Earlier this year, back when it was still called the IAAF, World Athletics announced that there would be several major changes to the Diamond League in 2020. The biggest change was that Diamond League broadcasts were being trimmed from two hours to 90 minutes and that several events would be dropped as a result. They also announced that no event longer than 3000 meters would be featured as a part of the Diamond League series, which obviously meant the 5000 would be one of the disciplines cut.
But the 5000 wasn't going to be alone. And the question of which other events were in danger loomed over most of the 2019 Diamond League season. In the end, they dropped the 200 and steeplechase (although a number of meets will still hold both of those events outside the TV window), as well as the discus and triple jump. The triple jump will be featured a grand total of twice in the Diamond League next season, once for the women and once for the men (at the Prefontaine Classic).
Christian Taylor, arguably the greatest triple jumper in history, is understandably upset about his event being relegated to, essentially, second-tier status. He's so upset, in fact, that he founded The Athletics Association, a union designed to give professional track & field athletes a voice in how the sport is run. The association, he says, will "fight for athletes' rights."
Taylor posted his full statement on his Twitter page. Not surprisingly, he's garnered a lot of support from other athletes, particularly those whose events will also be cut. I hope Taylor is successful. Because he's right that the athletes deserve to have a say. For many, it's their livelihood at stake. Not just because of the prize money, either. It's also about the exposure that the Diamond League brings.
To his credit, World Athletics President Seb Coe met with Taylor to discuss his concerns. I'm not sure what will come of that, but at least Coe recognizes the importance of listening to him. Because ignoring Taylor's concerns would only make matters worse. And, frankly, he has some legitimate points.
I have plenty of questions about the Diamond League changes myself. First and foremost, how did they come to the conclusion that a 90-minute broadcast was better than two hours? Most sporting events are two hours long. Now, the TV networks, who evidently were the ones clamoring for a shorter broadcast window, have to find a random half-hour program as filler either before or after the Diamond League broadcast. And I'm willing to bet a lot of them will still produce a two-hour broadcast and show the extra events that won't be part of the designated international TV window.
Another one of the reasons that they gave was wanting to create a more "action-packed" program. I'm a fan of the sport and even I'll admit that track meets can be very boring. There's a lot of dead time between track races. But the solution to that is reducing the amount of that dead time. Field events don't contribute to that dead time. In fact, that's often the only time they show the field events, which you can usually only see on the international feed (or NBC Sports Gold stream) while NBCSN is at commercial.
Frankly, there would've been a way to do this without cutting events from the Diamond League entirely. Meet organizers have had a lot of success with street pole vaults and shot puts in the city center. So much success, in fact, that they're encouraging more of that. At Prefontaine, they always have a distance carnival on Friday night before the Diamond League portion of the meet on Saturday.
No one wants to sit there for three and a half hours watching a track meet. That's one of the reasons why moving events out of the main stadium or adding an extra session works. That way you're making room for more events, not less. And you'll also eliminate athletes feeling (rightfully so) that their event has been relegated to second-tier status.
It would also be very easy to keep these events and still maintain the desired 90-minute TV window. The typical TV broadcast of a 5000-meter race is start, two laps, commercial, two laps in the middle of the race, commercial, final 600 meters. Since you only show a quarter of the race anyway, why not start the 5K shortly before the TV window starts and join it for the conclusion? And the 200 takes 25 seconds! You're telling me that you can't cut the dead time by five minutes to include the 200? As for the field events, they're sometimes over before the TV broadcast even starts. You can start the triple jump before you go on the air and still have plenty of time to do the long jump afterwards!
My biggest question, though, is the wisdom in making these changes in the Olympic year. Track & field is a niche sport for three years and 10 months that people suddenly care about at the Olympic Trials and Olympics themselves in that fourth year. World Athletics should be trying to create MORE stars heading into the Tokyo Games, not less.
Also, none of the events that have been dropped from the Diamond League are being dropped from the Olympics or World Championships. So, they're greatly reducing the number of opportunities that athletes who specialize in those events will have to take part in elite competitions. None of them will be in the Diamond League Final, which is the highest-profile annual meet on the international track & field calendar. What kind of exposure are they going to get then? And how are they supposed to prepare for those major global championships if their events aren't included in the top-level regular-season meets?
Along with the Diamond League changes, World Athletics also announced the creation of a "Continental Tour." This series of meets will prominently feature all four of the dropped Diamond League disciplines and offer the same wild card to the 2021 World Championships that the Diamond League winner will get, although the prize money will be slightly less. World Athletics thinks the Continental Tour will actually create more opportunities for these athletes, not less, but only time will tell.
The whole point of the Diamond League changes, at least according to World Athletics, was to create a "more attractive" product on television. But, as Christian Taylor correctly pointed out in his counterargument, it's on them to figure out how to do that. And I'm not sure cutting events out of your marquee circuit is the answer. Especially heading into an Olympic year.
Thursday, December 5, 2019
Tuesday, December 3, 2019
College Football's Best Helmets
Classic uniforms are classics for a reason. The Yankees. The Canadiens. The Packers. The Celtics. Other than a few minor tweaks here and there, those uniforms have been virtually untouched for years. And part of what makes them so iconic is that they link the generations. Wilt Chamberlain, Magic Johnson, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James didn't just play for the same team. They all wore the same uniform. Ted Williams and David Ortiz played for the Red Sox 70 years apart, but they might as well have been teammates. The uniform hasn't changed.
There are plenty of iconic looks in college football, too. For all those wacky combinations Oregon comes up with and the alternate uniforms that different teams wear on seemingly a weekly basis, giving them God knows how many different helmets over the course of the season, there are still some things that are sacred. Schools might experiment with third (or fourth) jerseys or try other various different uniform elements, but they don't touch the helmet. It's the thing that links the generations.
So, in honor of college football's 150th anniversary, (and inspired by a post I saw on ESPN.com today,) I'm going to do something I don't frequently do. I'm dedicating an entire post to college football (which only seems appropriate with the conference championship games coming up this weekend). Here's my top 10 of the iconic college football helmets. The ones you immediately know as soon as you see them.
10. (tie) Nebraska: Yes, I'm cheating and have two No. 10s. That's because I couldn't decide between Nebraska and the next school you'll see. Nebraska's helmets are one of those iconic ones I was talking about. Nice and simple. A red N on a white helmet with a red stripe down the middle. Nothing crazy. And it works. Even after they changed conferences, the helmets stayed the same.
10. (tie) Miami: I almost docked Miami and booted them from the top 10 because of the crazy font on the numbers and because they can't decide between a green and an orange jersey (orange, always orange). But I just couldn't do it. It's "The U." And Vinny Testaverde, Michael Irvin, Ray Lewis and all the others wore that U on their helmets. (And, since the helmet is the main criterion here, the Hurricanes and Huskers tie.)
9. Florida State: It might not be PC, but that spear and feather is exactly what I mean by iconic. You know immediately that you're looking at Florida State's helmet. And they put those little tomahawk stickers on the back, too. They haven't really changed the other uniform elements, either, other than changing the font and other minor tweaks every once in a while.
8. Texas: Texas, on the other hand, I'm not sure if they've ever changed anything about their football uniforms. Least of all those beautiful helmets. Solid white with the burnt orange longhorn and the giant numbers in back. I think the numbers were above the longhorn at one point, but that was a long time ago. All those great Texas running backs wore essentially the exact same uniform.
7. Ohio State: Is there obnoxious insistence on being called "THE Ohio State University" annoying? Absolutely! But you can't argue that their uniforms are a classic look. I don't think Ohio State has ever bothered with an alternate jersey, either. It's hard to tell because of the 7,000 buckeye stickers every player has, but the helmets are actually plain silver on both sides. Of course, if there was a logo there, they wouldn't have nearly as much room for THE buckeye stickers!
6. Oklahoma: When I was looking for pictures to include, I saw a reverse version of the Oklahoma helmet. I hope they haven't ever actually worn it. Because if they have, I might have to reconsider ranking Oklahoma this high. And their classic helmets are so pretty! They're essentially the same as Alabama's with two important differences: the OU logo and the lack of a stripe. The crimson and white just look so good together that they don't need anything else.
5. Penn State: Remember the uproar when Penn State wanted to add names to the jerseys a few years ago? That's what ranks as a uniform controversy in Happy Valley. (As we know, they're unfortunately not immune to other types of controversy.) Anyway, I'm glad they went back to the no-name look. It has nothing to do with the helmet, but it adds to the simplistic look that works so well.
4. USC: O.J. Simpson, Marcus Allen and Reggie Bush all made the Trojan warrior shine on Saturday afternoons at the LA Coliseum. Sure, you can see the same basic red and gold uniforms at any high school in America. But you add in Southern California sunshine and a historic program and you've got something that becomes iconic. For all of Hollywood's glitz and glamour, USC has shown us that sometimes less is more.
3. Alabama: Bear Bryant's houndstooth fedora is in its own category of classic. And that hat combined with these uniforms helped give the Crimson Tide their iconic look. In the old days, everybody had numbers on the side of the helmet. Now nobody does. Except for Alabama. It's their trademark. And it's become such a part of their identity that you can't picture their helmets without them. It's like trying to picture a logo on the Cleveland Browns' helmets. You can do it, but it seems so wrong.
2. Notre Dame: Numbers 1 and 2 were easy, although the order is up for debate. And you could easily reverse them and get no argument from me. However, Notre Dame doesn't wear the gold helmets exclusively anymore, so they drop to the 2-spot. But, seriously, is there anything more iconic of college football than Notre Dame's solid gold helmet that matches the school's golden dome? I know they don't do it anymore, but the fact that the helmets were all hand-painted the night before the game (and they put actual 24-karat gold in the paint!) so that they would glisten that much more is just another thing that adds to the aura of Notre Dame football.
1. Michigan: They weren't the first to wear the winged helmet (Princeton was). They aren't the only team to wear it, either. But the design will always be associated, first and foremost, with Michigan. The Wolverines have worn them since 1938, and they're arguably the most iconic helmets in college football. In fact, it's Michigan's entire visual identity. They have the same design on their hockey, baseball, softball and lacrosse helmets, too. That's knowing your brand and running with it! Just like that baby blue argyle pattern screams "North Carolina," the maize and blue winged helmet screams "Michigan." And it always will.
There are plenty of iconic looks in college football, too. For all those wacky combinations Oregon comes up with and the alternate uniforms that different teams wear on seemingly a weekly basis, giving them God knows how many different helmets over the course of the season, there are still some things that are sacred. Schools might experiment with third (or fourth) jerseys or try other various different uniform elements, but they don't touch the helmet. It's the thing that links the generations.
So, in honor of college football's 150th anniversary, (and inspired by a post I saw on ESPN.com today,) I'm going to do something I don't frequently do. I'm dedicating an entire post to college football (which only seems appropriate with the conference championship games coming up this weekend). Here's my top 10 of the iconic college football helmets. The ones you immediately know as soon as you see them.
Monday, December 2, 2019
Reshaping the Minor Leagues
A few weeks ago, word came out that there were going to be some "significant changes" to Minor League Baseball in 2021. That obviously led to a lot of questions as to what that actually meant, while also creating a lot of speculation about the future of the Minor Leagues. Since then, details have been gradually spilling out, and it looks like MLB does, indeed, want to do a complete overhaul. Which has (obviously) been met by some mixed reaction.
Nothing has been confirmed, but from the information that has been leaked, it looks like the Minor Leagues will be completely restructured in 2021. Some teams will move from Triple-A to Class-A (or vice versa) and there will be a slew of affiliation changes. The big sticking point for a lot of people, though, is that this plan calls for condensing some leagues and reducing the overall number of teams. These small towns wouldn't lose their baseball teams entirely. They would just no longer be affiliated with a Major League club.
I get the idea behind this. It was first proposed by (who else?) the Houston Astros, but has gathered some steam among the other owners. Currently, teams are only required to have four Minor League affiliates (Triple-A, Double-A, High-A, Low-A). But there's no maximum. The Yankees have eight Minor League affiliates. The teams that have more affiliates, obviously, have more players. There's no cap on the number of players you can have in the system either, so some teams have significantly more players under contract (many of whom have little to no shot at reaching the Major Leagues) than others.
This aims to rectify both of those problems. There would be 120 affiliated Minor League teams, one at each of the top four levels for each of the 30 franchises. That would also serve to limit the number of players you can sign into each organization. By doing that, Minor League salaries would, theoretically, go up across the board.
Under this plan, short-season A-ball and rookie leagues would be eliminated. Those are primarily small-town teams with tiny ballparks that aren't quite up to the standard MLB requires. Those that have adequate ballparks would move up to a higher level and replace another team with a small stadium. The others would be given the option to be part of a "dream league" with undrafted players or transition to independent ball. Some, unfortunately, would likely fold under that scenario.
Although, eliminating short-season A-ball and rookie leagues entirely doesn't seem necessary. I'd rather see that level condensed, instead. Make that a fifth required level, but each team can only have one affiliate in it. That brings it to 150 affiliated teams.
Reducing the number of affiliates would both save money and lead to higher salaries. The Major League teams pay the salary, benefits and insurance for all of the players and coaches on their Minor League affiliates. By paying fewer people, they can give them each more money.
Minor League owners obviously like the current set up (which is part of the reason they don't want to change it). The only people they have to pay are the direct team staff. And, they also get the benefit of saying that their team is associated with their Major League parent club. Not only would they lose that, but they'd also have to start paying the players and coaches themselves. (However, on the flip side, if they were to become an independent team, they'd be able to sign whoever they want and pay them whatever they want. They wouldn't have a Major League team making those decisions for them, and they wouldn't be based on what's best for the parent club.)
Yes, there are some Minor League teams that need their Major League affiliation in order to survive. But even with Major League affiliation, we've got Minor League teams being sold and moved or folding and being replaced by a team team on seemingly an annual basis, particularly at those lower levels. I'm not saying I want to see towns lose their teams, but this could potentially bring some stability to the lower levels of Minor League Baseball.
The draft, which currently takes place in mid-June, would also be moved until after the College World Series. That's where most of the players on short-season and rookie teams come from, which is why those seasons don't start until July. Seeing as the college players who get drafted keep playing throughout the NCAA Tournament before reporting to their Minor League teams, I have no issue with this. They also want to reduce the number of rounds in the draft, which sounds like a bad thing until you consider the fact that everybody who goes undrafted then becomes a free agent and can sign with anybody.
Travel has also been mentioned as one of the reasons MLB would like to restructure the Minors, and that's completely understandable. There are three Triple-A teams in Upstate New York and no Double-A teams west of Texas. And, since everybody is required to have an affiliate, that leads to some less-than-desirable arrangements. (One of the articles I read mentioned making the travel within the leagues better, too, but the bigger concern, at least for me, is the distance between each team's affiliates, which obviously has a big impact on guys who get called up.)
That's probably the biggest impetus for these planned changes, in fact. The current set-up is very favorable to the Minor League teams, but not so much for the Major League clubs. Affiliation agreements are only for two years at a time, which gives the Minor League owners way too much leverage. As a result, we've seen a number of Major League franchises buy Minor League teams in recent years. That way they can invest in the team and its ballpark without having to worry about an affiliation change.
Major League Baseball's agreement with the Minor League clubs expires after the 2020 season, which is why 2021 is the year being targeted for these changes. And they make a lot of sense from MLB's perspective. Yes, there's plenty of negotiation that needs to be done, and I'm sure there will be plenty of lawsuits. But, as the entity providing Minor League teams with their players (something you kinda need in order to, you know, have a baseball team), Major League clubs deserve to get more out of it than they currently are.
There are plenty of twists and turns to come in this story, but major changes are definitely coming to the Minor Leagues in 2021. And I'm all for it. I sympathize with the fans in the small towns who may or may not lose their teams, but restructuring the Minor Leagues will likely end up being a good thing for everybody.
Nothing has been confirmed, but from the information that has been leaked, it looks like the Minor Leagues will be completely restructured in 2021. Some teams will move from Triple-A to Class-A (or vice versa) and there will be a slew of affiliation changes. The big sticking point for a lot of people, though, is that this plan calls for condensing some leagues and reducing the overall number of teams. These small towns wouldn't lose their baseball teams entirely. They would just no longer be affiliated with a Major League club.
I get the idea behind this. It was first proposed by (who else?) the Houston Astros, but has gathered some steam among the other owners. Currently, teams are only required to have four Minor League affiliates (Triple-A, Double-A, High-A, Low-A). But there's no maximum. The Yankees have eight Minor League affiliates. The teams that have more affiliates, obviously, have more players. There's no cap on the number of players you can have in the system either, so some teams have significantly more players under contract (many of whom have little to no shot at reaching the Major Leagues) than others.
This aims to rectify both of those problems. There would be 120 affiliated Minor League teams, one at each of the top four levels for each of the 30 franchises. That would also serve to limit the number of players you can sign into each organization. By doing that, Minor League salaries would, theoretically, go up across the board.
Under this plan, short-season A-ball and rookie leagues would be eliminated. Those are primarily small-town teams with tiny ballparks that aren't quite up to the standard MLB requires. Those that have adequate ballparks would move up to a higher level and replace another team with a small stadium. The others would be given the option to be part of a "dream league" with undrafted players or transition to independent ball. Some, unfortunately, would likely fold under that scenario.
Although, eliminating short-season A-ball and rookie leagues entirely doesn't seem necessary. I'd rather see that level condensed, instead. Make that a fifth required level, but each team can only have one affiliate in it. That brings it to 150 affiliated teams.
Reducing the number of affiliates would both save money and lead to higher salaries. The Major League teams pay the salary, benefits and insurance for all of the players and coaches on their Minor League affiliates. By paying fewer people, they can give them each more money.
Minor League owners obviously like the current set up (which is part of the reason they don't want to change it). The only people they have to pay are the direct team staff. And, they also get the benefit of saying that their team is associated with their Major League parent club. Not only would they lose that, but they'd also have to start paying the players and coaches themselves. (However, on the flip side, if they were to become an independent team, they'd be able to sign whoever they want and pay them whatever they want. They wouldn't have a Major League team making those decisions for them, and they wouldn't be based on what's best for the parent club.)
Yes, there are some Minor League teams that need their Major League affiliation in order to survive. But even with Major League affiliation, we've got Minor League teams being sold and moved or folding and being replaced by a team team on seemingly an annual basis, particularly at those lower levels. I'm not saying I want to see towns lose their teams, but this could potentially bring some stability to the lower levels of Minor League Baseball.
The draft, which currently takes place in mid-June, would also be moved until after the College World Series. That's where most of the players on short-season and rookie teams come from, which is why those seasons don't start until July. Seeing as the college players who get drafted keep playing throughout the NCAA Tournament before reporting to their Minor League teams, I have no issue with this. They also want to reduce the number of rounds in the draft, which sounds like a bad thing until you consider the fact that everybody who goes undrafted then becomes a free agent and can sign with anybody.
Travel has also been mentioned as one of the reasons MLB would like to restructure the Minors, and that's completely understandable. There are three Triple-A teams in Upstate New York and no Double-A teams west of Texas. And, since everybody is required to have an affiliate, that leads to some less-than-desirable arrangements. (One of the articles I read mentioned making the travel within the leagues better, too, but the bigger concern, at least for me, is the distance between each team's affiliates, which obviously has a big impact on guys who get called up.)
That's probably the biggest impetus for these planned changes, in fact. The current set-up is very favorable to the Minor League teams, but not so much for the Major League clubs. Affiliation agreements are only for two years at a time, which gives the Minor League owners way too much leverage. As a result, we've seen a number of Major League franchises buy Minor League teams in recent years. That way they can invest in the team and its ballpark without having to worry about an affiliation change.
Major League Baseball's agreement with the Minor League clubs expires after the 2020 season, which is why 2021 is the year being targeted for these changes. And they make a lot of sense from MLB's perspective. Yes, there's plenty of negotiation that needs to be done, and I'm sure there will be plenty of lawsuits. But, as the entity providing Minor League teams with their players (something you kinda need in order to, you know, have a baseball team), Major League clubs deserve to get more out of it than they currently are.
There are plenty of twists and turns to come in this story, but major changes are definitely coming to the Minor Leagues in 2021. And I'm all for it. I sympathize with the fans in the small towns who may or may not lose their teams, but restructuring the Minor Leagues will likely end up being a good thing for everybody.
Saturday, November 30, 2019
A Confusing (and Stupid) Schedule Suggestion
As you know, I don't discuss the NBA much in this space. But I saw something the other day that I simply couldn't ignore. It's something so stupid that I hope it's simply an idea that's just being floated around. I'm hoping that they're trying to see people's reaction, then not pull the trigger when they realize how much people hate it. But knowing the NBA, no matter how dumb the idea, they're most likely going to do it.
In case you haven't seen it, it's about halfway down this article from ESPN.com. It touches on four different elements regarding the schedule, every one of which is incredibly stupid. Nothing is imminent, but if adopted, these changes would be implemented in time for the NBA's 75th anniversary season in 2021-22. Hopefully these talks don't progress beyond initial discussions between the league and the NBPA.
Let's take these one at a time. First is a "midseason tournament similar to those used in European leagues."
What is this obsession with European leagues? This is North America! Things are done differently here! You know what else they have in Europe? Relegation! And I don't see any NBA owners signing up for a league with promotion and relegation anytime soon!
I don't even understand what this midseason tournament is or the purpose of it. Is there any sort of incentive for winning it? Do you give the winner an automatic playoff spot? If you do that, why would that team bother playing its stars the rest of the season? Sure, you could make it financial, but are the owners of actual contenders going to want their players going all out to win some meaningless "tournament" in mid-January? And, sorry, but fans aren't going to buy that they should suddenly care more about a random Tuesday night game in December between the Nets and 76ers because it's part of this tournament.
And when do you want to have this stupid tournament? You can't do it in November (too early). You can't do it in November (can't touch the Christmas games). You can't do it in January (NFL playoffs). You can't do it in March (NCAA Tournament). So, I guess that leaves February, which is the All*Star Break, and I highly doubt they want to go anywhere near that. (And don't get me started on that ridiculous "choose your own team" nonsense with the All*Star Game!)
They also want to reduce the schedule from 82 to games to 78, presumably to make room for this dumb "NBA Cup." The idea of every team losing two regular-season home games should make that a non-starter, but it's evidently getting some traction because of the "load management" (aka, rest) issue that the league has been dealing with for a few years.
That's less of a problem with me than one of the proposals I saw that has actually been submitted from one Eastern Conference executive. He wants teams to play 62 games, then be divided into "tiers" and play their final 18 games within their "tier." These "tiers" would presumably be the teams ranked 1-10, 11-20 and 21-30 in the league (again taken from UEFA and its "Nations League"). Isn't that what the playoffs are for? And what's the purpose of divisions then?
Where do I start with this proposal? Well, how about the fact that it has teams not knowing their entire schedule before the season starts?! You want fans to buy season tickets without knowing when nine games are going to be and who those games will be against?! And you've got uncertainty with the teams, too, who'll have to make last-minute travel plans. Then there's the arenas, which may have hockey games, concerts, college basketball, etc. In other words, they can't just leave dates open for potential NBA games! They already do that for possible playoff games, now you want them to do it in the regular season too?! For what?
Logistically, it doesn't make any sense, either. Not only are you making some poor guy in the NBA office create the final six weeks of the schedule on the fly at the last minute, you've got TV partners to consider (although, seeing as ESPN worships at the altar of the NBA, I'm sure they'd jump on board with anything immediately).
Not to mention the travel. In addition to the arena considerations, I can envision a scenario where a team's gotta fly all over the country over the final six weeks of the season. And again, for what? The whole point of divisions is so that teams located near each other can play more frequently. And cross-country trips are usually set up so that you only have to go out West once or twice a season (you play the Lakers, Clippers and Suns on one trip, the Warriors, Kings and Blazers on the other). Same things when the West Coast teams travel east (play Celtics, Knicks, Nets, then play 76ers, Wizards, Hornets).
Speaking of divisions, there are two proposed changes to the playoffs. The first one involves expanding the playoffs to 10 teams in each conference, but having a "play-in" round for the 7-10 seeds. This was first brought up by Adam Silver himself more than a year ago, so you know the league office is serious about it. It would basically be patterned after the WNBA's playoff format, where there's a series of single-elimination games before advancing to the playoffs proper.
Honestly, I'm indifferent to this. Of the four proposals, it's the one that bothers me the least. Is there a need for it, though? Not really. Especially when you've already got mediocre teams fighting it out for the right to get slaughtered in the first round by the top seeds (the top four seeds in the East went a combined 12-2 in the first round last season). And the NBA playoffs already take forever. How much longer do you want to make them? (Unless, in another burst of inspiration from European soccer, they want them playing year-round.)
Lastly, there's talk about reseeding the playoffs once they're down to four teams, essentially turning the Conference Finals into NBA semifinals. This, of course, is in response to the fact that the Western Conference is significantly stronger than the East. Again, it's something the WNBA has been doing for years. But the WNBA only has 12 teams and ignores the conferences come playoff time.
If you want to do the same thing in the NBA, you'd have to ignore the conferences there, too, which is much harder to do in a 30-team league. And you can't have it both ways! You can't do it by conference for two rounds, then forget about them when you get down to the semifinals! Either do it by conference the whole way or not at all! And, how often are the two best teams in the league in the same conference anyway? You want to radically change the entire playoff system for something that might happen once every few years? (Also, how do you decide who's a "conference" champion under this format?)
Hopefully these ideas don't get much past the discussion stage. Because the only word I can think of to describe them is "dumb." But, the NBA has adopted plenty of dumb ideas in recent years, so I wouldn't be surprised if they implement these, too. Or...maybe common sense can prevail!
In case you haven't seen it, it's about halfway down this article from ESPN.com. It touches on four different elements regarding the schedule, every one of which is incredibly stupid. Nothing is imminent, but if adopted, these changes would be implemented in time for the NBA's 75th anniversary season in 2021-22. Hopefully these talks don't progress beyond initial discussions between the league and the NBPA.
Let's take these one at a time. First is a "midseason tournament similar to those used in European leagues."
What is this obsession with European leagues? This is North America! Things are done differently here! You know what else they have in Europe? Relegation! And I don't see any NBA owners signing up for a league with promotion and relegation anytime soon!
I don't even understand what this midseason tournament is or the purpose of it. Is there any sort of incentive for winning it? Do you give the winner an automatic playoff spot? If you do that, why would that team bother playing its stars the rest of the season? Sure, you could make it financial, but are the owners of actual contenders going to want their players going all out to win some meaningless "tournament" in mid-January? And, sorry, but fans aren't going to buy that they should suddenly care more about a random Tuesday night game in December between the Nets and 76ers because it's part of this tournament.
And when do you want to have this stupid tournament? You can't do it in November (too early). You can't do it in November (can't touch the Christmas games). You can't do it in January (NFL playoffs). You can't do it in March (NCAA Tournament). So, I guess that leaves February, which is the All*Star Break, and I highly doubt they want to go anywhere near that. (And don't get me started on that ridiculous "choose your own team" nonsense with the All*Star Game!)
They also want to reduce the schedule from 82 to games to 78, presumably to make room for this dumb "NBA Cup." The idea of every team losing two regular-season home games should make that a non-starter, but it's evidently getting some traction because of the "load management" (aka, rest) issue that the league has been dealing with for a few years.
That's less of a problem with me than one of the proposals I saw that has actually been submitted from one Eastern Conference executive. He wants teams to play 62 games, then be divided into "tiers" and play their final 18 games within their "tier." These "tiers" would presumably be the teams ranked 1-10, 11-20 and 21-30 in the league (again taken from UEFA and its "Nations League"). Isn't that what the playoffs are for? And what's the purpose of divisions then?
Where do I start with this proposal? Well, how about the fact that it has teams not knowing their entire schedule before the season starts?! You want fans to buy season tickets without knowing when nine games are going to be and who those games will be against?! And you've got uncertainty with the teams, too, who'll have to make last-minute travel plans. Then there's the arenas, which may have hockey games, concerts, college basketball, etc. In other words, they can't just leave dates open for potential NBA games! They already do that for possible playoff games, now you want them to do it in the regular season too?! For what?
Logistically, it doesn't make any sense, either. Not only are you making some poor guy in the NBA office create the final six weeks of the schedule on the fly at the last minute, you've got TV partners to consider (although, seeing as ESPN worships at the altar of the NBA, I'm sure they'd jump on board with anything immediately).
Not to mention the travel. In addition to the arena considerations, I can envision a scenario where a team's gotta fly all over the country over the final six weeks of the season. And again, for what? The whole point of divisions is so that teams located near each other can play more frequently. And cross-country trips are usually set up so that you only have to go out West once or twice a season (you play the Lakers, Clippers and Suns on one trip, the Warriors, Kings and Blazers on the other). Same things when the West Coast teams travel east (play Celtics, Knicks, Nets, then play 76ers, Wizards, Hornets).
Speaking of divisions, there are two proposed changes to the playoffs. The first one involves expanding the playoffs to 10 teams in each conference, but having a "play-in" round for the 7-10 seeds. This was first brought up by Adam Silver himself more than a year ago, so you know the league office is serious about it. It would basically be patterned after the WNBA's playoff format, where there's a series of single-elimination games before advancing to the playoffs proper.
Honestly, I'm indifferent to this. Of the four proposals, it's the one that bothers me the least. Is there a need for it, though? Not really. Especially when you've already got mediocre teams fighting it out for the right to get slaughtered in the first round by the top seeds (the top four seeds in the East went a combined 12-2 in the first round last season). And the NBA playoffs already take forever. How much longer do you want to make them? (Unless, in another burst of inspiration from European soccer, they want them playing year-round.)
Lastly, there's talk about reseeding the playoffs once they're down to four teams, essentially turning the Conference Finals into NBA semifinals. This, of course, is in response to the fact that the Western Conference is significantly stronger than the East. Again, it's something the WNBA has been doing for years. But the WNBA only has 12 teams and ignores the conferences come playoff time.
If you want to do the same thing in the NBA, you'd have to ignore the conferences there, too, which is much harder to do in a 30-team league. And you can't have it both ways! You can't do it by conference for two rounds, then forget about them when you get down to the semifinals! Either do it by conference the whole way or not at all! And, how often are the two best teams in the league in the same conference anyway? You want to radically change the entire playoff system for something that might happen once every few years? (Also, how do you decide who's a "conference" champion under this format?)
Hopefully these ideas don't get much past the discussion stage. Because the only word I can think of to describe them is "dumb." But, the NBA has adopted plenty of dumb ideas in recent years, so I wouldn't be surprised if they implement these, too. Or...maybe common sense can prevail!
Thursday, November 28, 2019
NFL 100: Week 13
Yes, that's right, the picks post on a Thursday! But, as regular readers know, since Thanksgiving is the NFL's biggest holiday and there's always three games, Thanksgiving week is the one exception (other than the opener) that results in early picks.
Byes are finally over, too, which means we've got all 16 teams playing for the first time since Week 3. And there are some big ones with major playoff implications this week. Three teams can clinch spots, starting with the Saints on Thanksgiving night. I know luck came into play here (and flex scheduling last week), but the NFL really did a good job with the schedule this year. The national games both last week and this week have all been really good.
Bears (5-6) at Lions (3-7-1): Chicago-I'm a little surprised the NFL didn't go with Lions-Packers. Green Bay was Detroit's permanent Thanksgiving opponent for a while, so I figured they'd want that to be the Lions' Thanksgiving game in the anniversary season. Instead they play Chicago for the second straight year...with their third-string quarterback under center...going against the Bears' defense. The Bears beat the Lions just three weeks ago. They should do it again, but, sadly, they won't have any turducken waiting for them.
Bills (8-3) at Cowboys (6-5): Dallas-When the NFL set Buffalo as the Cowboys' Thanksgiving opponent, a lot of people didn't know what to make of it. Well, as it turns out, the Bills are 8-3 and look playoff-bound. This begins a brutal stretch for them, but they've got a two-game cushion in the wild card race. Dallas, meanwhile, is clinging to a one-game lead in the NFC East after that performance against New England that prompted Jerry Jones' wrath. He should feel better after this game.
Saints (9-2) at Falcons (3-8): New Orleans-For the second straight year, Saints-Falcons is the Thanksgiving night game. And New Orleans clinches the NFC South with a win. They'd have clinched it last week if they didn't have that shocking loss the first time they played Atlanta. The Saints have a huge showdown with the 49ers next week which could be for home field in the NFC. But they need to win this one first. After what happened in Week 10, they'll make sure of it.
Jets (4-7) at Bengals (0-11): Jets-Cincinnati has four chances to avoid joining the Lions and Browns in the 0-16 club (because, let's face it, they're not beating New England). On paper, this was their last best chance until a few weeks ago, when the Jets suddenly became this offensive powerhouse that scores 34 points every game. At first that seemed like a product of playing the Giants and Redskins, then they went and did the same thing to the Raiders. Sorry, Bengals fans, but you're staring 0-12 in the face.
Titans (6-5) at Colts (6-5): Tennessee-Overlook the Tennessee Titans at your own peril. Because the AFC South might just be theirs for the taking. They haven't played the Texans yet, and they could be tied with Houston for first place by the end of Sunday. That's why last week's loss to Houston was so costly for Indianapolis. It not only gave the Texans the division lead, but it pushed them into a tie with the Titans, making this one just as huge. And, frankly, I like what the Titans have been doing offensively. They go to 7-5 and, at worst, move into a tie for the second wild card spot.
Eagles (5-6) at Dolphins (2-9): Philadelphia-It's basically a battle for the 4-seed and the right to lose to Seattle or Minnesota between Philadelphia and Dallas. And week to week, you really can't tell which one doesn't want to make the playoffs more. Frankly, I think it's because both the Eagles and Cowboys just aren't that good (especially compared to the NFC's big 5). The Eagles have dropped two straight to New England and Seattle, but go back to playing the JV this week, which should get them back to .500.
Packers (8-3) at Giants (2-9): Green Bay-As Al Michaels said at the end of the game on Sunday night, the Packers are probably most thankful that they don't have any more trips to California on their schedule (at least in the regular season). And that loss to the 49ers might've been costly for a few reasons. First and foremost, it gave San Francisco the tiebreaker. But it also dropped the Packers to the 3-seed and thus no bye, while also putting them in a tie with the Vikings. So, basically, losing to the Giants would be really bad.
Browns (5-6) at Steelers (6-5): Pittsburgh-Let's just hope the end of this one isn't as eventful as their meeting in Cleveland. That, to say the least, was nasty. Although, both Myles Garrett's and Mike Pouncey's suspensions have them out for the rematch, and you know both teams will be on their best behavior. The Steelers, by the way, have somehow moved into the second AFC wild card spot. They have a perilous hold on it, though. And a second loss to the Browns would make it all but impossible for Pittsburgh to make the playoffs (especially since Cleveland still plays Cincinnati twice and Arizona).
Redskins (2-9) at Panthers (5-6): Carolina-Carolina's three-game losing streak has all but eliminated the Panthers from playoff contention. They essentially have to win out and hope at least one of the four dominant teams in the North or West goes on a massive slide (which seems unlikely). And let's not forget the Redskins, who finally won a home game for the first time in more than a year on Sunday! That was against the Lions, though. The Panthers aren't nearly as bad as the Lions.
Buccaneers (4-7) at Jaguars (4-7): Tampa Bay-Bruce Arians definitely has the Bucs going in the right direction. Especially in the past few weeks, Tampa Bay has looked really impressive. Jacksonville, meanwhile, finally returns home for the first time since Week 8. But that's what they signed up for when they agreed to host one of the London games every year. And their return to Northeast Florida will be disrupted by the guys from the other side of the state.
49ers (10-1) at Ravens (9-2): Baltimore-Baltimore is the best team in the NFL. There, I said it. And, after what they did to the Packers last Sunday night, the 49ers are making a pretty strong case as the best team in the NFC (I still say it's the Saints, though). Could this Super Bowl XLVII rematch be a Super Bowl LIV preview? And it's a huge test for San Francisco. Not just a cross country trip for a 1:00 kickoff, but probably the toughest opponent they've faced all season. We'll see how their defense can handle Lamar Jackson. Or, perhaps more accurately, what Lamar Jackson can do to their defense.
Rams (6-5) at Cardinals (3-7-1): Rams-They're a fringe playoff contender, but the Rams sure didn't look like it last week. Lamar Jackson and the Ravens sliced and diced them for 55 minutes on Monday night. It was bad. Although, frankly, that offense has had problems all season. Frankly, they play the Cardinals this week. Because they're a better team than Arizona. They can't afford to drop this one with Seattle, Dallas and San Francisco coming up.
Chargers (4-7) at Broncos (3-8): Chargers-Things haven't quite gone the way the Chargers and their fans expected them to this season. At 4-7, they're not just looking up a the Chiefs, the Raiders are ahead of them, too. At least they still have the Broncos. Things haven't exactly gone well in Denver this season, either. Bad luck has been the culprit for some of that, but 3-8 is 3-8. And that'll become 3-9. Because the Chargers won't go winless thru this three-game division run.
Raiders (6-5) at Chiefs (7-4): Kansas City-Oakland blew a golden opportunity to make this game really mean something when they flew cross country and laid an egg against the Jets last week. Now that turns this game into an absolute must-win for the Raiders, who already lost to Kansas City this season. The Chiefs, meanwhile, can pretty much wrap up the division with a win, which is equally important, seeing as they go to New England next week. They'll head to Foxboro for the AFC Championship Game rematch at 8-4.
Patriots (10-1) at Texans (7-4): Houston-New England will know going in whether or not they can clinch a playoff spot on Sunday night. All the Patriots need is either a Raiders or Steelers loss (both of which are very realistic possibilities), and a win locks up yet another Bradicheck playoff berth. Except I like the Texans to pull the upset here. Houston is a very similar team to Baltimore, and the Ravens dominated the Patriots when they played them on a Sunday night. Especially with that extra time to prepare, I see Houston giving New England all it can handle and then some.
Vikings (8-3) at Seahawks (9-2): Seattle-Neither one is at risk of losing their playoff spot. But the Monday night game is huge for seeding. The winner has the upper hand on the 5-seed, which means the NFC East winner instead of the 12-4 team that doesn't get a bye. The division is also in still in play for the winner. And that'll be Seattle. We really need to start talking about the Seahawks on the same level as the Ravens, Patriots, 49ers and Saints. They're THAT good!
Last Week: 8-6
Overall: 103-72-1
Byes are finally over, too, which means we've got all 16 teams playing for the first time since Week 3. And there are some big ones with major playoff implications this week. Three teams can clinch spots, starting with the Saints on Thanksgiving night. I know luck came into play here (and flex scheduling last week), but the NFL really did a good job with the schedule this year. The national games both last week and this week have all been really good.
Bears (5-6) at Lions (3-7-1): Chicago-I'm a little surprised the NFL didn't go with Lions-Packers. Green Bay was Detroit's permanent Thanksgiving opponent for a while, so I figured they'd want that to be the Lions' Thanksgiving game in the anniversary season. Instead they play Chicago for the second straight year...with their third-string quarterback under center...going against the Bears' defense. The Bears beat the Lions just three weeks ago. They should do it again, but, sadly, they won't have any turducken waiting for them.
Bills (8-3) at Cowboys (6-5): Dallas-When the NFL set Buffalo as the Cowboys' Thanksgiving opponent, a lot of people didn't know what to make of it. Well, as it turns out, the Bills are 8-3 and look playoff-bound. This begins a brutal stretch for them, but they've got a two-game cushion in the wild card race. Dallas, meanwhile, is clinging to a one-game lead in the NFC East after that performance against New England that prompted Jerry Jones' wrath. He should feel better after this game.
Saints (9-2) at Falcons (3-8): New Orleans-For the second straight year, Saints-Falcons is the Thanksgiving night game. And New Orleans clinches the NFC South with a win. They'd have clinched it last week if they didn't have that shocking loss the first time they played Atlanta. The Saints have a huge showdown with the 49ers next week which could be for home field in the NFC. But they need to win this one first. After what happened in Week 10, they'll make sure of it.
Jets (4-7) at Bengals (0-11): Jets-Cincinnati has four chances to avoid joining the Lions and Browns in the 0-16 club (because, let's face it, they're not beating New England). On paper, this was their last best chance until a few weeks ago, when the Jets suddenly became this offensive powerhouse that scores 34 points every game. At first that seemed like a product of playing the Giants and Redskins, then they went and did the same thing to the Raiders. Sorry, Bengals fans, but you're staring 0-12 in the face.
Titans (6-5) at Colts (6-5): Tennessee-Overlook the Tennessee Titans at your own peril. Because the AFC South might just be theirs for the taking. They haven't played the Texans yet, and they could be tied with Houston for first place by the end of Sunday. That's why last week's loss to Houston was so costly for Indianapolis. It not only gave the Texans the division lead, but it pushed them into a tie with the Titans, making this one just as huge. And, frankly, I like what the Titans have been doing offensively. They go to 7-5 and, at worst, move into a tie for the second wild card spot.
Eagles (5-6) at Dolphins (2-9): Philadelphia-It's basically a battle for the 4-seed and the right to lose to Seattle or Minnesota between Philadelphia and Dallas. And week to week, you really can't tell which one doesn't want to make the playoffs more. Frankly, I think it's because both the Eagles and Cowboys just aren't that good (especially compared to the NFC's big 5). The Eagles have dropped two straight to New England and Seattle, but go back to playing the JV this week, which should get them back to .500.
Packers (8-3) at Giants (2-9): Green Bay-As Al Michaels said at the end of the game on Sunday night, the Packers are probably most thankful that they don't have any more trips to California on their schedule (at least in the regular season). And that loss to the 49ers might've been costly for a few reasons. First and foremost, it gave San Francisco the tiebreaker. But it also dropped the Packers to the 3-seed and thus no bye, while also putting them in a tie with the Vikings. So, basically, losing to the Giants would be really bad.
Browns (5-6) at Steelers (6-5): Pittsburgh-Let's just hope the end of this one isn't as eventful as their meeting in Cleveland. That, to say the least, was nasty. Although, both Myles Garrett's and Mike Pouncey's suspensions have them out for the rematch, and you know both teams will be on their best behavior. The Steelers, by the way, have somehow moved into the second AFC wild card spot. They have a perilous hold on it, though. And a second loss to the Browns would make it all but impossible for Pittsburgh to make the playoffs (especially since Cleveland still plays Cincinnati twice and Arizona).
Redskins (2-9) at Panthers (5-6): Carolina-Carolina's three-game losing streak has all but eliminated the Panthers from playoff contention. They essentially have to win out and hope at least one of the four dominant teams in the North or West goes on a massive slide (which seems unlikely). And let's not forget the Redskins, who finally won a home game for the first time in more than a year on Sunday! That was against the Lions, though. The Panthers aren't nearly as bad as the Lions.
Buccaneers (4-7) at Jaguars (4-7): Tampa Bay-Bruce Arians definitely has the Bucs going in the right direction. Especially in the past few weeks, Tampa Bay has looked really impressive. Jacksonville, meanwhile, finally returns home for the first time since Week 8. But that's what they signed up for when they agreed to host one of the London games every year. And their return to Northeast Florida will be disrupted by the guys from the other side of the state.
49ers (10-1) at Ravens (9-2): Baltimore-Baltimore is the best team in the NFL. There, I said it. And, after what they did to the Packers last Sunday night, the 49ers are making a pretty strong case as the best team in the NFC (I still say it's the Saints, though). Could this Super Bowl XLVII rematch be a Super Bowl LIV preview? And it's a huge test for San Francisco. Not just a cross country trip for a 1:00 kickoff, but probably the toughest opponent they've faced all season. We'll see how their defense can handle Lamar Jackson. Or, perhaps more accurately, what Lamar Jackson can do to their defense.
Rams (6-5) at Cardinals (3-7-1): Rams-They're a fringe playoff contender, but the Rams sure didn't look like it last week. Lamar Jackson and the Ravens sliced and diced them for 55 minutes on Monday night. It was bad. Although, frankly, that offense has had problems all season. Frankly, they play the Cardinals this week. Because they're a better team than Arizona. They can't afford to drop this one with Seattle, Dallas and San Francisco coming up.
Chargers (4-7) at Broncos (3-8): Chargers-Things haven't quite gone the way the Chargers and their fans expected them to this season. At 4-7, they're not just looking up a the Chiefs, the Raiders are ahead of them, too. At least they still have the Broncos. Things haven't exactly gone well in Denver this season, either. Bad luck has been the culprit for some of that, but 3-8 is 3-8. And that'll become 3-9. Because the Chargers won't go winless thru this three-game division run.
Raiders (6-5) at Chiefs (7-4): Kansas City-Oakland blew a golden opportunity to make this game really mean something when they flew cross country and laid an egg against the Jets last week. Now that turns this game into an absolute must-win for the Raiders, who already lost to Kansas City this season. The Chiefs, meanwhile, can pretty much wrap up the division with a win, which is equally important, seeing as they go to New England next week. They'll head to Foxboro for the AFC Championship Game rematch at 8-4.
Patriots (10-1) at Texans (7-4): Houston-New England will know going in whether or not they can clinch a playoff spot on Sunday night. All the Patriots need is either a Raiders or Steelers loss (both of which are very realistic possibilities), and a win locks up yet another Bradicheck playoff berth. Except I like the Texans to pull the upset here. Houston is a very similar team to Baltimore, and the Ravens dominated the Patriots when they played them on a Sunday night. Especially with that extra time to prepare, I see Houston giving New England all it can handle and then some.
Vikings (8-3) at Seahawks (9-2): Seattle-Neither one is at risk of losing their playoff spot. But the Monday night game is huge for seeding. The winner has the upper hand on the 5-seed, which means the NFC East winner instead of the 12-4 team that doesn't get a bye. The division is also in still in play for the winner. And that'll be Seattle. We really need to start talking about the Seahawks on the same level as the Ravens, Patriots, 49ers and Saints. They're THAT good!
Last Week: 8-6
Overall: 103-72-1
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
The Russian Dopes Are At It Again
Apparently having its athletes forced to compete as "OAR" in PyeongChang wasn't humiliating enough for Russia. Because it looks like they're going to subject their summer athletes to a similar fate in Tokyo. And, frankly, they deserve it. Their athletes don't, but the Russians have shown very little regard for their clean athletes throughout this entire process, so why start now?
I've tried to give the Russians the benefit of the doubt. I've felt that the country's ban from international track & field has been long enough and had long been advocating working them back into the fold. Partially because I hate the stupid "ANA" designation, but also because it's unfair to the clean Russian athletes (of which there are plenty), who can't compete under their own flag. Not to mention the Russian athletes in other sports who are booed and/or labeled as "cheaters" simply because of that flag.
The only way for that to stop, I reasoned, was to move forward. And the process of moving forward couldn't begin as long as Russia--and, by extension, all Russian athletes--was viewed as a pariah. My view has since changed, however. Because these dopes can't get out of their own way. And a message needs to be sent.
It's like the SMU football death penalty in 1987. SMU was so brazenly breaking NCAA rules...for so long...even after being sanctioned and told repeatedly to stop, that the NCAA was left with no other choice. The SMU football program was out of control, and there was no other way to stop it. Yes, the NCAA death penalty was the nuclear option. But it got the point across.
Russia appeared to be well on its way to reinstatement. They were following WADA's conditions, had handed over the long-sought-after blood samples, and even the Moscow lab had been re-accredited.
Or so we thought. As it turns out, they were spitting right in the face of both WADA and their own athletes. Because they weren't actually making any attempt to reform. It was just the opposite actually. Banned coaches were still working with athletes. Government officials were interfering with doping investigations. And, worst of all, they were manipulating the results of tests for certain athletes, even going so far as deleting files from the lab's computers. There's really no way to come up with a reasonable explanation that would prove that any of these actions were anything other than deliberate.
As a result, World Athletics (that's still going to take some getting used to) hasn't just suspended Russia's reinstatement. Now it seems more likely that Russia will be kicked out of international track & field altogether. You'd have to assume that the "ANA" athletes would still be allowed to compete, but they'd truly become men and women without a country.
That's the least of Russia's problems, though. As a result of "an extremely serious case of non-compliance with the requirement to provide an authentic copy of the Moscow data, with several aggravating features," WADA has recommended a four-year ban on Russia, which would include both the 2020 and 2022 Olympics.
This suspension wouldn't just apply to the Olympics, either. It would apply to any event in all sports that are subject to WADA code. That includes Euro 2020, for which Russia has already qualified and is supposed to be one of the hosts. And all IIHF events. Tennis, gymnastics, swimming and figure skating all fall under WADA code, too, although I'd imagine clean Russian athletes in those individual sports would be treated the same way as those in track & field, provided they pass the a similar rigorous screening process to the one that track & field utilizes to clear individual Russians.
Also included among WADA's recommendations is the requirement that Russia cannot host or even bid to host major sporting events during that four-year period, with any events that already have been awarded to Russia moved elsewhere. They'd also be prohibited from bidding for the 2032 Olympics. Seeing as this whole thing started because Russia hosted two major events in back-to-back years (2013 Track & Field World Championships in Moscow, 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi), that should've been a no-brainer already.
IOC President Thomas Bach is opposed to a blanket ban on Russia, primarily because he doesn't want clean athletes to suffer. That's why they were allowed to compete as "OAR" in PyeongChang and likely will be again in Tokyo (and possibly Beijing). And in that regard, he's right. There are clean Russian athletes who are already being deprived the honor of competing for their country. They shouldn't be deprived the opportunity to compete entirely, though, especially if they have nothing to do with this and have been doing everything the right way.
WADA's recommendations are just that. Recommendations. They won't be voted upon until a December 9 meeting in Paris, although the "OAR/ANA" thing seems to be the most likely solution. Some people will be unhappy that it isn't a blanket ban, but what would that accomplish? It would be a similar scenario to the 1980-84 boycotts, where way too many athletes had their Olympic dreams taken away because of Cold War politics.
And, I hate to break it to you, but not every Russian athlete is dirty. In fact, I think the vast majority of them are not. Which is why they shouldn't be the ones who suffer. It should be the higher-ups in the government and sports federations and Russian Olympic Committee. They're the one who are most responsible for the wrongdoing, and they're the ones who should be punished.
Besides, the athletes are being punished plenty. From the guilt by association to the generic uniforms to not being able to hear their national anthem and see their flag raised. The greatest moment in Russian hockey history, the gold medal in PyeongChang, technically never happened. Maria Lasistskene has brought immense national pride to the "Authorized Neutral Athletes" with her back-to-back World Championships.
So, yes, I feel for Lasistskene and other athletes like her. She's perhaps the biggest victim in this entire saga. By all accounts, Lasitskene has achieved all of her success legitimately. Yet she wasn't allowed to go to Rio simply because she's Russian and has been subjected to the ridiculous "ANA" designation for far too long for the same reason. Although, at least World Athletics knows it's the federation, not the athletes, that are the problem.
Which is why the IOC should follow suit. They gave Russia a chance to do everything by the book and earn its way back into good standing. Time and again, Russia failed to do that. So the time has come for the message to be sent. Let them know you're serious. Don't do that stupid, ineffective PyeongChang quasi-suspension. Make them take a four-year timeout. Hopefully that'll be enough time for them to figure things out.
I've tried to give the Russians the benefit of the doubt. I've felt that the country's ban from international track & field has been long enough and had long been advocating working them back into the fold. Partially because I hate the stupid "ANA" designation, but also because it's unfair to the clean Russian athletes (of which there are plenty), who can't compete under their own flag. Not to mention the Russian athletes in other sports who are booed and/or labeled as "cheaters" simply because of that flag.
The only way for that to stop, I reasoned, was to move forward. And the process of moving forward couldn't begin as long as Russia--and, by extension, all Russian athletes--was viewed as a pariah. My view has since changed, however. Because these dopes can't get out of their own way. And a message needs to be sent.
It's like the SMU football death penalty in 1987. SMU was so brazenly breaking NCAA rules...for so long...even after being sanctioned and told repeatedly to stop, that the NCAA was left with no other choice. The SMU football program was out of control, and there was no other way to stop it. Yes, the NCAA death penalty was the nuclear option. But it got the point across.
Russia appeared to be well on its way to reinstatement. They were following WADA's conditions, had handed over the long-sought-after blood samples, and even the Moscow lab had been re-accredited.
Or so we thought. As it turns out, they were spitting right in the face of both WADA and their own athletes. Because they weren't actually making any attempt to reform. It was just the opposite actually. Banned coaches were still working with athletes. Government officials were interfering with doping investigations. And, worst of all, they were manipulating the results of tests for certain athletes, even going so far as deleting files from the lab's computers. There's really no way to come up with a reasonable explanation that would prove that any of these actions were anything other than deliberate.
As a result, World Athletics (that's still going to take some getting used to) hasn't just suspended Russia's reinstatement. Now it seems more likely that Russia will be kicked out of international track & field altogether. You'd have to assume that the "ANA" athletes would still be allowed to compete, but they'd truly become men and women without a country.
That's the least of Russia's problems, though. As a result of "an extremely serious case of non-compliance with the requirement to provide an authentic copy of the Moscow data, with several aggravating features," WADA has recommended a four-year ban on Russia, which would include both the 2020 and 2022 Olympics.
This suspension wouldn't just apply to the Olympics, either. It would apply to any event in all sports that are subject to WADA code. That includes Euro 2020, for which Russia has already qualified and is supposed to be one of the hosts. And all IIHF events. Tennis, gymnastics, swimming and figure skating all fall under WADA code, too, although I'd imagine clean Russian athletes in those individual sports would be treated the same way as those in track & field, provided they pass the a similar rigorous screening process to the one that track & field utilizes to clear individual Russians.
Also included among WADA's recommendations is the requirement that Russia cannot host or even bid to host major sporting events during that four-year period, with any events that already have been awarded to Russia moved elsewhere. They'd also be prohibited from bidding for the 2032 Olympics. Seeing as this whole thing started because Russia hosted two major events in back-to-back years (2013 Track & Field World Championships in Moscow, 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi), that should've been a no-brainer already.
IOC President Thomas Bach is opposed to a blanket ban on Russia, primarily because he doesn't want clean athletes to suffer. That's why they were allowed to compete as "OAR" in PyeongChang and likely will be again in Tokyo (and possibly Beijing). And in that regard, he's right. There are clean Russian athletes who are already being deprived the honor of competing for their country. They shouldn't be deprived the opportunity to compete entirely, though, especially if they have nothing to do with this and have been doing everything the right way.
WADA's recommendations are just that. Recommendations. They won't be voted upon until a December 9 meeting in Paris, although the "OAR/ANA" thing seems to be the most likely solution. Some people will be unhappy that it isn't a blanket ban, but what would that accomplish? It would be a similar scenario to the 1980-84 boycotts, where way too many athletes had their Olympic dreams taken away because of Cold War politics.
And, I hate to break it to you, but not every Russian athlete is dirty. In fact, I think the vast majority of them are not. Which is why they shouldn't be the ones who suffer. It should be the higher-ups in the government and sports federations and Russian Olympic Committee. They're the one who are most responsible for the wrongdoing, and they're the ones who should be punished.
Besides, the athletes are being punished plenty. From the guilt by association to the generic uniforms to not being able to hear their national anthem and see their flag raised. The greatest moment in Russian hockey history, the gold medal in PyeongChang, technically never happened. Maria Lasistskene has brought immense national pride to the "Authorized Neutral Athletes" with her back-to-back World Championships.
So, yes, I feel for Lasistskene and other athletes like her. She's perhaps the biggest victim in this entire saga. By all accounts, Lasitskene has achieved all of her success legitimately. Yet she wasn't allowed to go to Rio simply because she's Russian and has been subjected to the ridiculous "ANA" designation for far too long for the same reason. Although, at least World Athletics knows it's the federation, not the athletes, that are the problem.
Which is why the IOC should follow suit. They gave Russia a chance to do everything by the book and earn its way back into good standing. Time and again, Russia failed to do that. So the time has come for the message to be sent. Let them know you're serious. Don't do that stupid, ineffective PyeongChang quasi-suspension. Make them take a four-year timeout. Hopefully that'll be enough time for them to figure things out.
Sunday, November 24, 2019
NFL 100: Week 12
Of course, the one time I actually pick the Colts to beat the Texans, Houston wins. And it was a big one for the Texans. It keeps them as the No. 3 seed in the AFC and, more importantly, they avoided getting swept by Indianapolis, which really might've been costly in the division race. In fact, it could be the thing that gives Houston the division and knocks Indy out entirely.
And now that we've finally reached the final week of byes, the playoff picture is going to become an even bigger focus. It's usually starting on Thanksgiving that we see the playoff standings at the end of every game involving good teams. And there are plenty of those this week. All three national games (all four including Thursday night) include at least one first-place team. In fact, the Rams are the only non-first-place team playing in prime time this week.
Thursday Night: Indianapolis (Loss)
Buccaneers (3-7) at Falcons (3-7): Atlanta-Where did this come from? After starting 1-7, the Atlanta Falcons suddenly have this dominant defense. They've only given up 12 points combined in their last two games, both wins. Now they look to make it three in a row against division rivals. Considering the fact that they play five straight in the division and six of their last eight are division games, maybe Atlanta's season isn't lost, after all. They still have no chance at winning the division, but, like the Steelers, they can at least make their record look a lot more respectable at the end.
Broncos (3-7) at Bills (7-3): Buffalo-Criticize the Bills all you want for beating up on bad teams. You can only play who's on the schedule, and those bad teams have put the Bills in a good position to make the playoffs. The tough part of their schedule is coming (at Dallas, Baltimore, at Pittsburgh, New England), but a win here gets them to 8-3 and gives them a two-game lead over seventh place in the AFC. Win here, win against Miami in Week 17, and that should be enough even if the Bills lose all four of those games.
Giants (2-8) at Bears (4-6): Giants-As the NFL celebrates its 100th season, two of the league's marquee franchises are struggling. The Giants have lost six straight, while the Bears have dropped five out of six. Chicago will be the early game on Thanksgiving, so this gives them a chance to carry some momentum into that nationally-televised contest in Detroit. I think the Giants see this as one of the few remaining winnable games on their schedule, though. The Bears' defense will give the Giants problems, but Chicago's not having an offense will be a bigger problem and the Giants snap their skid.
Steelers (5-5) at Bengals (0-10): Pittsburgh-The first time these two teams met, they were both in danger of falling into the abyss. They were both 0-3 on that Monday night and the Steelers dominated. That started Pittsburgh on a 5-2 run that has them seriously thinking playoffs. The Bengals, meanwhile, are still winless, which isn't as crazy as how badly they've been losing. They haven't even been close in most of their games! This is the Steelers' first game since the disgusting events last week in Cleveland, so we'll see if there's any carryover. Fortunately, against the Bengals, the loss of Mike Pouncey shouldn't have too much of an impact.
Dolphins (2-7) at Browns (3-6): Cleveland-Speaking of the disgusting events last week in Cleveland, Browns fans found a way to make it worse. There was actually a petition going around online seeking Myles Garrett's reinstatement that has gathered more than 60,000 signatures. Seriously??!! Did they see the guy commit assault on national television? Anyway, Garrett is rightfully suspended for the rest of the season, which severely damages the Browns' faint playoff hopes. They shouldn't need him to beat Miami, even if the Dolphins have somehow suddenly won two in a row (blowing their chances at wresting the No. 1 pick away from Cincinnati).
Panthers (5-5) at Saints (8-2): New Orleans-Cross flexing has been a thing for at least like five years, and it still confuses me. For example, Jets-Redskins was on FOX instead of CBS last week for some reason. I have no idea why. And this one was flipped to CBS as their marquee game. But that's because all of the AFC road games suck and CBS wanted at least one good game. So Panthers-Saints it is. New Orleans rebounded from that random loss to Atlanta by dominating the Bucs last week. A win here should all but wrap up the NFC South with a month to go.
Raiders (6-4) at Jets (3-7): Oakland-Don't look now, but the Oakland Raiders are right smack in the middle of the playoff race. And they can move into a wild card spot (and a first-place tie with the Chiefs) with a win over the Jets at Met Life Stadium. The weather in this area isn't supposed to be good on Sunday, but the Raiders are hot. And the Jets need to prove that they can beat an AFC team. They're 3-1 against the NFC East, 0-6 against their own conference.
Seahawks (8-2) at Eagles (5-5): Settle-It got flexed out of Sunday night, which says nothing about the quality of this game. Because this matchup has a big bearing on the NFC playoff standings. Seattle is firmly in a playoff position, while the Eagles probably have to focus on the division race. Especially if they drop this one, which would put them four games behind Seattle and give the Seahawks the tiebreaker.
Lions (3-6-1) at Redskins (1-9): Detroit-Those faint playoff chances that Detroit was clinging to are all but gone now. The Lions have dropped six out of seven, with the only win coming against the Giants. Fortunately for them, the Redskins are in the same company as the Giants. Although, I'm still not sure what this team looks like without Matthew Stafford. It's going to be a long six weeks without him one way or another. They'll get even longer if they lose to the Redskins.
Jaguars (4-6) at Titans (5-5): Tennessee-That Texans win on Thursday night had major implications on this game, too. Because the Titans haven't played Houston yet and play Indianapolis next week. So, a win over the Jaguars to get to 6-5 and keeps them right in the thick of it. A loss, though, and they're tied with Jacksonville, two games behind Houston. That's a big difference. Especially since both wild cards are wide open.
Cowboys (6-4) at Patriots (9-1): New England-Get ready to see a lot of the Dallas Cowboys. The Cowboys are the national game a lot anyway, but their next five games are all national TV affairs. Starting with a heavyweight matchup in Foxboro. The Patriots haven't lost a home game in what seems like three years and their two toughest games remaining (Dallas, Kansas City) are both at home. Dallas always shows up for games like this, though, so I think they might give New England all they can handle. In the end, though, expect Bradicheck to make it another 10-win season.
Packers (8-2) at 49ers (9-1): Green Bay-Now things get serious for the 49ers. They beefed up against weaker teams, but now they've got a three-game stretch of Packers, Ravens, Saints. It's make-or-break for San Francisco, which doesn't just have to worry about the 1-seed. They've also got the Seahawks to worry about. Green Bay and New Orleans don't play this season, but they both play San Francisco. So, yeah, this game has major implications all around. And, frankly, the Packers are a better team than the 49ers. They get the big road win and take over the NFC's No. 1 seed.
Ravens (8-2) at Rams (6-4): Baltimore-Call me crazy, but I think the Ravens might be the best team in football. They've always been all about defense, yet suddenly they're this offensive juggernaut. We'll really see they're made of when they travel cross country for a Monday night game at the LA Coliseum. Last year around this time, the Rams played the Game of the Year on a Monday night against the Chiefs. Do we have another one in store this year?
BONUS GAME--Grey Cup: Tiger-Cats vs. Blue Bombers: Hamilton-They're the only two teams that haven't won the Grey Cup in the 2000s. Hamilton last won in 1999. Winnipeg last won in 1990. That was so long ago the entire American experiment happened and failed since then...and that ended 25 years ago! Even Baltimore has won the Grey Cup more recently than Winnipeg! (Browns and Lions fans are probably thinking "cry me a river," but in a nine-team league, 20 and 29 years is even longer). Anyway, Hamilton was the dominant team in the CFL all season, so I think they cap it off by hoisting the Grey Cup and bringing the Bombers' drought to an even 30 years.
This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 11-3
Overall: 95-67-1
And now that we've finally reached the final week of byes, the playoff picture is going to become an even bigger focus. It's usually starting on Thanksgiving that we see the playoff standings at the end of every game involving good teams. And there are plenty of those this week. All three national games (all four including Thursday night) include at least one first-place team. In fact, the Rams are the only non-first-place team playing in prime time this week.
Thursday Night: Indianapolis (Loss)
Buccaneers (3-7) at Falcons (3-7): Atlanta-Where did this come from? After starting 1-7, the Atlanta Falcons suddenly have this dominant defense. They've only given up 12 points combined in their last two games, both wins. Now they look to make it three in a row against division rivals. Considering the fact that they play five straight in the division and six of their last eight are division games, maybe Atlanta's season isn't lost, after all. They still have no chance at winning the division, but, like the Steelers, they can at least make their record look a lot more respectable at the end.
Broncos (3-7) at Bills (7-3): Buffalo-Criticize the Bills all you want for beating up on bad teams. You can only play who's on the schedule, and those bad teams have put the Bills in a good position to make the playoffs. The tough part of their schedule is coming (at Dallas, Baltimore, at Pittsburgh, New England), but a win here gets them to 8-3 and gives them a two-game lead over seventh place in the AFC. Win here, win against Miami in Week 17, and that should be enough even if the Bills lose all four of those games.
Giants (2-8) at Bears (4-6): Giants-As the NFL celebrates its 100th season, two of the league's marquee franchises are struggling. The Giants have lost six straight, while the Bears have dropped five out of six. Chicago will be the early game on Thanksgiving, so this gives them a chance to carry some momentum into that nationally-televised contest in Detroit. I think the Giants see this as one of the few remaining winnable games on their schedule, though. The Bears' defense will give the Giants problems, but Chicago's not having an offense will be a bigger problem and the Giants snap their skid.
Steelers (5-5) at Bengals (0-10): Pittsburgh-The first time these two teams met, they were both in danger of falling into the abyss. They were both 0-3 on that Monday night and the Steelers dominated. That started Pittsburgh on a 5-2 run that has them seriously thinking playoffs. The Bengals, meanwhile, are still winless, which isn't as crazy as how badly they've been losing. They haven't even been close in most of their games! This is the Steelers' first game since the disgusting events last week in Cleveland, so we'll see if there's any carryover. Fortunately, against the Bengals, the loss of Mike Pouncey shouldn't have too much of an impact.
Dolphins (2-7) at Browns (3-6): Cleveland-Speaking of the disgusting events last week in Cleveland, Browns fans found a way to make it worse. There was actually a petition going around online seeking Myles Garrett's reinstatement that has gathered more than 60,000 signatures. Seriously??!! Did they see the guy commit assault on national television? Anyway, Garrett is rightfully suspended for the rest of the season, which severely damages the Browns' faint playoff hopes. They shouldn't need him to beat Miami, even if the Dolphins have somehow suddenly won two in a row (blowing their chances at wresting the No. 1 pick away from Cincinnati).
Panthers (5-5) at Saints (8-2): New Orleans-Cross flexing has been a thing for at least like five years, and it still confuses me. For example, Jets-Redskins was on FOX instead of CBS last week for some reason. I have no idea why. And this one was flipped to CBS as their marquee game. But that's because all of the AFC road games suck and CBS wanted at least one good game. So Panthers-Saints it is. New Orleans rebounded from that random loss to Atlanta by dominating the Bucs last week. A win here should all but wrap up the NFC South with a month to go.
Raiders (6-4) at Jets (3-7): Oakland-Don't look now, but the Oakland Raiders are right smack in the middle of the playoff race. And they can move into a wild card spot (and a first-place tie with the Chiefs) with a win over the Jets at Met Life Stadium. The weather in this area isn't supposed to be good on Sunday, but the Raiders are hot. And the Jets need to prove that they can beat an AFC team. They're 3-1 against the NFC East, 0-6 against their own conference.
Seahawks (8-2) at Eagles (5-5): Settle-It got flexed out of Sunday night, which says nothing about the quality of this game. Because this matchup has a big bearing on the NFC playoff standings. Seattle is firmly in a playoff position, while the Eagles probably have to focus on the division race. Especially if they drop this one, which would put them four games behind Seattle and give the Seahawks the tiebreaker.
Lions (3-6-1) at Redskins (1-9): Detroit-Those faint playoff chances that Detroit was clinging to are all but gone now. The Lions have dropped six out of seven, with the only win coming against the Giants. Fortunately for them, the Redskins are in the same company as the Giants. Although, I'm still not sure what this team looks like without Matthew Stafford. It's going to be a long six weeks without him one way or another. They'll get even longer if they lose to the Redskins.
Jaguars (4-6) at Titans (5-5): Tennessee-That Texans win on Thursday night had major implications on this game, too. Because the Titans haven't played Houston yet and play Indianapolis next week. So, a win over the Jaguars to get to 6-5 and keeps them right in the thick of it. A loss, though, and they're tied with Jacksonville, two games behind Houston. That's a big difference. Especially since both wild cards are wide open.
Cowboys (6-4) at Patriots (9-1): New England-Get ready to see a lot of the Dallas Cowboys. The Cowboys are the national game a lot anyway, but their next five games are all national TV affairs. Starting with a heavyweight matchup in Foxboro. The Patriots haven't lost a home game in what seems like three years and their two toughest games remaining (Dallas, Kansas City) are both at home. Dallas always shows up for games like this, though, so I think they might give New England all they can handle. In the end, though, expect Bradicheck to make it another 10-win season.
Packers (8-2) at 49ers (9-1): Green Bay-Now things get serious for the 49ers. They beefed up against weaker teams, but now they've got a three-game stretch of Packers, Ravens, Saints. It's make-or-break for San Francisco, which doesn't just have to worry about the 1-seed. They've also got the Seahawks to worry about. Green Bay and New Orleans don't play this season, but they both play San Francisco. So, yeah, this game has major implications all around. And, frankly, the Packers are a better team than the 49ers. They get the big road win and take over the NFC's No. 1 seed.
Ravens (8-2) at Rams (6-4): Baltimore-Call me crazy, but I think the Ravens might be the best team in football. They've always been all about defense, yet suddenly they're this offensive juggernaut. We'll really see they're made of when they travel cross country for a Monday night game at the LA Coliseum. Last year around this time, the Rams played the Game of the Year on a Monday night against the Chiefs. Do we have another one in store this year?
BONUS GAME--Grey Cup: Tiger-Cats vs. Blue Bombers: Hamilton-They're the only two teams that haven't won the Grey Cup in the 2000s. Hamilton last won in 1999. Winnipeg last won in 1990. That was so long ago the entire American experiment happened and failed since then...and that ended 25 years ago! Even Baltimore has won the Grey Cup more recently than Winnipeg! (Browns and Lions fans are probably thinking "cry me a river," but in a nine-team league, 20 and 29 years is even longer). Anyway, Hamilton was the dominant team in the CFL all season, so I think they cap it off by hoisting the Grey Cup and bringing the Bombers' drought to an even 30 years.
This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 11-3
Overall: 95-67-1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)