A Flawed System

The leak about Bill Belichick not getting into the Pro Football Hall of Fame has created, as expected, tremendous backlash.  And it's also created an unprecedented response from the Hall of Fame.  First, they released a statement defending the voting process (more on that in a minute).  Then, the voters who didn't vote for Belichick began to trickle out and give their reasons.  And now, we found out the vote total.  He missed by one vote, getting 39 of the required 40.  If one of the 11 voters who didn't put his name down had, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.  (And I'm betting at least one of them wishes he had at this point.)

Since you need 80 percent, we knew it had to be at least 11.  As it turns out, it was exactly 11.  So far, two of the "No" voters have explained themselves, and, while I don't necessarily agree with them, I can understand their reasons.  Vahe Gregorian of the Kansas City Star blamed the system.  There were five candidates--Belichick, Robert Kraft, and three senior nominees (Ken Anderson, Roger Craig, L.C. Greenwood).  Voters could only vote for three of them.  Gregorian wrote an article explaining his "No" vote and said that he believes Belichick is a Hall of Famer, but he wanted to throw his support for the three senior candidates.  He was voting for them rather than against Belichick.  Which I can respect.

Another voter, Mike Chappell, explained that he voted for two of the senior candidates, which left him with only one spot left for either Belichick or Kraft.  He decided to vote for Kraft.  Chappell credited Kraft for everything he did for the NFL beyond just building the Patriots dynasty (such as ending the 2011 lockout and his role in negotiating the league's broadcast deals).  He also noted that Spygate impacted his decision.  Does he think Belichick should not get into the Hall of Fame because of it?  Of course not.  (Deflategate's not gonna keep Brady out.)  But, left with the choice between Kraft and Belichick, he went with Kraft.  Which, again, you can understand.

What all of this controversy has exposed is how the Pro Football Hall of Fame's voting system is incredibly flawed.  It was already the most exclusive voting body among all of the Hall of Fame.  There are only 50 total voters.  It's also the only one where they go into a room and discuss the candidates face-to-face before making their individual decisions.  Then, throw in the fact that each voter only gets to pick three, you're looking at a finite number of 150 votes.

Last year, the Pro Football Hall of Fame made a number of changes to the voting system.  Those changes, which were completely unnecessary and not many agree with them, made it that much harder to get into the Hall.  As we saw last year, when only four players (only three of the Modern Era finalists) were selected.  To put that in perspective, more people got into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2025 than the Football Hall of Fame!

I have no idea why they felt the need to make the Pro Football Hall of Fame more exclusive, but they did.  It seems likely that the outrage Belichick's snub has created will lead to additional changes next year.  Whether that means going back to the old system or something different, more change is definitely in order.  Because the current system is flawed at best and stupid at worst.

One of the biggest reasons for this controversy is also one of the biggest nonsensical things they did when they revamped the system last year.  Previously, coaches, contributors and seniors were all considered separately.  Now they're all lumped together.  And voters can only pick three of the five.  Which means they have to decide between voting for the senior candidates, who've been overlooked to this point and may never be finalists again, or coaches and contributors (which means not voting for at least one of the seniors).  As Gregorian noted, a lot of voters have a problem with that.

An obvious solution would be going back to having those three groups considered separately.  If they want to keep the coaches and contributors together, fine.  But they shouldn't be grouped in with the seniors.  That does a disservice to both groups.  Because you'll inevitably have fewer people getting in since there will almost certainly be split votes.  (We'll see what happens this year, but last year, Sterling Sharpe was the only member of the senior/coach/contributor group to get in.  Since the leading vote-getter is guaranteed to get in regardless, I bet nobody got 80 percent on that ballot last year.)

If they want to reduce the number of finalists in each category to keep the class size more manageable, that could be a reasonable solution.  They could even do something similar to what baseball does with its Era Committees and not vote for each group every year.  I think you need to keep the annual senior vote, but, if you do the coaches and contributors in alternating years, that might work, too.  Whatever they do, they need to re-separate the three groups.  As we've seen, lumping the seniors, coaches and contributors all together doesn't work.  They're three distinct categories and should be considered as such.

Likewise, they need to get rid of the maximum number of votes per person.  I think that was the biggest reason we had a ridiculously small class last year and was likely the biggest reason why Belichick didn't make the cut this year.  The 80 percent threshold is difficult enough without the limited number of selections.  Especially since the voting body is so small.  Candidates need to get 40 of 50 votes to be elected.  That's not a big margin for error even without a finite number of choices per voter.

Before last year's changes, once the voting body made its final round of cuts, it was just a straight "Yes/No" vote for the five remaining candidates.  If they reached that point, a "Yes" vote was pretty much guaranteed and the selection committee essentially just rubber-stamped the final list.  Last year, they increased that number to seven, of which a maximum of five could get in.  Only three did.  Four didn't.  More players who reached the finalist stage didn't get in than did!  No doubt because the voters only had a certain number of votes apiece and couldn't vote for someone they otherwise would have.

Those four players--Willie Anderson, Torry Holt, Luke Kuechly and Adam Vinatieri--became automatic finalists this year.  Which is little consolation.  Because the ballot changes every year, and this year's list of finalists includes two sure-fire first-ballot names (Drew Brees and Larry Fitzgerald), as well as two other first-timers who'll get in fairly soon, if not this year (Frank Gore and Jason Witten).  Last year might've been Anderson, Holt, Kuechly and Vinatieri's best chance, at least for a while.  The fact that they didn't max out at five inductees (especially knowing that these loaded classes were coming) is absurd!  And, as a result, those guys could very well now end up in ballot purgatory.

So, it's not just the senior/coach/contributor voting system that's flawed.  The 2025 changes impacted the Modern Era vote, too.  We obviously don't know how many people will be in this year's Hall of Fame class, but the ridiculously small class last year was a direct result of those changes.  They took an imperfect system and made it worse.

Fortunately, it's not too late to fix what they broke.  So, maybe some good will end up coming out of this.  If Bill Belichick, a first-ballot Hall of Famer if there ever was one, didn't get in on the first ballot, something's wrong.  His failure to get in exposed a flawed voting system for exactly what it is.  Flawed.  And I'd expect some corrective measures to be taken that ensure something like this can't happen again in 2027.

Two Host Cities, One Opening Ceremony

We're a little less than a week away from the Opening Ceremony of the Milan Cortina Olympics and a little more than a year and a half removed from the, let's go with, "unique" Opening Ceremony we saw in Paris.  This one promises to be unique in its own way, with venues spread across Northern Italy.  The main ceremony will be in Milan at San Siro, the historic home of both AC Milan and Inter Milan, but the athletes will all be able to participate no matter where they're competing.  It's an adventurous plan that will either work seamlessly and be amazing or be doomed by poor execution.  I'm curious to see which it'll be.

There are a few things about the ceremony that we do know.  The most prominent of which is that there'll be two Olympic cauldrons--one in Milan, one in Cortina.  It stands to reason, then, that since there are two cauldrons, there will be at least two final torchbearers.  My money's on Armin Zoeggler to be one of them.  That's only one interesting aspect of the two-city/two-stadium Opening Ceremony being planned.  With the athletes being so spread out, how will the countries choose their flagbearers?

Since the Tokyo Games, countries have been allowed to have two flagbearers--one man, one woman.  While I expect that to continue in Milan Cortina, how exactly will that work?  Only a handful of sports are being based in Milan, so will it be limited to those ice athletes?  Or will some nations go with two skiers, who'll be based in Cortina?  What if the athletes who are chosen are competing in different places?  I really am fascinated about how it'll all work.

For Team USA, I think there are three realistic options.  They could have the flagbearers both come from the Milan-based sports and walk in together.  Ditto about choosing two flagbearers from Cortina-based sports.  Or, they could have one of each, with one walking in the Milan portion of the Parade of Nations and the other leading the Cortina portion.  Which, obviously, will be very a logistical challenge, but would actually be pretty cool if they can pull it off.

Who ultimately gets chosen could very well depend on which of those options they go with.  I do think it'll be two flagbearers.  There's no reason for it not to be.  And those American flagbearers will come out of a very deep pool of candidates.  Such as...

Nick Baumgartner: Baumgartner was one of the best stories of the Beijing Winter Games.  He was eliminated in the quarterfinals of men's snowboard cross and thought his Olympic career was over.  Then the 40-year-old was selected for the mixed team event and won gold with Lindsey Jacobellis.  Now 44, Baumgartner is back for his fifth Olympics.

Erin Jackson: Jackson originally didn't make the team four years ago, but Brittany Bowe gave up her spot in the 500 meters so that Jackson could take her place.  Jackson went on to win the gold, becoming the first American woman to win speed skating gold in 20 years.  More significantly, she became the first Black American woman to win any Olympic speed skating medal and the first Black woman to win an individual Olympic gold in any sport.

Nick Goepper: In 2022, Goepper won silver in slopestyle for the second straight Olympics.  He also has an Olympic bronze in the event from Sochi.  On his way home from Beijing, he decided he was done.  He didn't want to ski anymore and told his sponsors he was retiring.  Since then, he's regained his passion for the sport and switched events.  Goepper comes into Milan Cortina as one of the favorites in the halfpipe.

Hilary Knight: Women's hockey captain Hilary Knight will be competing in her fifth and final Olympics.  Team USA's first game is on Thursday and their second is on Saturday, so it's probably unlikely that Knight participates in the Opening Ceremony.  But it'd still be such a tremendous honor for a woman who's meant so much to her sport and is looking for a fifth Olympic medal.

Campbell Wright: Biathlon is the one winter sport in which the U.S. has never won a medal (not counting ski mountaineering, which makes its debut in Milan Cortina).  Campbell Wright can change that.  He won two medals at the World Championships last year and was on the podium at the last pre-Olympic World Cup stop.  I'll admit that his carrying the flag in the Opening Ceremony is unlikely.  If he does medal, though, carrying it in the Closing Ceremony could be a very realistic possibility.

Kaillie Humphries: The 40-year-old Humphries began her Olympic career in Italy 20 years ago, when she was an alternate on the Canadian team.  She went on to win three medals for our neighbors to the north (two gold, one bronze) at the next three Winter Games before switching allegiances to the United States just before the 2022 Olympics...where she won gold for the U.S. in the first-ever women's monobob event.  These Olympics will be her first as a mother.

Ryan Cochran-Siegle: As decorated as the U.S. women's alpine skiing team has been an is expected to be again, the only American alpine medal in Beijing came in the men's Super G.  It was won by Ryan Cochran-Siegle, whose mother was an Olympic champion in the slalom 50 years earlier.  The women's team may generate the headlines with superstars Mikaela Shiffrin and Lindsey Vonn, but it's the 33-year-old Cochran-Siegle, now a three-time Olympian, who's the veteran leader of the men's squad.

Jessie Diggins: She's the face of her sport and the greatest American cross country skier in history.  Diggins was the American flagbearer at the 2018 Closing Ceremony, then won two individual medals in 2022.  She competes on Saturday morning, so the chances of her actually marching in the Opening Ceremony on Friday night are slim to none.  So, even if she were selected, she'd likely decline the honor.  It's an honor she'd certainly deserve, though.

Any of those athletes would be a fine selection, but I'm not going with any of them.  No, my choice for the American flagbearers is the married ice dancers Madison Chock & Evan Bates.  This will be the fourth Olympics for Chock & Bates, who'll likely be the captains of the U.S. figure skating team.  They won team event gold in 2022, are three-time defending World Champions, and are favored to take home two golds in Milan.  They'll actually be competing on the morning of the Opening Ceremony, too, in the opening stage of the team event.  So, because of that, I can see them not marching.  If they do march, however, they should be holding the Stars & Stripes as they lead Team USA into San Siro.

A Hall of Fame Second Look

It was shocking to find out that Bill Belichick wasn't selected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.  Most people had pretty much just assumed that was a given, but clearly at least 11 of the voters in the room didn't agree.  That'll certainly have an impact on my Pro Football Hall of Fame "ballot," which I'll post next week.  Because I'm one of those people who took it for granted that Belichick would get in.

Today, though, I'm gonna talk about some of the players who've been overlooked for another Hall of Fame...the Baseball Hall of Fame.  During my snow day, I watched the announcement of this year's class (congratulations to Carlos Beltran and Andruw Jones), as well as the show that preceded it.  On that preshow, they discussed this year's candidates, of course, but also how they compare to some of those players who've been overlooked in the past.  Essentially, the argument was that if the definition of what makes a "Hall of Famer" has evolved and will continue to evolve with the modern game, do those players from the 70s and 80s (and even the 90s) deserve to be looked at thru a different lens?

That, of course, is the entire point of the Eras Committees.  And those Eras Committees generally do evaluate those on the ballot differently than the BBWAA.  That doesn't mean some players haven't still fallen through the cracks, though.  Here are 10 players who will hopefully end up getting that Hall of Fame call after their careers are reevaluated by an Eras Committee.  (Please note this doesn't include anyone who's still eligible for the BBWAA ballot.)

Steve Garvey: Garvey peaked at 42.6 percent of the vote during his 15 years on the BBWAA ballot.  I have no idea why!  The fact that he never garnered the support of at least half the voters boggles my mind!  The dude was a 10-time All*Star, an MVP, a two-time NLCS MVP, played in over 1,200 consecutive games and was a monster in the postseason.  He was the anchor and biggest name on those outstanding Dodgers teams of the 70s.  It seriously makes no sense that he hasn't come close to induction.

Lou Whitaker: A lot of the talk about this year's vote surrounded around the fact that Chase Utley got significantly more support than Jimmy Rollins.  The argument was, basically, how can you separate them?  And it brought to mind another long-time double play tandem--Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker.  Trammell got voted in by the Eras Committee in 2018, and campaigned for Whitaker in his induction speech.  While I agree Trammell was the better player, Whitaker's definitely deserving of a second look.

Don Mattingly: There's still hope for Don Mattingly, and I do think an Eras Committee will eventually give him the nod.  He certainly checks all the boxes.  Mattingly was the best first baseman in the American League throughout the 80s and he was the face of the most famous franchise in the sport for most of his career.  So, he's definitely got the "fame" part covered.  And, while it shouldn't make a difference in terms of his playing career, the fact that he's been a successful manager, as well, does stand out.

Keith Hernandez: While we're talking about first basemen who played in New York in the 80s, let's go across town.  There's very little debate that Hernandez is the best defensive first baseman in history.  His hitting is underrated, though.  Hernandez won a batting title and two Silver Sluggers and had a .296 career average.  Then there's the leadership.  He won an MVP and was the heart and soul of two World Series-winning teams.  It was trading for Hernandez and Gary Carter, in fact, that set the Mets up for that legendary 1986 season.

Dale Murphy: Another player who'd get a lot more support if he were on the ballot today is Dale Murphy.  He was one of the best damn players in the entire National League playing for some bad Braves teams.  (Meanwhile, the 1997 Braves, who lost in the NLCS, now have six Hall of Fame players, as well as their manager and GM.)  Murphy was a two-time MVP and seven-time All*Star who won both the Gold Glove and Silver Slugger four years in a row.  And, as was mentioned multiple times after two center fielders were voted in, the position is greatly underrepresented in Cooperstown.

Bernie Williams: All six of those 90s Braves are absolutely Hall of Famers.  There's no doubt about that.  You know how many players from the 90s Yankees (who won four Word Series in five years) are in the Hall of Fame?  Two!  Tim Raines and Wade Boggs were there in 1996 and Mike Mussina was there in the early 2000s, but Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera were the only players who were there throughout the dynasty who have plaques in Cooperstown.  Hopefully Andy Pettitte will join them at some point, but Bernie Williams should, too.  He was a good center fielder for a long time and a consistent postseason performer for a team that won four championships (with him hitting in the middle of the lineup).  And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't winning the entire point?  Yet he fell off the BBWAA ballot after just two years.

Tommy John: Appreciation has certainly grown for Tommy John's longevity.  He pitched for 26 seasons from 1963-89.  Did that longevity contribute to some of his career numbers?  Absolutely.  But, he was an ace during his prime with the Dodgers and won 13 games with the Yankees as a 45-year-old in 1987.  And let's not forget his namesake surgery, which changed baseball and has lengthened countless careers.  That only adds to his Hall of Fame case.

Vida Blue: Vida Blue had well-documented substance abuse problems, which might've been what led to his quick departure from the BBWAA ballot.  But Blue died in 2023, so maybe it's worth taking another look at his career posthumously.  Because he's another one who puts the "Fame" part in Hall of Fame.  There was no bigger name or personality in the early 70s than the ace of the Oakland A's.  He was the AL MVP and Cy Young winner in 1971, then Oakland won three straight championships from 1972-74.  Yes, he had only 209 career wins and his career ERA was 3.27.  So what?  At his peak, he was the best in the game.

Don Newcombe: Taking it way back, the late Don Newcombe never got the Hall of Fame love I feel he deserved.  Newcombe's MLB career was relatively short, but you also have to consider the fact that he played in the Negro Leageus for two years before joining the Dodgers, then missed time serving in the Korean War.  Anyway, Newcombe was the ace of those Brooklyn teams.  He was the 1949 NL Rookie of the Year, then won the NL MVP, as well as the first-ever Cy Young Award (which was one award that went to the best pitcher across both leagues at the time) in 1956.

Bob Meusel: I've made the case for Bob Meusel before, and I will again here.  Meusel played for the "Murderers' Row" Yankees in the 1920s, where he was obviously overshadowed by Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig.  Those teams also featured other Hall of Famers Tony Lazzeri, Bill Dickey and Earle Combs in the lineup, but Meusel held his own.  He was a career .309 hitter, had the fourth-most RBIs in the American League during the 1920s and won the AL home run in 1925.

Are all 10 of the players Hall of Famers?  I don't know.  Will some of them eventually get in?  Hopefully.  My point is that their case should be heard.  And giving their careers another look could very well end up with a deserved plaque in Cooperstown.

Next Season's Opener

The Rams actually did the NFL a big favor by losing the NFC Championship Game.  They're scheduled to open next season in Australia, but it's also a longstanding NFL tradition that the Super Bowl champion plays in the season-opening Thursday night game.  While it would've been interesting to see how they figured it out had the Rams won the Super Bowl (just playing the Australia game on Thursday night here/Friday afternoon there?), they no longer have to worry about it.  Instead, either the Seahawks or Patriots will get the honor of opening at home on Thursday night.

Of course, the Rams have been eliminated as a potential opponent for the Seahawks should they win.  Which, frankly, isn't as big a deal.  Sure, a rematch of the NFC Championship Game (which is also a rivalry game) would've been a great option.  But it wasn't the only one available to Seattle.  In fact, with the Rams out of the equation, there are still five worthwhile choices should the Seahawks earn the honor...

Patriots: Let's start with the most obvious.  The NFC has the extra home game next season, and the AFC East is the NFC West's 17th opponent.  So, we'll have a Super Bowl rematch in Seattle.  It would be totally understandable if the NFL wants to hold this one off until later in the year (perhaps as a standalone doubleheader game in the 4:25 window at some point), but I can also see them having it open the season.  Although, they can only play it in Week 1 if the Seahawks win, so it'll be Option B if the Patriots win.

Chiefs: I know, I know.  But there's no denying that the Chiefs will still be a draw and will still be prominently featured on national broadcasts next season.  Even if Kelce retires, this would still presumably be Mahomes' grand return, and you know Cris Collinsworth would like that.  I don't think this one is likely, but I don't think it's completely inconceivable either.

Bears: It wouldn't surprise me at all if they went with this one.  Had overtime gone the Bears' way, this would've been an NFC Championship Game rematch.  And the NFL loves putting the Bears in primetime.  So, this seems like a very realistic possibility.  Unless they want to give it to FOX as the national game on one of their doubleheader weekends.

Cowboys: Dallas was Philadelphia's opponent in this year's Thursday night opener.  Would they really have it be the Cowboys two years in a row?  While it's probably not likely, it certainly seems possible.  Yes, a lot of people hate the Cowboys.  But they're also a TV draw whenever they're on.  That's why they always max out on their primetime appearances no matter how good they were the previous season.  Still, I think the only way the same team gets to play in the opener two years in a row would be to win back-to-back Super Bowls, which the Cowboys, of course, haven't done since the early 90s.

49ers: If they wanted to go with a division game and the Rams are out, that leaves San Francisco.  Of course, there's also the possibility that they're considering the 49ers for the Rams' opponent in Australia, which would eliminate this option.  (The Seahawks also want in on the Australia game, so could the NFC Championship Game rematch be headed Down Under if New England wins the Super Bowl?)  Although, 49ers at Seahawks was also a Week 1 game this season, so do you really want to go there two years in a row?  Especially when this is an easy one to make a Thursday night game later in the season?

For New England, there aren't as many options.  The Patriots play one fewer home game than the Seahawks, and the schedule rotation has the AFC East playing the AFC West and NFC North.  Which is fine until you look at the home/road split and see that the Patriots' more attractive matchups are mostly on the road.  Still, there are four that I can see...

Broncos: A rematch of the AFC Championship Game could certainly work.  I'm not sure how much Denver will end up being featured in primetime games next season, but you know there will be at least a few.  And it wouldn't surprise me if they're frontloaded.  Either way, you'd have to think this one is headed for national TV no matter what.  So why not on Thursday night in Week 1?

Bills: Buffalo's opening a new stadium, so it would make sense for the Bills to get a home primetime window in Week 1.  That would mean either Sunday or Monday night.  Which would, theoretically, remove Week 1 at New England as a possibility.  Although, they could also have the Bills visit the Patriots in Week 1 and still open the new stadium on Monday night in Week 2.

Steelers: This one really depends on if Aaron Rodgers comes back next season or not.  Pittsburgh's still an attractive team for primetime without him.  Attractive enough for the standalone season opener?  Questionable.  With Rodgers, I can absolutely see it.  Without him, I doubt it.

Packers: Finally, there's Green Bay.  This is, admittedly, a bit of an off-the-wall suggestion.  And it's probably as likely as Seattle-Dallas would be.  I still think it'll be considered, though, even it seems like a stretch that it'll be ultimately chosen.  The Packers are like the Bears in that the NFL likes to feature them in national games a lot, sometimes against pretty random opponents.  New England would definitely qualify as a random opponent.  The Packers and Patriots don't play each other very often.

They obviously need to actually play the Super Bowl first.  But you know the NFL's schedule-makers are already looking at the possibilities and look at all of their options for which game would be the best one to feature on September 10.  You know NBC will have input, too.  And things could certainly change based on what happens during the offseason, which could make certain teams either more or less appealing.

Either way, I think there's a good chance we'll see the Patriots on that opening Thursday night next season.  If the Seahawks win, I can certainly see them going with the Super Bowl rematch.  Especially since both games will be on NBC.  If New England wins, meanwhile, I'll say they host the Broncos after unveiling their first post-Bradicheck Super Bowl banner.

NFL Picks, Conference Championships

We're down to four possible Super Bowl matchups, three of which have happened before.  The only one that hasn't is Rams-Broncos, which, if we're being honest, is probably the most unlikely of the four.  That's not to say it won't be a Rams-Broncos Super Bowl.  It would just be a surprise.  Meanwhile, if we get Rams-Patriots, it would be the third time, tying Cowboys-Steelers as the most frequent Super Bowl matchup.

Those two Rams-Patriots Super Bowls were both significant.  They were the first and last of the six wins during the Bradicheck Era.  One was incredibly exciting and was decided on a last-second field goal.  The other was incredibly boring, the lowest-scoring Super Bowl in history, and the Rams became just the second team ever not to score a touchdown.

Super Bowl LIII also started a crazy run that has a chance to continue this year.  If the Rams win, this will be the eighth consecutive Super Bowl to feature either them or the Chiefs...yet they've never played each other!  Kansas City went to five out of six, with the Rams going the year before, the year in between and, potentially, the year after.  They're doing their own little Brady-Manning alternating thing.

Seattle faced both Manning and Brady back-to-back, so it's funny that if they go back, they'll get either the Broncos or Patriots again.  That Broncos-Seahawks Super Bowl at MetLife Stadium was not a good game by any stretch!  It was a 43-8 blowout!  Instead of going back-to-back, they decided to throw on 1st-and-goal instead of handing off to Marshawn Lynch, allowing the Patriots to make the game-sealing interception.  That, of course, was 11 years ago.   But do you think anyone in Seattle has forgotten it?

Two other fun facts before I move on to talking about the actual games, one in each conference.  For Patriots-Broncos, it's this, which really is fascinating: Including this season, they've made 20 Super Bowl appearances.  They've literally represented the AFC in 1/3 of all Super Bowls!  (And they're actually tied for the most Super Bowl losses with five apiece.)  And they made a combined one appearance between Super Bowls I-XIX.  So, in the last 41 years, they've been the AFC representative in nearly half of all Super Bowls!

In the NFC, it's how this is the worst-case scenario NFC Championship Game for 49ers fans.  The two teams they hate the most are the Rams and the Seahawks (well, I guess they hate the Cowboys, too).  One of them is guaranteed to play in the Super Bowl on San Francisco's home field.  And one of them is guaranteed to continue a trend where eight of the last 14 NFC champions have come out of the NFC West (with the Eagles accounting for three of the other six).

Patriots (16-3) at Broncos (15-3): New England-Denver doesn't have a quarterback.  Unfortunately, that will be the storyline that dominates the AFC Championship Game. Maybe Jarrett Stidham can pull a Jeff Hostetler and lead Denver to the title, but Bo Nix's injury can't be overlooked.  The Broncos are a completely different team without him, which is why it'll be an uphill battle.

For the Broncos to win, they'll need to rely on that outstanding defense.  They came up with the big plays against the Bills (especially on the catch/interception in overtime that was correctly ruled an interception).  Buffalo also scored 30 points, though, so the offense will need to keep up with Drake Maye and Co.  And I'm not entirely sure they'll be able to do that with Stidham instead of Nix.  

Not enough people are talking about the New England defense, either.  Maye and the offense get all the credit, but that defense has been lockdown all postseason.  They've allowed a grand total of one touchdown in two playoff games.  Against Justin Herbert and C.J. Stroud.  This is a Broncos offense without its starting quarterback.  So, you'd have to figure Denver will have just as much trouble scoring against the Patriots as the Chargers and Texans did.  Which is why New England goes into this game as the favorite.

The Broncos are at home and has never lost an AFC Championship in Denver.  They're also undefeated in AFC Championship Games against the Patriots.  Sadly, both of those streaks may come to an end.  If Bo Nix was playing, it'd be a completely different story, although New England might've been favored anyway.  Without him, the Broncos' chances aren't great.  Which is why Mike Vrabel takes the Patriots to their first post-Bradicheck Super Bowl.

Rams (14-5) at Seahawks (15-3): Rams-These two were responsible for two of the best games all season.  In the second one, on a fateful Thursday night, Mike MacDonald decided to go for two in overtime, completely flipping not just the division, but the entire NFC playoff picture.  That decision paved the way for the Seahawks to get the No. 1 seed and, more importantly, home field advantage in the NFC Championship Game.

And let's not forget about that Seattle defense.  In the two games against San Francisco, they allowed a grand total of nine points.  The 49ers never had a chance last week.  That's because the Seahawks never gave them one.  So, there's no reason to think they'll deviate from their recipe for success.  Especially when you consider the fact that the offense clicked just as much as the defense last week.  And wouldn't it be something to see Sam Darnold start a Super Bowl?!

Still, I've been saying for most of the season that I think the Rams are the best team.  Nothing that's happened in the playoffs has done anything to change that opinion.  As a wild card, they had to go on the road twice.  They won both.  In very different ways.  Now they go on the road again, but to play a very familiar opponent who they've already beaten this season.  The Seahawks haven't lost since then, but they know they've got a fight on their hands.

Whoever wins this game is gonna earn it and will likely be the favorites in the Super Bowl.  I keep coming back to the idea that the Rams are the best team, though.  Ultimately, that'll be what makes the difference.  Of the six wild card teams, they were the only one capable of winning three road games to get to the Super Bowl.  Two down.  One to go.

Last Week: 4-0
Playoffs: 7-3
Overall: 178-103-1

No Game, But Still All*Stars

For the second year in a row, there's no NHL All*Star Game this season.  There was supposed to be.  It was originally scheduled for UBS Arena as the final game before the players left for Milan.  Then they turned it into an Olympic send-off event.  Then they cancelled it entirely and gave UBS Arena the 2027 All*Star Game instead (assuming there is one).

Last year, of course, the All*Star Game was replaced by the Four Nations Face-Off, which everyone agreed was better than an All*Star Game anyway.  That was just the appetizer for the NHL's return to the Olympics, where it won't just be four nations, it'll be 12!  And every NHL team will be represented by at least one player at the Olympics, too (and every country except for Italy will have at least one NHL player on its roster).

I get why the NHL ultimately decided against playing an All*Star Game this season, and I admit it would've been weird to have both the All*Star Game and the Olympics in the same year.  That hasn't happened since 2002 (the original plan for 2022 was the same as this year, they'd play in the All*Star Game, then leave for the Olympics from there).  So, the All*Star Game not being played in an Olympic year is not a problem at all.

Still, though, this means we're going two consecutive years without a formal All*Star Game.  And, assuming the World Cup of Hockey returns in 2028 as planned, it seems like it'll only be an every-other-year thing moving forward, with the international tournament (either the Olympics or World Cup) replacing the All*Star Game in even years.  Which is kind of unfortunate for other reasons.

By the NHL not having an All*Star Game in either of the last two seasons (and Russia being ineligible for international play), they haven't been able to properly recognize the league's all-time leading goal scorer on such a stage.  Alex Ovechkin hasn't played in an All*Star Game since 2023.  Assuming this is his last season, as many suspect, that will also be his last All*Star Game.

Ovechkin's not the only one.  There are some players whose only All*Star-caliber seasons came in years when there was no All*Star Game.  Sure, that's a combination of unfortunate timing and bad luck.  But it'll happen more as the All*Star Game continues to be played infrequently.  (For the quality of play and growth of the game perspective, replacing it with international play, which will be better anyway, makes complete sense.  I'm not suggesting they should have the All*Star Game instead of the international events in those years.  I'm just saying it sucks for those players.)

Anyway, where am I going with all this?  Well, just because there's no All*Star Game, that doesn't mean I can't select All*Stars.  So, that's exactly what I'm doing.  And, since the planned date is about two weeks away, roster announcements would've been right around now.  Which means now's as good a time as any to name my selections.

At the last NHL All*Star Game in 2024, fans chose one player from each division to serve as captains, but they used that stupid "pick your own teams" format and had the All*Star Draft as part of the Skills Competition.  As you can tell, I hate that format.  So, I'm not doing that.  Instead, I'm going back to the previous format of four division-based teams.  I'm keeping the fan-selected captains, but that's it.

Those four captains are Auston Matthews (Atlantic), Alex Ovechkin (Metropolitan), Nathan MacKinnon (Central) and Connor McDavid (Pacific).  Another selection criterion to keep in mind are that each division has an 11-member team consisting of two goalies, three defensemen and six forwards.  The complete lack of defensemen in recent All*Star Games is beyond bothersome, so I'm doing something about that.  Also, every team must be represented.  So, with 44 players and 32 teams, only a handful have multiple All*Stars.

That every team thing actually briefly tripped me up.  I had Rasmus Andersson as my Flame, but he was traded to Vegas, so I had to choose another Calgary player and ended up replacing Andersson with another defenseman since my replacement Flame was a forward.  And, as usual, some deserving players got left off because they already had a teammate going and I had to have somebody from every team.  Still, though, I think these rosters that I came up with are pretty good...

ATLANTIC
G: Jeremy Swayman (BOS), Andrei Vasilevskiy (TB)
D: Moritz Seider (DET), Lane Hutson (MTL), Jake Sanderson (OTT)
F: *Auston Matthews (TOR, captain), David Pastrnak (BOS), Tage Thompson (BUF), Alex DeBrincat (DET), Sam Reinhart (FLA), Nikita Kucherov (TB)

METROPOLITAN
G: Ilya Sorokin (NYI), Logan Thompson (WSH)
D: Zach Werenski (CBJ), Matthew Schaefer (NYI), Jacob Chychrun (WSH)
F: *Alex Ovechkin (WSH, captain), Sebastian Aho (CAR), Trevor Zegras (PHI), Sidney Crosby (PIT), Nico Hischier (NJ), Artemi Panarin (NYR)

CENTRAL
G: Scott Wedgewood (COL), Karel Vejmelka (UTA)
D: Cale Makar (COL), Justin Faulk (STL), Josh Marino (UTA)
F: *Nathan MacKinnon (COL, captain), Conor Bedard (CHI), Mikko Rantanen (DAL), Kirill Kaprizov (MIN), Ryan O'Reilly (NSH), Mark Scheifele (WPG)

PACIFIC
G: Darcy Kuemper (LA), Akira Schmid (VGK)
D: Evan Bouchard (EDM), Filip Hronek (VAN), Shea Theodore (VGK)
F: *Connor McDavid (EDM, captain), Leo Carlsson (ANA), Mikael Backlund (CGY), Leon Draisaitl (EDM), Macklin Celebrini (SJ), Jordan Eberle (SEA)

Baseball Hall Call, 2026

We've been spoiled with the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot over the past few years.  After nobody was elected period in 2021, there have been five first-ballot inductees in the past four elections.  This year, we don't have an Ichiro.  There may not be a first-ballot lock next year, either.  Then we get to Albert Pujols in 2028 and Miguel Cabrera in 2029.  Fortunately, the Eras Committee voted in Jeff Kent, so there will be an induction ceremony this year.  But who will the writers elect to join him on stage in Cooperstown?

All signs are pointing towards Carlos Beltran getting in.  Since he played for a lot of teams, it's really more of a question which hat will be on his plaque.  (My money's on Mets.)  He almost got in last year and is the clear headliner on the 2026 ballot.  Beltran's over 89 percent on the Hall of Fame tracker, so his finishing over the required 75 percent seems likely.  Will he be the only one, though?

The other name that's getting a lot of traction is Andruw Jones.  The Hall of Fame tracker has him at 83 percent, so he's not quite the lock that Beltran seems to be.  In fact, I think he will stay above the 75 percent threshold and also receive the call to give us a three-member Hall of Fame class.  If he doesn't get in, he'll be close (and the likely headliner next year, which would be his final time on the ballot).

What I'm curious to see is how everybody else falls.  Without the sure-fire first-ballot guy and with the Steroid Era players cycling off the ballot, that theoretically leaves more votes out there for everyone else.  How close will players like Andy Pettitte and Chase Utley and Felix Hernandez get?  What about David Wright and Dustin Pedroia, the one-team guys whose careers were derailed by injuries?  Will Cole Hamels be the only new addition who survives to a second year on the ballot?

As usual, I'm using this space to reveal the 10 players who I'd include on my ballot if I had one.  Last year, I had all three who were elected, so that gives me three additional spots to go with the seven players I voted for in 2025.  And Cole Hamels is the only new name who makes the cut for me, so I'm voting for two players this year who I didn't have last year.

1. Andy Pettitte, Pitcher (1995-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007-10 Yankees, 2012-13 Yankees): How Andy Pettitte hasn't gotten more Hall of Fame support really boggles my mind.  He's trending upward on the tracker, though, so maybe he's on his way to election.  As he should be.  The whole point is winning.  Andy Pettitte was a winner.  He won five World Series rings, and not just because he was on those Yankees dynasty teams.  I'd argue that the Yankees won those World Series because of him!  Pettitte's postseason dominance, frankly, is enough before you even take his regular season success into consideration.

2. Carlos Beltran, Outfielder (1998-2004 Royals, 2004 Astros, 2005-11 Mets, 2011 Giants, 2012-13 Cardinals, 2014-16 Yankees, 2016 Rangers, 2017 Astros): I rank my votes based on who's a definite "Yes" and who's the last on/first off.  That's the only reason I have Pettitte above Beltran.  Don't get me wrong, though.  I absolutely think Carlos Beltran is a Hall of Famer!  He hit 435 home runs, played Gold Glove defense in center field, and was a productive hitter into his late 30s.  Beltran is one of four players all-time with 1,500 runs scored, 2,700 hits, 400 homers and 300 steals.

3. Andruw Jones, Outfielder (1996-2007 Braves, 2008 Dodgers, 2009 Rangers, 2010 White Sox, 2011-12 Yankees): With Andruw Jones, the question has been whether those years at the end when he was just hanging on diminished his Hall of Fame case.  To which my response is, had he retired after the 2007 season, would his Braves career alone be enough?  And I think it would.  He was the premier defensive center fielder of the late 90s/early 2000s (sorry, Junior), winning 10 consecutive Gold Gloves.  He also hit 20 home runs in all 10 of those seasons, so he wasn't just a one-trick pony.  When/if he gets the call, he'll become the first Hall of Famer from Curacao (or, as Wayne Gretzky calls it, "Cuh-Rock-Oh.")

4. Omar Vizquel, Shortstop (1989-93 Mariners, 1994-2004 Indians, 2005-08 Giants, 2009 Rangers, 2010-11 White Sox, 2012 Blue Jays): Vizquel is one where I really had some trouble.  I really considered dropping him from my list of 10.  But, ultimately, I decided to keep him on, mainly because I've put Vizquel down every year.  The allegations against him did give me pause and are probably why he hasn't gotten as much support as he probably otherwise would have.  But, again, I've either had or considered Omar Vizquel every year he's been eligible, so why stop now?

5. Dustin Pedroia, Second Baseman (2006-19 Red Sox): Pedroia only played nine total games over his final two seasons, so his career arc really only stretches 12 years from 2006-17.  That career arc was a might impressive one, though!  Boston won two World Series in that span (he picked up a third ring in 2018), during which Pedroia won both a Rookie of the Year (2007) and an MVP (2008).  He also won four Gold Gloves and a Silver Slugger.  Not to mention the leadership he provided on good Red Sox teams.

6. Mark Buerhle, Pitcher (2000-11 White Sox, 2012 Marlins, 2013-15 Blue Jays): It doesn't seem likely that we'll see a Mark Buerhle-type starting pitcher again anytime soon.  Sure, Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander are still kicking around, but once they're gone, the horse who'll just go out there every five days and you know you'll get seven innings out of him.  Last season, only three pitchers in the Majors reached 200 innings pitched.  Buerhle threw 200 innings in 14 consecutive years!

7. David Wright, Third Baseman (2004-16, 2018 Mets): Oh, what could have been for the longtime face of the New York Mets?!  Like Pedroia, he's an icon to a fan base after spending his entire career with one team.  Like Pedroia, his career was derailed by injuries.  But when he was healthy and at his peak, boy, was he something else!  The best third baseman in baseball?  No, he was one of the best players in baseball!

8. Chase Utley, Second Baseman (2003-15 Phillies, 2015-18 Dodgers): If I'd had 11 spots last year, the 11th would've gone to Utley.  With three extra places available this year, Utley's on.  Kent's election has brought up the lack of second basemen in Cooperstown, and Utley certainly belongs.  He was the heart and soul of those Phillies teams, and he was consistently one of the best second basemen in the Majors throughout his career.  Utley was a six-time All*Star, four-time Silver Slugger and incredible postseason performer.  He hit seven career World Series home runs (including five in 2009), the most ever by a second baseman.

9. Cole Hamels, Pitcher (2006-15 Phillies, 2015-18 Rangers, 2018-19 Cubs, 2020 Braves): Welcome to the ballot Cole Hamels, who apparently ended his career with the 2020 Braves?!  Anyway, he was the stalwart in that rotation as the Phillies won back-to-back pennants and the 2008 World Series.  He, of course, started the longest game in World Series history and was actually on deck during the two-day rain delay.  My other favorite Cole Hamels fun fact is how, in 2015, he threw a no-hitter in what would end up being his final start for the Phillies before being traded to Texas.

10. Felix Hernandez, Pitcher (2005-19 Mariners): Ultimately, it came down to Jimmy Rollins or Felix Hernandez for the final spot on my ballot.  As weird as it feels to vote for Utley and not Rollins, it also would've felt weird to put all three of the Phillies and leave King Felix off.  Because Felix Hernandez was ahead of his time.  He's the type of starting pitcher we see in baseball now.  Yes, his career was short and he was essentially done once he turned 30.  But when King Felix was in his prime, he wasn't just dominant.  He was the best pitcher in the game.

Before I sign off, I'd be remiss without mentioning my friend Jim Henneman.  Jim was a Hall of Fame voter for years and served on several Eras Committees, as well.  The first time he attended the induction ceremony was in 1966 for Casey Stengel and Ted Williams (not a bad class!).  He passed away last year, so he won't be attending this year's induction ceremony and didn't vote in this year's election.  But his spirit definitely lives on, and I'm dedicating this post (as well as all future Baseball Hall of Fame posts) to Jim's memory.