help them that the populations of countries like Tonga and Kiribati are so small that they can't even field a team in a lot of sports.
And forget about winter sports. There's no competitive forum for Australian winter athletes other than the worldwide international events. Despite this significant obstacle, Australia's winter sports programs have gotten significantly stronger. They sent 60 athletes to Sochi and won three medals, the sixth straight Winter Olympics in which Australia won at least one medal. (In fact, it was the first time since 1998 that Australia didn't win at least one gold at a Winter Olympics.)
Asia and Oceania being combined in sporting competition isn't unprecedented. The IAAF Continental Cup just ended, and Asia/Pacific was a combined squad. (So were the Americas for that matter.) And from a competitive standpoint, it would obviously help Australia, but you'd have to think it would also help the Asian athletes to have Australia there, even if it means there'd be less medals available to some of the smaller Asian countries.
Most importantly, it makes financial sense for the Olympic Council of Asia, which runs the Asian Games. Australia is a first-world nation that obviously has a very strong economy. Incheon's going extremely over-budget and the Hanoi situation has made it clear that some of these smaller Asian nations simply can't afford to host these events. Australia would have no problem taking on those costs, and there are plenty of Australian cities that would make capable hosts of an Asian Games or similar event.
With the next two Olympics after Rio taking place in Asia (and two of the three finalists for 2022 also being from Asia), as well as the 2018 World Cup currently scheduled for Qatar, it's clear that Asian nations are willing to take on the highest-profile events. But the Asian Games are a different story. Adding Oceania could raise their profile, especially given how much Australians love their sports.
Who knows, maybe adding Oceania to the Asian Games would lead to a greater cooperation between the two regions. Maybe it would even result in Asia/Oceania eventually merging into a single confederation across the board. The way I see it, that would benefit everybody.
But, the hosting issues aside, the most interesting news coming out of the Asian Games is that they might not be the "Asian" Games much longer. Or, I should say, just the Asian Games. They've already approved letting the countries from Oceania participate in the Asian Indoor Games, and you'd have to figure participation in the Asian Winter Games, as well as the Asian Games themselves isn't far behind.
I have to say, that makes a lot of sense for everyone involved. When we say "Oceania," we of course mean Australia and, to a lesser extent, New Zealand. Tuvalu and Palau and Fiji and all those other Pacific islands would obviously be included, too, but they're not the reason this is being discussed. This is being discussed because the Asian Games sees the value of adding Australia. And Australia would undoubtedly benefit from the increased competition they often fail to get in regional events, where New Zealand is usually the only nation that's remotely close to the same class.
That overall lack of competition is the main reason why the Australian soccer team left Oceania for Asia following the 2006 World Cup. That move has paid off very nicely. Australia has qualified for the last two World Cups and become one of the top teams in the region. New Zealand, meanwhile, which became the top team in Oceania by default, languishes in the 50s with its world ranking, and its World Cup chances are left to a playoff against another region, which is obviously going to be a very strong opponent (they drew Bahrain in 2010 and won, but lost to Mexico in 2014).
For Australia and New Zealand, being stuck in regional competition with all the small Pacific islands doesn't help them when it comes to bigger events and the opponents are obviously significantly stronger. It also doesn't help them that the populations of countries like Tonga and Kiribati are so small that they can't even field a team in a lot of sports.
And forget about winter sports. There's no competitive forum for Australian winter athletes other than the worldwide international events. Despite this significant obstacle, Australia's winter sports programs have gotten significantly stronger. They sent 60 athletes to Sochi and won three medals, the sixth straight Winter Olympics in which Australia won at least one medal. (In fact, it was the first time since 1998 that Australia didn't win at least one gold at a Winter Olympics.)
Asia and Oceania being combined in sporting competition isn't unprecedented. The IAAF Continental Cup just ended, and Asia/Pacific was a combined squad. (So were the Americas for that matter.) And from a competitive standpoint, it would obviously help Australia, but you'd have to think it would also help the Asian athletes to have Australia there, even if it means there'd be less medals available to some of the smaller Asian countries.
Most importantly, it makes financial sense for the Olympic Council of Asia, which runs the Asian Games. Australia is a first-world nation that obviously has a very strong economy. Incheon's going extremely over-budget and the Hanoi situation has made it clear that some of these smaller Asian nations simply can't afford to host these events. Australia would have no problem taking on those costs, and there are plenty of Australian cities that would make capable hosts of an Asian Games or similar event.
With the next two Olympics after Rio taking place in Asia (and two of the three finalists for 2022 also being from Asia), as well as the 2018 World Cup currently scheduled for Qatar, it's clear that Asian nations are willing to take on the highest-profile events. But the Asian Games are a different story. Adding Oceania could raise their profile, especially given how much Australians love their sports.
Who knows, maybe adding Oceania to the Asian Games would lead to a greater cooperation between the two regions. Maybe it would even result in Asia/Oceania eventually merging into a single confederation across the board. The way I see it, that would benefit everybody.
Sunday, September 21, 2014
The Best Sports Cities
ESPN The Magazine just released its annual list where it ranks all 122 teams in the four major sports. This list is pretty comprehensive. They take everything (I totally just felt like Stefon there) into account, from ticket prices to likeability of the players to how close they are to winning a championship.
The San Antonio Spurs had the best ranking in nine of ESPN's 18 categories and ended up in the top spot overall. I can't argue with that. The Spurs are a class organization that's well-run and obviously has a championship pedigree that I think can continue even after Tim Duncan finally retires (whenever that may be). The rest of the top five was the Ducks, Seahawks, Grizzlies and LA Kings.
On the opposite end of the spectrum was the Toronto Maple Leafs, who came in 122nd. Then there's the New York teams. We've got a lot of them here in the Big Apple. Eight teams across the four major sports, nine if you count the Devils. And four of those teams (the Jets, Mets, Islanders and Knicks) occupied spots between 113 and 121. At least it's diverse (one from each sport). It's not like it's much better for the higher-ranked New York teams, though. The highest was the Rangers at 70 (or the Devils at 47).
In fact, the big cities with multiple teams in multiple sports actually occupied a lot of the lower places, probably due in no small part to the ticket prices and the fans' perception of the players on those squads, which is much different than it is in, say, Oklahoma City.
It's fairly obvious that New York doesn't rank as the top overall sports city in the eyes of ESPN. But which city does? Well, I decided I was going to try and figure it out.
There are 12 cities that have at least one team in each of the four leagues (I'm counting the Sharks as part of San Francisco/Oakland for the sake of this exercise). LA, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Houston are among the cities/areas that are represented in three of the four (Milwaukee also counts if you include the Packers). Since Toronto is represented in three of the four sports, as well, they're also included.
I took ESPN's ranking for each team that plays in one of these cities, then divided by the number of pro teams that city has to come up with an average. The lowest average is the unofficial "Best Sports City In America."
So, how do the cities stack up? Let's see:
Cities In All Four Leagues
Dallas 45.5 (Number of Teams: 4-Rangers 54, Cowboys 107, Mavericks 9, Stars 12)
Phoenix 48.3 (Number of Teams: 4-Diamondbacks 30, Cardinals 58, Suns 64, Coyotes 41)
San Francisco 51.8 (Number of Teams: 6-Athletics 50, Giants 32, Raiders 119, 49ers 27, Warriors 52, Sharks 31)
Denver 55.5 (Number of Teams: 4-Rockies 91, Broncos 17, Nuggets 98, Avalanche 16)
Boston 57 (Number of Teams: 4-Red Sox 80, Patriots 43, Celtics 66, Bruins 39)
Chicago 62.8 (Number of Teams: 5-White Sox 57, Cubs 117, Bears 77, Bulls 53, Blackhawks 10)
Detroit 68.3 (Number of Teams: 4-Tigers 37, Lions 111, Pistons 105, Red Wings 20)
Minneapolis 75.8 (Number of Teams: 4-Twins 62, Vikings 103, Timberwolves 114, Wild 24)
Philadelphia 76.3 (Number of Teams: 4-Phillies 83, Eagles 69, 76ers 93, Flyers 60)
Washington 81.8 (Number of Teams: 4-Nationals 51, Redskins 109, Wizards 73, Capitals 94)
Miami 85 (Number of Teams: 4-Marlins 96, Dolphins 108, Heat 34, Panthers 102)
New York 91.8 (Number of Teams: 9-Yankees 86, Mets 118, Giants 79, Jets 113, Knicks 121, Nets 76, Rangers 70, Devils 47, Islanders 116)
Cities In Three Leagues
Pittsburgh 28.3 (Number of Teams: 3-Pirates 22, Steelers 38, Penguins 25)
Los Angeles 38.2 (Number of Teams: 6-Angels 15, Dodgers 61, Lakers 87, Clippers 59, Kings 5, Ducks 2)
St. Louis 39.3 (Number of Teams: 3-Cardinals 19, Rams 88, Blues 11)
Tampa 41.7 (Number of Teams: 3-Rays 35, Buccaneers 84, Lightning 6)
Milwaukee 50.3 (Number of Teams: 3-Brewers 23, Packers 8, Bucks 120)
Atlanta 53.3 (Number of Teams: 3-Braves 45, Falcons 67, Hawks 48)
Houston 72 (Number of Teams: 3-Astros 95, Texans 72, Rockets 49)
Cleveland 85.7 (Number of Teams: 3-Indians 46, Browns 110, Cavaliers 101)
Toronto 92.3 (Number of Teams: 3-Blue Jays 81, Raptors 74, Maple Leafs 122)
There you go, it's Pittsburgh. Which actually makes a lot of sense. Because all three teams are good, all three teams are likeable, and Pittsburgh's a blue-collar town, which means games have to be fun and affordable. Although, the top spot probably would've gone to LA if it wasn't being dragged down by the Lakers.
As for the four-sport cities, I'm a little surprised Dallas ended up on top. Another things the fans can thank Mark Cuban for, I guess. The Mavericks and Blackhawks are the only teams among the 56 that play in four-sport towns that ranked among ESPN's Top 10.
The San Antonio Spurs had the best ranking in nine of ESPN's 18 categories and ended up in the top spot overall. I can't argue with that. The Spurs are a class organization that's well-run and obviously has a championship pedigree that I think can continue even after Tim Duncan finally retires (whenever that may be). The rest of the top five was the Ducks, Seahawks, Grizzlies and LA Kings.
On the opposite end of the spectrum was the Toronto Maple Leafs, who came in 122nd. Then there's the New York teams. We've got a lot of them here in the Big Apple. Eight teams across the four major sports, nine if you count the Devils. And four of those teams (the Jets, Mets, Islanders and Knicks) occupied spots between 113 and 121. At least it's diverse (one from each sport). It's not like it's much better for the higher-ranked New York teams, though. The highest was the Rangers at 70 (or the Devils at 47).
In fact, the big cities with multiple teams in multiple sports actually occupied a lot of the lower places, probably due in no small part to the ticket prices and the fans' perception of the players on those squads, which is much different than it is in, say, Oklahoma City.
It's fairly obvious that New York doesn't rank as the top overall sports city in the eyes of ESPN. But which city does? Well, I decided I was going to try and figure it out.
There are 12 cities that have at least one team in each of the four leagues (I'm counting the Sharks as part of San Francisco/Oakland for the sake of this exercise). LA, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Houston are among the cities/areas that are represented in three of the four (Milwaukee also counts if you include the Packers). Since Toronto is represented in three of the four sports, as well, they're also included.
I took ESPN's ranking for each team that plays in one of these cities, then divided by the number of pro teams that city has to come up with an average. The lowest average is the unofficial "Best Sports City In America."
So, how do the cities stack up? Let's see:
Cities In All Four Leagues
Dallas 45.5 (Number of Teams: 4-Rangers 54, Cowboys 107, Mavericks 9, Stars 12)
Phoenix 48.3 (Number of Teams: 4-Diamondbacks 30, Cardinals 58, Suns 64, Coyotes 41)
San Francisco 51.8 (Number of Teams: 6-Athletics 50, Giants 32, Raiders 119, 49ers 27, Warriors 52, Sharks 31)
Denver 55.5 (Number of Teams: 4-Rockies 91, Broncos 17, Nuggets 98, Avalanche 16)
Boston 57 (Number of Teams: 4-Red Sox 80, Patriots 43, Celtics 66, Bruins 39)
Chicago 62.8 (Number of Teams: 5-White Sox 57, Cubs 117, Bears 77, Bulls 53, Blackhawks 10)
Detroit 68.3 (Number of Teams: 4-Tigers 37, Lions 111, Pistons 105, Red Wings 20)
Minneapolis 75.8 (Number of Teams: 4-Twins 62, Vikings 103, Timberwolves 114, Wild 24)
Philadelphia 76.3 (Number of Teams: 4-Phillies 83, Eagles 69, 76ers 93, Flyers 60)
Washington 81.8 (Number of Teams: 4-Nationals 51, Redskins 109, Wizards 73, Capitals 94)
Miami 85 (Number of Teams: 4-Marlins 96, Dolphins 108, Heat 34, Panthers 102)
New York 91.8 (Number of Teams: 9-Yankees 86, Mets 118, Giants 79, Jets 113, Knicks 121, Nets 76, Rangers 70, Devils 47, Islanders 116)
Cities In Three Leagues
Pittsburgh 28.3 (Number of Teams: 3-Pirates 22, Steelers 38, Penguins 25)
Los Angeles 38.2 (Number of Teams: 6-Angels 15, Dodgers 61, Lakers 87, Clippers 59, Kings 5, Ducks 2)
St. Louis 39.3 (Number of Teams: 3-Cardinals 19, Rams 88, Blues 11)
Tampa 41.7 (Number of Teams: 3-Rays 35, Buccaneers 84, Lightning 6)
Milwaukee 50.3 (Number of Teams: 3-Brewers 23, Packers 8, Bucks 120)
Atlanta 53.3 (Number of Teams: 3-Braves 45, Falcons 67, Hawks 48)
Houston 72 (Number of Teams: 3-Astros 95, Texans 72, Rockets 49)
Cleveland 85.7 (Number of Teams: 3-Indians 46, Browns 110, Cavaliers 101)
Toronto 92.3 (Number of Teams: 3-Blue Jays 81, Raptors 74, Maple Leafs 122)
There you go, it's Pittsburgh. Which actually makes a lot of sense. Because all three teams are good, all three teams are likeable, and Pittsburgh's a blue-collar town, which means games have to be fun and affordable. Although, the top spot probably would've gone to LA if it wasn't being dragged down by the Lakers.
As for the four-sport cities, I'm a little surprised Dallas ended up on top. Another things the fans can thank Mark Cuban for, I guess. The Mavericks and Blackhawks are the only teams among the 56 that play in four-sport towns that ranked among ESPN's Top 10.
Saturday, September 20, 2014
The Rest of Week 3
So...that Thursday night game was really close, huh? It kind of reminded me of the Super Bowl. Speaking of the Super Bowl, rematches in the following regular season just don't happen that often. In fact, this is the first time in 17 years that we're getting one. It's a little weird that it isn't the Sunday night game (and Steelers-Panthers is). Regardless, Broncos-Seahawks is obviously the game of the week.
Thursday Night: Atlanta (Win)
Chargers (1-1) at Bills (2-0): San Diego-How 'bout them first place Buffalo Bills?! I'm going to enjoy it while it lasts. Because I don't expect it to last much longer. Especially with the way San Diego played in knocking off Seattle last week. The Chargers are simply a better team than the Bills. Although, they are a West Coast team flying cross-country for a 1:00 game.
Titans (1-1) at Bengals (2-0): Cincinnati-I don't understand why some people are surprised Cincinnati is off to a 2-0 start. I think the Bengals are one of the best teams in the AFC, if not the entire NFL. Now they get to play a Titans team that they should be able to handle at home. Move Cincinnati to 3-0.
Ravens (1-1) at Browns (1-1): Baltimore-It's been a long time and a lot of negative publicity since the Baltimore Ravens last played, and I bet they're chomping at the bit to finally get back on the field. This was originally supposed to be the game when they got Ray Rice back, but it's now just another game since they've moved on from the former face of the franchise. Normally against Cleveland I wouldn't think that would matter, but the Browns have been surprising this year, almost winning in Pittsburgh then beating the Saints. I wouldn't be surprised to see another Cleveland victory here, but I'm going with the Ravens because of that extra rest.
Packers (1-1) at Lions (1-1): Green Bay-What happened to that Lions team that thoroughly dismantled the Giants on the opening Monday night? Because they just looked plain awful last week in Carolina. The Packers survived a scare against the Jets and possibly only won because of that Marty Mornhinweg timeout that should've have been. But they did. That's what good teams do. And the Packers are a good team.
Cowboys (1-1) at Rams (1-1): Dallas-I'm going to give the Tampa Bay Bucs credit for the Rams' win last week. Because, after Thursday night, it's pretty clear I think I could get 10 friends together and we might be able to score a touchdown on the Tampa Bay defense. Dallas will continue to do what it always does. Show up against bad teams, not show up against good teams. Against St. Louis, that should equal a Dallas win.
Raiders (0-2) at Patriots (1-1): New England-The Patriots were nice enough to spot the Vikings a touchdown last week...then outscored them 30-0 over the rest of the game. Now they get the Raiders in their home opener. Do I really need to say any more than that?
Vikings (1-1) at Saints (0-2): New Orleans-The fact that Minnesota was originally going to let Adrian Peterson suit up for this game still sickens me. But that's a discussion for another day. We saw last week how inept the Vikings offense is without him, which means this might be a long year in the Twin Cities. The Saints badly need a win, especially after being upset last week in Cleveland. They should get it here.
Texans (2-0) at Giants (0-2): Houston-I, for one, am not really surprised that Houston is 2-0. Granted, they've played the Redskins and the Raiders, but that record is more than simply playing two weak opponents. As much as it pains me to say it, the Texans might be playing a third straight weak opponent in the Giants. ESPN SportsNation had a poll asking if they should bench Eli Manning, and the majority of people said "Yes." Which is ridiculous. It's not Eli's fault the running backs can't hold on to the ball and the special teams can't tackle anybody!
Redskins (1-1) at Eagles (2-0): Philadelphia-Surprise, surprise, Robert Griffin III is hurt. Again. And out for at least a month. DeSean Jackson is hurt, too, but he's determined to play against the Eagles. Especially in Philadelphia, where he's probably not going to receive much brotherly love after going to Washington. Both these teams beat Jacksonville, but the Eagles also had that impressive comeback against a Colts team that's actually good on Monday night.
Colts (0-2) at Jaguars (0-2): Indianapolis-Speaking of the Colts and Jaguars, they'll break their tie for last place in the AFC South this week. Although, they're completely different 0-2s. The Colts' two opponents were fellow 2013 division winners who very well might be again. The Jaguars, meanwhile, have reverted to the Jaguars of old. They've been outscored 75-10 since taking that 17-0 lead in Philadelphia. And this week, they get to play inside their own empty stadium for the first time this season.
49ers (1-1) at Cardinals (2-0): San Francisco-An early showdown that could go a long way in determining who wins the NFC West. Especially because Arizona isn't going away. They proved that last week when they went to New York and beat the Giants. As for the 49ers, I really have no idea what happened last week. All I know is they collapsed on Sunday night and the Bears spoiled the opening of Levi's Stadium. This will be a very interesting one. I think the winner has to be considered the favorite to challenge Seattle in the division.
Chiefs (0-2) at Dolphins (1-1): Miami-For some reason, they felt the need to make this a second late game on CBS, preventing Broncos-Seahawks from being shown nationally. Which I'm sure the people in South Florida, Western Missouri and Kansas are oh so grateful for! Anyway, I'm going Dolphins simply because I think they're better than the Chiefs.
Broncos (2-0) at Seahawks (1-1): Seattle-I'm sure there are some people that are upset they don't both go into the rematch at 2-0, but I'm more upset it's taking place so early in the season. (And in honor of the announcers of the Seahawks-Chargers game repeatedly pointing out how many days it's been since Seattle's last loss, which included six months of not playing any games at all, I will now note that Denver's last loss came to the Seahawks in the Super Bowl.) During the Chargers game, they kept saying how San Diego was exposing Seattle's defense. The Seattle defense is the primary reason they dominated the meeting in New York in February, but let's not forget the role the Seahawks offense played. The Broncos' defense is much better, and you know Peyton is eager to get redemption for one of his worst games as a pro. For those reasons, I think this one will be much closer than the Super Bowl blowout. However, the Seahawks don't lose at home, and the 12th Man is going to remind the Broncos who won that banner they'll be looking up at the whole game. I can't wait to watch it.
Steelers (1-1) at Panthers (2-0): Carolina-I'm not really sure what to make of the Steelers. They almost lost to Cleveland at home, then got whooped in Baltimore. The good news is they've had 10 days off to fix what went wrong against the Ravens. The bad news is they're going to Carolina to face the undefeated Panthers. Many experts thought Carolina would come back to the pack in the NFC South, and some still aren't that impressed. I am, though. They romped all over the Lions, and they're much better with Cam Newton than without. Keeping those two things in mind, I'll say Carolina.
Bears (1-1) at Jets (1-1): Chicago-The Monday night game pits two teams that we still don't really know how good they are. The Bears lost at home to Buffalo, which they shouldn't have, but had that crazy comeback win over a good 49ers team in Santa Clara. The Jets think they're better than they actually are (they beat the Raiders at home), but they did show me something in Green Bay. And you know they always get up for national TV appearances. Problem is, so do the Bears. The Jets are favored, but it would surprise absolutely no one if Chicago went into MetLife Stadium and came out with a win.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-8
Season: 19-14
Thursday Night: Atlanta (Win)
Chargers (1-1) at Bills (2-0): San Diego-How 'bout them first place Buffalo Bills?! I'm going to enjoy it while it lasts. Because I don't expect it to last much longer. Especially with the way San Diego played in knocking off Seattle last week. The Chargers are simply a better team than the Bills. Although, they are a West Coast team flying cross-country for a 1:00 game.
Titans (1-1) at Bengals (2-0): Cincinnati-I don't understand why some people are surprised Cincinnati is off to a 2-0 start. I think the Bengals are one of the best teams in the AFC, if not the entire NFL. Now they get to play a Titans team that they should be able to handle at home. Move Cincinnati to 3-0.
Ravens (1-1) at Browns (1-1): Baltimore-It's been a long time and a lot of negative publicity since the Baltimore Ravens last played, and I bet they're chomping at the bit to finally get back on the field. This was originally supposed to be the game when they got Ray Rice back, but it's now just another game since they've moved on from the former face of the franchise. Normally against Cleveland I wouldn't think that would matter, but the Browns have been surprising this year, almost winning in Pittsburgh then beating the Saints. I wouldn't be surprised to see another Cleveland victory here, but I'm going with the Ravens because of that extra rest.
Packers (1-1) at Lions (1-1): Green Bay-What happened to that Lions team that thoroughly dismantled the Giants on the opening Monday night? Because they just looked plain awful last week in Carolina. The Packers survived a scare against the Jets and possibly only won because of that Marty Mornhinweg timeout that should've have been. But they did. That's what good teams do. And the Packers are a good team.
Cowboys (1-1) at Rams (1-1): Dallas-I'm going to give the Tampa Bay Bucs credit for the Rams' win last week. Because, after Thursday night, it's pretty clear I think I could get 10 friends together and we might be able to score a touchdown on the Tampa Bay defense. Dallas will continue to do what it always does. Show up against bad teams, not show up against good teams. Against St. Louis, that should equal a Dallas win.
Raiders (0-2) at Patriots (1-1): New England-The Patriots were nice enough to spot the Vikings a touchdown last week...then outscored them 30-0 over the rest of the game. Now they get the Raiders in their home opener. Do I really need to say any more than that?
Vikings (1-1) at Saints (0-2): New Orleans-The fact that Minnesota was originally going to let Adrian Peterson suit up for this game still sickens me. But that's a discussion for another day. We saw last week how inept the Vikings offense is without him, which means this might be a long year in the Twin Cities. The Saints badly need a win, especially after being upset last week in Cleveland. They should get it here.
Texans (2-0) at Giants (0-2): Houston-I, for one, am not really surprised that Houston is 2-0. Granted, they've played the Redskins and the Raiders, but that record is more than simply playing two weak opponents. As much as it pains me to say it, the Texans might be playing a third straight weak opponent in the Giants. ESPN SportsNation had a poll asking if they should bench Eli Manning, and the majority of people said "Yes." Which is ridiculous. It's not Eli's fault the running backs can't hold on to the ball and the special teams can't tackle anybody!
Redskins (1-1) at Eagles (2-0): Philadelphia-Surprise, surprise, Robert Griffin III is hurt. Again. And out for at least a month. DeSean Jackson is hurt, too, but he's determined to play against the Eagles. Especially in Philadelphia, where he's probably not going to receive much brotherly love after going to Washington. Both these teams beat Jacksonville, but the Eagles also had that impressive comeback against a Colts team that's actually good on Monday night.
Colts (0-2) at Jaguars (0-2): Indianapolis-Speaking of the Colts and Jaguars, they'll break their tie for last place in the AFC South this week. Although, they're completely different 0-2s. The Colts' two opponents were fellow 2013 division winners who very well might be again. The Jaguars, meanwhile, have reverted to the Jaguars of old. They've been outscored 75-10 since taking that 17-0 lead in Philadelphia. And this week, they get to play inside their own empty stadium for the first time this season.
49ers (1-1) at Cardinals (2-0): San Francisco-An early showdown that could go a long way in determining who wins the NFC West. Especially because Arizona isn't going away. They proved that last week when they went to New York and beat the Giants. As for the 49ers, I really have no idea what happened last week. All I know is they collapsed on Sunday night and the Bears spoiled the opening of Levi's Stadium. This will be a very interesting one. I think the winner has to be considered the favorite to challenge Seattle in the division.
Chiefs (0-2) at Dolphins (1-1): Miami-For some reason, they felt the need to make this a second late game on CBS, preventing Broncos-Seahawks from being shown nationally. Which I'm sure the people in South Florida, Western Missouri and Kansas are oh so grateful for! Anyway, I'm going Dolphins simply because I think they're better than the Chiefs.
Broncos (2-0) at Seahawks (1-1): Seattle-I'm sure there are some people that are upset they don't both go into the rematch at 2-0, but I'm more upset it's taking place so early in the season. (And in honor of the announcers of the Seahawks-Chargers game repeatedly pointing out how many days it's been since Seattle's last loss, which included six months of not playing any games at all, I will now note that Denver's last loss came to the Seahawks in the Super Bowl.) During the Chargers game, they kept saying how San Diego was exposing Seattle's defense. The Seattle defense is the primary reason they dominated the meeting in New York in February, but let's not forget the role the Seahawks offense played. The Broncos' defense is much better, and you know Peyton is eager to get redemption for one of his worst games as a pro. For those reasons, I think this one will be much closer than the Super Bowl blowout. However, the Seahawks don't lose at home, and the 12th Man is going to remind the Broncos who won that banner they'll be looking up at the whole game. I can't wait to watch it.
Steelers (1-1) at Panthers (2-0): Carolina-I'm not really sure what to make of the Steelers. They almost lost to Cleveland at home, then got whooped in Baltimore. The good news is they've had 10 days off to fix what went wrong against the Ravens. The bad news is they're going to Carolina to face the undefeated Panthers. Many experts thought Carolina would come back to the pack in the NFC South, and some still aren't that impressed. I am, though. They romped all over the Lions, and they're much better with Cam Newton than without. Keeping those two things in mind, I'll say Carolina.
Bears (1-1) at Jets (1-1): Chicago-The Monday night game pits two teams that we still don't really know how good they are. The Bears lost at home to Buffalo, which they shouldn't have, but had that crazy comeback win over a good 49ers team in Santa Clara. The Jets think they're better than they actually are (they beat the Raiders at home), but they did show me something in Green Bay. And you know they always get up for national TV appearances. Problem is, so do the Bears. The Jets are favored, but it would surprise absolutely no one if Chicago went into MetLife Stadium and came out with a win.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-8
Season: 19-14
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Sporting Implications of Scottish Independence
By this time tomorrow, we'll know the results of the historic vote taking place in Scotland. The vote, of course, is whether or not Scotland will remain a part of Great Britain. A simple majority and Scotland will break off into an independent country. While I obviously don't have a horse in the race, I think Scottish independence is a bad idea. My opinion, of course, doesn't matter, but the sporting implications, just like the economic and political ones (which are the main reasons why I think it's a bad idea), of this vote are vast.
Let's start with the most obvious: the Rio Olympics. The IOC made it a rule a few years ago that you need to be recognized by the UN in order to receive IOC recognition. Scottish leaders predict that, if the referendum is successful, it'll take 18 months for Scotland's government to become fully operational and the country to become a full voting member of the European Union. That timetable brings us to March 2016...just four months before the start of the Rio Games. Which is simply not enough time for an independent Scottish Olympic team to go to Rio.
There are other things necessary for a nation to become eligible to field an Olympic team. For starters, a National Olympic Committee needs to be established. That part doesn't seem too hard, seeing as Scotland sends its own team to the Commonwealth Games, but it's also worth noting that South Sudan has been an independent country for almost three years and still doesn't have an NOC! They also need to have a certain number of national federations recognized by the international federation in the given sport. Again, this doesn't seem like it would be much of a problem for Scotland, which already fields its own national team in soccer, rugby and a number of other sports.
It shouldn't be a problem for Scotland to get any of this put in place. Except for the tight timing. I'm sure some of the steps would be made during those 18 months, but that doesn't change the qualifying window. And there's no guarantee that Scotland would be able to have the most important thing it needs--the recognized NOC.
Regardless, the IOC has promised protection to those Scottish athletes who qualify for Rio. If there's no Scottish team in Rio, they'd all still be allowed to go. After all, they'd remain British citizens, so the option to compete for Great Britain would always be there (I'd imagine it'd be a situation similar to that of Northern Ireland, whose athletes have the option of representing Great Britain or Ireland, which golfer Rory McIlroy will do in Rio). At worst, Scottish athletes would be able to compete under the Olympic flag, which is what the South Sudanese athletes did in London and the Indian athletes did at the Opening Ceremony in Sochi.
Speaking of Scottish athletes, there were 16 that won medals in London. The most famous of which is Andy Murray, who became a British national hero with his gold medal in tennis, followed by ending the home country's Wimbledon drought in 2013 (that would still count as a British win even if Scotland does secede). Swimmer Hannah Miley, meanwhile, is the reigning European champion in the 400 IM, an event in which she finished fifth in London. There are also a number of track & field stars from Scotland, most notably 400 meter hurdlers Eilidh Child and Dai Greene, as well as European 800 meter champion Lynsey Sharp. Plenty of top-ranked golfers are Scottish, too, although none would qualify for Rio as members of a British team.
In fact, Britian's most successful Olympian ever is Scottish. Sir Chris Hoy won seven career Olympic medals in cycling, including six golds, two of which came in London. Interestingly, though, Hoy has spoken out about against Scottish independence. He warned that it would negatively affect Scottish athletes, who would no longer have access to the world-class training facilities in England. Or get a cut of the lottery money that funds the British Olympic team and is a big reason why Great Britain has been so successful in recent Games.
Of course, that's not something the Scots are thinking about. Those that favor independence are caught up in nationalistic pride, and they'll point to the Scottish success at the recent Commonwealth Games, which they hosted in Glasgow. Scotland won 19 gold medals and 53 overall, which were each the highest total in their history. Although, success at the Commonwealth Games needs to viewed cautiously. A number of those medals were won in sports that aren't in the Olympics, and the competition at the Commonwealth Games is significantly weaker.
And I haven't even brought up the impact it would have on golf. Golf was invented in Scotland, and the British Open alternates between Scotland and England every year, with a regular stop at the sport's Holy Grail, the Royal & Ancient in St. Andrews. You'd have to wonder whether Scotland would be removed from the rotation or if they'd work out some sort of arrangement to keep things as is.
I'm also worried for a British Davis Cup team that wouldn't include Andy Murray.
Whatever happens, there's little doubt that the Scottish independence referendum will have some sort of impact on the world of sports. Could an independent Scotland succeed athletically? Yes, depending on the sport. Would Scottish athletes be better off if the country remained a part of Great Britain? The answer to that one is a much more definitive "Yes." For their sake, I hope the referendum fails. Because otherwise, it might be a long road for even the elite Scottish athletes.
Let's start with the most obvious: the Rio Olympics. The IOC made it a rule a few years ago that you need to be recognized by the UN in order to receive IOC recognition. Scottish leaders predict that, if the referendum is successful, it'll take 18 months for Scotland's government to become fully operational and the country to become a full voting member of the European Union. That timetable brings us to March 2016...just four months before the start of the Rio Games. Which is simply not enough time for an independent Scottish Olympic team to go to Rio.
There are other things necessary for a nation to become eligible to field an Olympic team. For starters, a National Olympic Committee needs to be established. That part doesn't seem too hard, seeing as Scotland sends its own team to the Commonwealth Games, but it's also worth noting that South Sudan has been an independent country for almost three years and still doesn't have an NOC! They also need to have a certain number of national federations recognized by the international federation in the given sport. Again, this doesn't seem like it would be much of a problem for Scotland, which already fields its own national team in soccer, rugby and a number of other sports.
It shouldn't be a problem for Scotland to get any of this put in place. Except for the tight timing. I'm sure some of the steps would be made during those 18 months, but that doesn't change the qualifying window. And there's no guarantee that Scotland would be able to have the most important thing it needs--the recognized NOC.
Regardless, the IOC has promised protection to those Scottish athletes who qualify for Rio. If there's no Scottish team in Rio, they'd all still be allowed to go. After all, they'd remain British citizens, so the option to compete for Great Britain would always be there (I'd imagine it'd be a situation similar to that of Northern Ireland, whose athletes have the option of representing Great Britain or Ireland, which golfer Rory McIlroy will do in Rio). At worst, Scottish athletes would be able to compete under the Olympic flag, which is what the South Sudanese athletes did in London and the Indian athletes did at the Opening Ceremony in Sochi.
Speaking of Scottish athletes, there were 16 that won medals in London. The most famous of which is Andy Murray, who became a British national hero with his gold medal in tennis, followed by ending the home country's Wimbledon drought in 2013 (that would still count as a British win even if Scotland does secede). Swimmer Hannah Miley, meanwhile, is the reigning European champion in the 400 IM, an event in which she finished fifth in London. There are also a number of track & field stars from Scotland, most notably 400 meter hurdlers Eilidh Child and Dai Greene, as well as European 800 meter champion Lynsey Sharp. Plenty of top-ranked golfers are Scottish, too, although none would qualify for Rio as members of a British team.
In fact, Britian's most successful Olympian ever is Scottish. Sir Chris Hoy won seven career Olympic medals in cycling, including six golds, two of which came in London. Interestingly, though, Hoy has spoken out about against Scottish independence. He warned that it would negatively affect Scottish athletes, who would no longer have access to the world-class training facilities in England. Or get a cut of the lottery money that funds the British Olympic team and is a big reason why Great Britain has been so successful in recent Games.
Of course, that's not something the Scots are thinking about. Those that favor independence are caught up in nationalistic pride, and they'll point to the Scottish success at the recent Commonwealth Games, which they hosted in Glasgow. Scotland won 19 gold medals and 53 overall, which were each the highest total in their history. Although, success at the Commonwealth Games needs to viewed cautiously. A number of those medals were won in sports that aren't in the Olympics, and the competition at the Commonwealth Games is significantly weaker.
And I haven't even brought up the impact it would have on golf. Golf was invented in Scotland, and the British Open alternates between Scotland and England every year, with a regular stop at the sport's Holy Grail, the Royal & Ancient in St. Andrews. You'd have to wonder whether Scotland would be removed from the rotation or if they'd work out some sort of arrangement to keep things as is.
I'm also worried for a British Davis Cup team that wouldn't include Andy Murray.
Whatever happens, there's little doubt that the Scottish independence referendum will have some sort of impact on the world of sports. Could an independent Scotland succeed athletically? Yes, depending on the sport. Would Scottish athletes be better off if the country remained a part of Great Britain? The answer to that one is a much more definitive "Yes." For their sake, I hope the referendum fails. Because otherwise, it might be a long road for even the elite Scottish athletes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)