Who's Hall Headed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 Groups of 3

When FIFA first announced that the 2026 World Cup was being expanded to 48 teams, the plan was to have 16 groups of three and 80 games total.  That would've featured one European team in each group, eliminating the two-European-team groups that UEFA really doesn't like, and seen the top two teams in each group advancing to the knockout stage.  Those plans changed significantly after the 2022 World Cup and its outstanding final group day that included several thrilling sets of simultaneous matches.  The result was an updated format with 12 groups of four playing 104 total games and eight third-place finishers advancing to the knockout round.

There was some criticism to the groups-of-three format, primarily related to the uneven number of teams.  Without simultaneous games, it would've left the possibility of shenanigans regarding advancement.  It would also have created some unfair situations regarding rest.  Some teams would go an extended period between games, while others wouldn't start until much later in the tournament and have to play eight games in a much shorter period than teams who got more rest by playing earlier.  So, FIFA decided that groups of four were better.

Let's not kid ourselves about the fact that FIFA saw the dollar signs, too.  An expanded tournament already meant more games.  There were 64 games at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.  They were originally set to have 16 more than that in 2026.  Now, it'll be 40 additional games.  That's 40 additional sold out stadiums (or, 24 more than there otherwise would've been).  Don't think that was lost on them.

Changing back to groups of four, ultimately, was probably the right call.  But it fundamentally altered the way this World Cup would play out.  For starters, there will have to be four groups with two European teams.  That's something UEFA wanted to avoid.  That's the primary reason why Europe has 16 teams and no possibility of more.  The whole idea was one in each group, which is obviously impossible now. 

It also brings back the complicated math of a separate table ranking the third-place teams against each other.  There are 495 possible combinations of third-place teams advancing to the knockout round.  The six group winners scheduled to face a third-place team in the Round of 32 all have five possible opponents depending on those combinations.  Even the third-place teams have multiple possible opponents in the Round of 32 (except for Groups L & K, whose third-place finishers would only face the winner of the other should they advance).

This is nothing new for FIFA, of course.  But there's no denying that the straightforward two teams from each group advancing to the knockout round was easier for everyone.  Likewise, the third-place teams can go to any number of Round of 32 games, giving them varying days of rest, especially compared to their group-winning opponents.  (Although, some would argue that's a consequence of finishing third in your group.)

Just as significantly, it changed the seeding.  By only have 12 groups instead of 16, that knocks four teams from being in Pot 1 down to Pot 2.  Likewise, it knocks four teams from Pot 2 into Pot 3.  And, it, of course, adds a Pot 4, which includes the six teams that we still don't know.  Four of those six teams are European.  And two of those are Italy and Denmark!  If they do get in, that'll make for at least two extremely difficult groups!

The pots are set for the World Cup Draw on Friday.  The teams were seeded based on their FIFA World Rankings, and the pot breakdown ended up like this:

Pot 1: United States (co-host), Mexico (co-host), Canada (co-host), Spain (1), Argentina (2), France (3), England (4), Brazil (5), Portugal (6), Netherlands (7), Belgium (8), Germany (9)
Pot 2: Croatia (10), Morocco (11), Colombia (13), Uruguay (16), Switzerland (17), Japan (18), Senegal (19), Iran (20), South Korea (22), Ecuador (23), Austria (24), Australia (26)
Pot 3: Norway (29), Panama (30), Egypt (34), Algeria (35), Scotland (36), Paraguay (39), Tunisia (40), Ivory Coast (42), Uzbekistan (50), Qatar (51), Saudi Arabia (60), South Africa (61)
Pot 4: Jordan (66), Cape Verde (68), Ghana (72), Curacao (82), Haiti (84), New Zealand (86), UEFA 1, UEFA 2, UEFA 3, UEFA 4, FIFA Playoff 1, FIFA Playoff 2

We'll see what happens once the draw ceremony is complete, but there will be some potentially deep groups.  Which I guess was sort of the point.  While there will likely still be some blowouts should, say, Curacao end up in the same group as France, that will, theoretically, be mitigated by the better teams not being as spread out.  It also creates the potential for some extremely competitive matchups (just picking random teams from Pots 1 & 2, we could get, say, Colombia vs. England, in the group stage).

These pots are drastically different than what they would've been had they stuck with the original plan of 16 groups of three.  This is how those pots would've broken down:

Pot A: United States (co-host), Mexico (co-host), Canada (co-host), Spain, Argentina, France, England, Brazil, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Croatia, Morocco, Colombia, Uruguay
Pot B: Switzerland, Japan, Senegal, Iran, South Korea, Ecuador, Austria, Australia, Norway, Panama, Egypt, Algeria, Scotland, Paraguay, Tunisia, Ivory Coast
Pot C: Uzbekistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Jordan, Cape Verde, Ghana, Curacao, Haiti, New Zealand, UEFA 1, UEFA 2, UEFA 3, UEFA 4, FIFA Playoff 1, FIFA Playoff 2

Croatia, Morocco, Colombia and Uruguay obviously would've benefitted the most had they stuck with the 16-group format.  They would've been seeded in Pot 1 and avoided any of the other top teams until the knockout phase.  (Likewise, the other top teams would've avoided them.)  It also would've allowed the European teams to all be separated, with eight in Pot 1 and four each in Pots 2 & 3.  And there still would've been some good matchups with those European playoff teams (meaning potentially Italy and/or Denmark) automatically having to be put in groups with the non-European countries from Pot 1.

Would the groups in this format be as deep across the board as the 12 groups of four will?  Probably not.  But they would be more balanced.  That, ultimately, would've been the biggest benefit to sticking with 16 groups of three.  Although, the trade-off would've been some weaker groups with really only one strong team and potentially more blowouts, as well as the possibility of inconsequential final games.

I never entirely bought into that position, however.  With groups of three, teams would only be playing two group games.  And, with two teams from each group advancing, somebody playing in that final game would be guaranteed to have something to play for.  Even if the group winner (or last-place finisher) was already decided, that second spot in the knockout stage (or who'd be the group winner) would be at stake in the last game.

Ultimately, FIFA decided that 12 groups of four would be better than 16 groups of three.  And the draw promises to create multiple difficult groups.  Whether that's better or worse, we won't find out until the summer.  But, one thing's for sure.  It'll create a vastly different tournament than 16 groups of three would have.

NFL Picks, Week 13

I give the NFL credit for their Thanksgiving/Black Friday slate this year.  Sure, Lions-Packers is a fairly common and pretty safe matchup, and they knew that the Cowboys game would probably be the most-watched game of the season, so putting the Chiefs, another popular TV draw, opposite them pretty much guaranteed that.  Ravens-Bengals was a bit of a miss, but that looked like a good one on paper before the season, so I get why they picked it.

It's with Bears-Eagles where they really got lucky, though.  Because Chicago's actually good this season, the Black Friday game has some pretty serious playoff implications.  As do all three on Thanksgiving.  I can't remember the last time that was the case with all of the standalone games on Thanksgiving Weekend.  It certainly hasn't happened in the three years since the Black Friday game was added.

Packers (7-3-1) at Lions (7-4): Detroit-This is a HUGE game for Detroit, even moreso than for Green Bay.  That's because the Packers won the first meeting back in Week 1 and already has a half-game lead over the Lions.  So, a Green Bay victory would make it a game-and-a-half with a season sweep (which would be pretty irrelevant anyway because of the Packers' tie).  Anyway, a loss really puts the Lions' playoff chances in danger.  Instead, they jump back ahead of Green Bay in the standings.

Chiefs (6-5) at Cowboys (5-5-1): Kansas City-Had the Chiefs not pulled off that comeback against the Colts, they'd be under .500 and looking at missing the playoffs entirely.  They're still on the outside looking in, but it's suddenly much more realistic that they'll make a run and get in.  Same thing with Dallas after scoring 24 unanswered points to beat Philadelphia.  The NFC East is even still in play for the Cowboys.  So, just like the early game, this one will seriously impact the playoff race.

Bengals (3-8) at Ravens (6-5): Baltimore-Thanks to their own five-game winning streak and the Steelers pissing away a two-and-a-half-game lead, the Ravens have battled all the way back and are now tied for first place...with both games against Pittsburgh still on the schedule!  A full-strength Bengals team could present a challenge for them.  But this isn't a full-strength Bengals team.  Baltimore should keep rolling heading into that matchup with the Steelers next week.

Bears (8-3) at Eagles (8-3): Philadelphia-Even though their lead in the NFC East is still somewhat comfortable despite the loss to Dallas, the Eagles saw their seeding impacted big time.  Another loss on Black Friday would drop them back another spot, behind the North-leading Bears, and give Chicago the tiebreaker.  Of course, the Bears will also have the benefit of knowing the Packers-Lions result, and they have to win themselves to maintain their division lead.  So, like I said, the Black Friday game ended up being a real treat.

49ers (8-4) at Browns (3-8): San Francisco-Cleveland is sticking with Shadeur Sanders at quarterback after getting that win over the Raiders.  Now he'll start at home for the first time against a team that's much better than Las Vegas--the 49ers.  San Francisco earned a pretty dominant win of its own on Monday night against Carolina and finally gets its bye next week (fun fact: the last four teams to have their bye--the Panthers, 49ers, Giants and Patriots, played each other in the Monday night games last week and this week).  They can't get caught in a trap like the Packers did when they visited Cleveland earlier this season, though.

Jaguars (7-4) at Titans (1-10): Jacksonville-Losing last week in Arizona could've been disastrous for Jacksonville.  Instead, the Jaguars found a way to pull it out in overtime to stay in the top AFC wild card spot.  With so many good wins already under their belts, they get an easy one this week with the Titans.  They can't get caught looking ahead to the Colts next week, though.  There's definite potential of this being a trap game.

Texans (6-5) at Colts (8-3): Indianapolis-Don't look now, but here come the Texans.  I'm not saying Houston will definitely leapfrog the Colts and Jaguars and defend as AFC South champions.  It sure looks like a much more realistic possibility now, though.  Especially if they win this one and get within a game.  The Colts sure showed us a lot last week, however.  Yes, they lost in Kansas City.  But the Colts showed that they're for real.  They're the team to beat in that division.

Saints (2-9) at Dolphins (4-7): New Orleans-There isn't really any logical reason why I'm picking the Saints here.  I just think this is one of those rare opportunities New Orleans has to actually win a game.  Which really says more about Miami than New Orleans.  Coming off a bye, against a two-win team at home, and I'm still not picking the Dolphins (who've actually won two straight).

Falcons (4-7) at Jets (2-9): Jets-Ditto about the two-win Jets.  Atlanta at home is one of the few chances left where the Jets could pull it out.  Especially with how confusing and frustratingly inconsistent the Falcons have been this season.  It really depends on which Atlanta team shows up.  If it's the good Falcons, the Jets will suffer the same fate as the Bills.  If it's the bad Falcons, we could see the third Jets win of the season.

Cardinals (3-8) at Buccaneers (6-5): Tampa Bay-Suddenly, Tampa Bay's got company atop the NFC South.  The Bucs still have a half-game lead, but that's only because Carolina hasn't had its bye yet.  This is the start of a three-game homestand that's paramount for a Tampa team that's lost three in a row.  All three should be wins, which will keep them in the driver's seat.  If not, things will really get interesting in the division they've owned for the past several years.

Rams (9-2) at Panthers (6-6): Rams-For the past few weeks, I've been thinking the Rams are the best team in the NFC, if not the entire NFL.  They did nothing to disprove that opinion on Sunday night.  Now they go to Carolina to face a pesky Panthers team that plays very well at home.  They won't make it easy.  In fact, I expect this to be a fight.  In the end, though, the Rams are the more talented team and will find a way to pull it out.

Vikings (4-7) at Seahawks (8-3): Seattle-Last year, Sam Darnold played for Minnesota and the Vikings went 14-3.  This year, the Vikings are 4-7 and sitting in last place.  Darnold's in Seattle and has the Seahawks staring down a playoff berth.  I'm not saying he's the entire reason both teams' fortunes have flipped.  Of course he isn't.  But is he a factor?  Absolutely.  And Darnold's current team should beat his former team to keep pace with the Rams.

Bills (7-4) at Steelers (6-5): Pittsburgh-Very few people, if any, thought this matchup would end up becoming a must-win for both teams.  Yet, that's what it feels like.  The Steelers have been in freefall, completely giving away their AFC North lead.  The Bills, meanwhile, are in danger of watching the Patriots (who never seem to lose anymore) run away with the AFC East.  Buffalo has struggled on the road, especially.  Which is why I'm going with the Steelers here.

Raiders (2-9) at Chargers (7-4): Chargers-Everyone seems to forget this because it's been so long since they've played a division game, but when the Chargers got out to that 3-0 start, all three wins were against AFC West opponents.  That's a huge thing to keep in mind with three of their last six as the division rematches.  They enter this one two games behind the Broncos, which can easily be made up.  Especially against the Raiders, who are so anemic on offense they just fired their offensive coordinator.

Broncos (9-2) at Commanders (3-8): Denver-Speaking of the Broncos, coming off their bye, they visit the Nation's Capital on Sunday night.  Everything I said earlier about Minnesota also applies to Washington.  This certainly isn't how the Commanders expected to follow up their run to the NFC Championship Game last season.  As for Denver, they know as long as they keep winning, it doesn't matter what the Chargers and Chiefs do.  The Broncos maintain their two-game division lead.

Giants (2-10) at Patriots (10-2): New England-We wrap up Week 13 with the Giants visiting the Patriots on Monday night.  They played two outstanding Super Bowls against each other back in the day, but they're going in opposite directions this season.  Mike Vrabel has the Patriots cruising towards the playoffs.  The Giants (and their fans) know there's only five more games before they can be put out of their misery.  New England becomes the first team in the NFL to get to 11 wins, then finally gets a week off (which, honestly, might kill their momentum).

Last Week: 10-4
Overall: 115-62-1

Signature Sports Songs

Every time I'm in my car and the Men at Work song "Down Under" comes on the radio, it immediately makes me think of the Sydney Olympics.  It's the song that was played at the swimming venue during those spectacular Games and was the de facto anthem of the Australia-USA rivalry in the pool.  Still, 25 years later, just hearing that song takes me back there.  And it's not the only song that brings a team, player or sporting event to the top of the mind.

Sports are unique in that way.  "Stadium rock" is a type of music, but that refers more to generic songs that you could hear in any random sporting venue anywhere.  What I'm talking about here are specific songs that are associated with a particular team or player.  Every team has at least one.  Some have more.  The Yankees, for example, are known for playing Frank Sinatra's version of "New York, New York" after wins, as well as "YMCA" after the sixth inning.  And, of course, Hall of Fame Yankees closer Mariano Rivera entered to the strains of Metallica's "Enter Sandman."

Rivera isn't the only Hall of Fame closer known for his entrance music.  For years, Trevor Hoffman had the equally-intimidating "Hell's Bells" when he came into the game.  There's something about heavy metal and closers that just feels right.  (Even fictional closers.  Ricky Vaughn had the just-as-awesome "Wild Thing" in Major League.)

During the Nationals' run to the World Series title in 2019, backup outfielder Gerardo Parra adopted "Baby Shark" as his walk-up song.  The fans absolutely loved it and ate it up every time Parra came to the plate!  Washington's manager admitted that sometimes he'd have Parra pinch hit just so they'd play his walk-up song and get the crowd into it.  They even had a "Baby Shark" dance.  Many a Nationals rally during that postseason run was started with a Parra at-bat.  That 2019 Nationals team will always be remembered for Gerardo Parra and "Baby Shark."

It isn't just players obviously.  Plenty of teams have their own songs that they've adopted as an anthem.  For the Boston Red Sox, it's Neil Diamond's "Sweet Caroline," which they play during the eighth inning of every home game.  For the Los Angeles Dodgers, it's Randy Newman's "I Love LA" that's played after every home win.

The whole team anthem thing can be traced back to the 1979 Pirates and Sister Sledge's "We Are Family."  Willie Stargell (known as "Pops") picked it, and the team adopted it as their official theme song.  The "We Are Family" Pirates went on to win the World Series that season.

Another team that rode its adopted anthem to a championship was the 2018-19 St. Louis Blues.  They started off that season terribly and began playing the 80s song "Gloria" (for no apparent reason) after home victories in January.  The Blues went on a roll after that, culminating in their first Stanley Cup title.  During their playoff run, "Play Gloria" became a rallying cry.  And the song will forever be associated with that Blues team, especially since they stopped playing it after wins once the banner went up.

Besides, another tradition in St. Louis had already started by then.  They play John Denver's "Country Roads" during the third period of every home game.  The song is too long to play the whole thing, and they have to cut the music off when play resumes.  Blues fans don't need the music, though.  They sing the rest of it without the music even after play starts again.

Thanks to goal songs, hockey teams have always done a good job of taking popular songs and becoming immediately associated with them.  There are so many good goal songs in the NHL that are incredibly appropriate for the team and/or city.  The Nashville Predators use Tim McGraw's "I Like It, I Love It."  When the Tampa Bay Lightning win, meanwhile, it's "Thunderstruck."

While if you ask 10 people who has the best goal song, you'll probably get 10 different answers.  For me, it's the Chicago Blackhawks and "Chelsea Dagger."  I didn't even know the name of the song until a few years ago.  I just knew it as the Blackhawks' goal song.  To this day, every time I hear it (whether it's on the radio, in a movie or played by a school band), I immediately go in my head, "Blackhawks goal scored by number 88 Patrick Kane, assisted by number 19 Jonathan Toews and number 51 Brian Campbell (with various other early 2010s Blackhawks sometimes substituted in)."

There is perhaps one song that will forever be associated with sports, but not with any specific team or player.  It's Hank Williams Jr.'s "All My Rowdy Friends," which for a generation of football fans will always be known as the Monday Night Football song.  Just like how whenever you hear Joan Jett's "I Hate Myself For Loving You" come on, you change the lyrics to "I've been waiting all day for Sunday night."

NBC understood the nostalgia and association that comes with fans and a certain sport.  That's why when they got the NBA back, they had to bring back "Roundball Rock" along with it.  That song is the NBA On NBC to so many people, immediately bringing back memories of Jordan's Bulls, Ewing's Knicks and the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.  The NBA On NBC wouldn't have been the same without the song and they knew it.

Then, of course, there's "One Shining Moment."  That song's a little different because the only time you ever hear it is in the montage at the end of the NCAA Tournament.  But it's also not the National Championship Game without it.  Players can't wait for "One Shining Moment" just to see if they made it into the package.  That's as big a thrill as actually playing in the Tournament.  And it signifies the end of March Madness.

Music and sports have always gone together and always will.  In many ways, it's a symbiotic relationship.  Which is why simply hearing a song sometimes makes you think of a player or a team or a sporting event.  Like "Down Under" and the Sydney Olympics, "Chelsea Dagger" and the Blackhawks, "Enter Sandman" and Mariano Rivera, and so many others.

NFL Picks, Week 12

Looking at the NFL standings is just weird right now.  So many teams we're used to seeing in playoff position are currently on the outside looking in, while teams like the Bears, Jaguars and Panthers would be in if the postseason started today.  Of course, there's still six weeks left and a lot can happen in that time.  But still, it's a bit jarring.

Thursday Night: Buffalo (Loss)

Steelers (6-4) at Bears (7-3): Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh's once comfortable lead in the AFC North is all but gone.  The Steelers have just a one-game lead on the Ravens, who play the Jets this week.  So, this is a big one for them against the first-place Bears.  Has Chicago had some luck and taken advantage of its schedule this season?  Absolutely!  But, in the last two weeks especially, they've shown that there definitely is something there.  I just have a feeling Pittsburgh will win, though.

Patriots (9-2) at Bengals (3-7): New England-As crazy as it sounds, having the late bye has actually been working out for New England.  The Patriots are rolling and can just keep that momentum going week after week.  They've won eight in a row and there's no reason to think it won't get to 10 before they finally get a week off.  And, with the way the Bills don't seem to have any interest in winning the division, they may have the AFC East essentially wrapped up by that point.

Giants (2-9) at Lions (6-4): Detroit-Prediction: the Giants will take a double-digit lead and blow it.  That seems to be their M.O. in road games.  Anyway, Detroit is in the busy part of their schedule with three games in 11 days.  Fortunately, this is also the start of a three-game homestand, so at least they don't have to go anywhere.  And, considering the opponents they have coming up, this is also essentially a must-win.

Vikings (4-6) at Packers (6-3-1): Green Bay-Last season, everything went Minnesota's way and the Vikings ended up 14-3.  This season has been the exact opposite.  They find different ways to lose every week, and it has them sitting in last place.  Then there's the Packers, who are second place because of their perplexing losses.  They can't afford another one with the gauntlet they'll run starting on Thanksgiving in Detroit.

Seahawks (7-3) at Titans (1-9): Seattle-The NFC West has been a dogfight all season and will continue to be over the final six weeks.  With that in mind, the Seahawks have to take advantage of the fact that they're playing the Titans this week.  Especially since the Rams and 49ers are playing much tougher opponents in primetime games.

Colts (8-2) at Chiefs (5-5): Kansas City-Normally at this point in the season, the Chiefs are starting to get ready for the playoffs.  This season, it'll be a battle just to get in.  It won't exactly be easy, either.  Take this week's opponent for example--the first-place Colts.  Indianapolis has been such a pleasant surprise this season and can really make a point if they go into Kansas City and win.  But, as we've already seen earlier this year, the Chiefs usually play their best football when their backs are against the wall.

Jets (2-8) at Ravens (5-5): Baltimore-It sounded crazy when the Ravens were 1-5 that people weren't counting them out.  But maybe they knew something!  Because, suddenly, Baltimore has won four straight and is staring at getting over .500 for the first time this season.  Incredibly, they could even be tied for first place if they win and the Steelers lose, which is a real possibility.

Browns (2-8) at Raiders (2-8): Las Vegas-Shadeur Sanders will make his first career start for the Browns.  Should they win, his jersey retirement ceremony is scheduled for Tuesday.  You've gotta give the Browns credit for creating a talking point about this otherwise meaningless matchup between two bad teams.  The Raiders are slightly less bad and playing at home, so they get the nod over Shadeur & Co.

Jaguars (6-4) at Cardinals (3-7): Jacksonville-This one could've been expected to be another meaningless game between also-rans, but it most definitely isn't.  The Jaguars are currently holding down a wild card spot and have tiebreakers over both the Chiefs and Chargers.  So, they're in OK shape even if they lose to the Cardinals.  They're thinking AFC South, though, and to win the division, they can't afford any loss.

Eagles (8-2) at Cowboys (4-5-1): Philadelphia-Dallas is one of the most confusing teams in the NFL.  There are weeks where they look like they've never played football before.  Then there are games like Monday night when they totally dominated the Raiders (sidebar: why are they giving the Lions a Sunday night game and the Cowboys a Monday night game the week before Thanksgiving?).  Anyway, we'll really find out about them this week, as they welcome both of last season's Super Bowl teams to Jerry World in a five-day span.

Falcons (3-7) at Saints (2-8): Atlanta-They didn't make Eagles-Cowboys a full national game in the 4:25 window, so some poor football fans in the South will be subjected to this one instead.  The NFC South actually doesn't play in the 1:00 window at all (the Bucs and Panthers both have primetime games).  Although, for both the Falcons and Saints, this is a rare opportunity to pick up a win.  And, who knows, if they get the win here, maybe this will get Atlanta going on a run.  Which we all know the Falcons are capable of doing.

Buccaneers (6-4) at Rams (8-2): Rams-Two division winners from last season enter their Sunday night showdown both in first place again.  The Rams are actually the No. 1 seed in the NFC right now (and I think they might be the best team in the NFC).  They both need the win, too.  The Rams aren't just trying to hold off the Eagles.  They have Seattle and San Francisco to worry about.  Tampa Bay, meanwhile, has Carolina breathing down its neck.  Speaking of the Panthers, that's who the Rams will play next week...while sporting a 9-2 record.

Panthers (6-5) at 49ers (7-4): San Francisco-When they scheduled this one for Monday night in Week 12, I bet they weren't counting on there being playoff implications for both teams.  We'll know the degree of those playoff implications after the Sunday night game, but, at the very least, this will shift the wild card standings.  Either they'll have the same record with Carolina holding the tiebreaker or San Francisco will have a two-game edge and the head-to-head victory (so, essentially a three-game lead).  So, yeah, huge for both teams.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 12-3
Overall: 105-59-1

Switch It For Syd

I touched on this the other day when I was talking about the Olympic track & field schedule, but I figured it was worth its own post, as well.  Because it truly is asinine that the women's 400 and 400 hurdles will overlap in LA.  Especially when it all but eliminates the possibility of Sydney McLaughlin attempting to double.  She's not only one of the biggest stars in track & field, she's American.  Making it so that she can't do the double makes absolutely no sense!

They're still more than two years out, so there's always a possibility that they'll make a change so that it's doable.  That's what they did the last time the Summer Olympics were in the U.S.  They adjusted the schedule for Michael Johnson, pushing the men's 200 back so that he could double in the 200 and 400, which he did spectacularly (Johnson set a world record in the 200 that stood until Usain Bolt).  So, if Syd were to truly announce her intention to go for a 400/400 hurdles double in 2028, I'm sure the organizers would make that happen.

Except they shouldn't have to.  That's the issue.  The track & field program lasts 10 days.  They easily could've made it so that the schedule doesn't have to be adjusted at all.  It would require running at least one 400-meter race pretty much every day in that span, but that's certainly manageable.  And it would make it possible to do both events without having to change anything.  Now, when/if they do change the schedule, it'll be obvious that it's for one person.

The current schedule has the heats of the 400 during the Day 1 night session, with both rounds of the mixed 4x400 relay the next day.  The repechages of the 400 (which McLaughlin presumably wouldn't need to run) are set for the morning session on Monday.  On Tuesday, it's the first round of the 400 hurdles in the morning and the semifinals of the 400 at night.  Repechages of the 400 hurdles (which, again, likely won't include McLaughlin) on Wednesday morning, then the most ridiculous part of the scheduling--the 400 hurdles semis AND 400 final within about 90 minutes of each other on Thursday night.  The 400 hurdles final is Saturday night, while both rounds of the women's 4x400 relay are on Sunday.

Doubling under this schedule isn't completely impossible, but it would certainly be difficult.  I included the mixed 4x400 simply because there will likely be some women who do both that relay and the individual event.  McLaughlin won't be one of them.  It needs to be taken into consideration, though, because it wouldn't be right to ask those women to compete in both events on the same day.  For McLaughlin, however, that's a full day off.  Both heats of the women's 4x400 relay are on the same day, as well, but she'll only run in the final.

So, considering the fact that she likely won't have to race in the repechages, McLauglin's schedule would look like this if she were to attempt a double: Saturday-400; Sunday-off; Monday-off; Tuesday-hurdles AM, 400 PM; Wednesday-off; Thursday-hurdles & 400 final PM; Friday-off; Saturday-hurdles final; Sunday-relay.  That's four off days (out of 10) and two days with both events.  If not for Thursday night, they probably wouldn't need to change it at all.  (And, yes, swimmers often swim multiple events in the same session.  Swimming is a much different sport, though.)

Bobby Kersee, McLaughlin's coach, was irate when the schedule was released.  And rightfully so.  Frankly, he should be angry about it.  Sydney McLaughlin is a unique talent who has a chance to do something unique in LA.  At least she did.  Because, as it stands now, and knowing how he plots out his athletes' training and race schedules, it seems unlikely Kersee will even let her attempt both.  She'll have to make a choice she really shouldn't have to make.

Here's the thing about it, too.  This wouldn't be doubling for the sake of simply doing both events.  She could easily win both.  McLaughlin is the dominant figure in the 400 hurdles.  She's the world record-holder and two-time reigning Olympic champion.  She didn't run the 400 hurdles at Worlds this year.  Instead, she ran the open 400...and set the American record while winning the gold.  McLaughlin is one of the best in the world at both events and, frankly, track & field fans have been waiting for her to double at either Worlds or the Olympics.

It's not clear which event she'll choose to run in LA (it's not even clear which she'll run in 2026).  The fact that she has to make a choice at all, though, is absurd!  The 2028 Olympics are IN THE U.S.!  Why wouldn't you want to give an American star the chance?!  Especially when it isn't even a guarantee that she'd go for the double.  Now they're forcing her hand.  If Kersee requests the schedule change on McLaughlin's behalf, they're committing to the double with no chance to back out.

We aren't talking about a change that's super drastic, either.  The repechage round, which was added in Paris, complicates things for sure.  They only have the repechage round at the Olympics, and it doesn't just add a round.  It adds a day!  They also like to give them a day off between the semifinals and final, so each event needs five days to complete.  Which means there has to be some overlap.  But, again, it's doable.

To make it work, the mixed 4x400 relay would have to be on Day 1 (which it was at both Olympics where the event's been contested).  Then the first round of the 400 in the morning session on Day 2 and the repechages on the morning of Day 3.  The 400 semifinals at night on Day 4, then the 400 hurdles start on Day 5.  Day 6 would be the only one with an overlap, repechages of the 400 hurdles and the final of the open 400.  Then the 400 hurdles semis on Day 7, Day 8 off and the 400 hurdles final on Day 9.  And the heats of the 4x400 relay could either be on Day 9 or the Day 10 morning session before the relay final in the last session.

Under my proposed schedule, McLaughlin wouldn't have to run twice in a day at all (unless she somehow ended up in a repechage).  In fact, it would make it pretty easy to run all three events.  Assuming she doesn't have to run a repechage, she'd race seven times in nine days after getting the opening day off.  A lot of racing to be sure, but very doable.  And, to even attempt to win three gold medals, you've gotta run a lot of races!

A 400/400 hurdles double, which has never been attempted before at an Olympics, would be the story of the first week.  Especially when it's somebody who isn't just an American, but somebody who lives and trains in LA, going for it.  Which is why the LA Olympic track & field schedule makes absolutely no sense!  She may not have done it anyway.  But at least give her the chance!

Hopefully someone comes to their senses and the schedule is changed.  And not just because Bobby Kersee requested it.  Because, frankly, he shouldn't need to request it!  Whoever made that schedule dropped the ball!  The double is the only thing Syd hasn't done.  The LA Olympics would be the perfect setting to do it.  As long as they realize they screwed up and make it possible after all. 

LA's Olympic Schedule

Last week, the full event schedule for the 2028 Olympics was released.  We already knew some of the details (for example, track & field and swimming swapping weeks), but now we know the specific dates for all 351 events.  Some of which answered pressing questions.  Some of which raised more.  And some of which definitely came as a surprise.

One thing that didn't come as a surprise was the announcement that the Closing Ceremony will be held entirely within the LA Coliseum.  The original plan when LA first got the 2028 Olympics was that both the Opening and Closing Ceremonies would be split between the Coliseum and SoFi Stadium.  But that was before swimming was moved to SoFi, necessitating the schedule switch with track & field.  The last swimming events will literally be the final events of the Games (the swimming session ends at 7:30 ET on that final Sunday and the Closing Ceremony starts at 9:00 ET).  So, it would've been logistically impossible to do the dual-stadium Closing Ceremony.  They simply confirmed it.

Flipping track & field and swimming on the Olympic program was obviously done for logistical reasons, but I agree with some of the comments that were made by the LA Organizing Committee about the benefits of the change.  Specifically, it'll be a different experience for the swimmers, who often have to miss the Opening Ceremony because they're competing right off the bat.  Now they'll get to walk in the Opening Ceremony and still have plenty of time before their event.  Likewise, on the opposite end, the track & field athletes will get their competition out of the way and be able to enjoy the rest of the Olympics once they're done.  Which isn't always the case for them when they don't compete until the end.

Perhaps the most noticeable change to the track & field schedule (besides the obvious one) involves the women's 100 meters.  The women's 100 final is set for the first full day of the Olympics--Saturday, July 15.  The whole idea is to start the Games with a bang by featuring one of the marquee events.  However, that means all four rounds of the women's 100 are scheduled for the same day--the preliminary and first rounds in the morning, the semifinals and final about 90 minutes apart during the evening session.  Granted, the most any of the finalists will have to run is three rounds, but it's still unusual to say the least to have the entire event take place on one day.

With two and a half years until the Olympics, the female sprinters are being given plenty of notice to adjust their training regiments.  And the 100 is perhaps the only event where you can do it all in one day (at World Indoors, they do all three rounds of the 60 in the same day).  Still, it's a lot to ask.  Especially since the men won't have to do it.  (The first two rounds of the men's 100 are on Saturday, with the semifinals and final on Sunday.)  The women claim not to have a problem with, but how much of that is the truth and how much is toeing the company line?

Other than NBC wanting a marquee event on the opening night of the Games, there is one other reason I can think of.  The mixed 4x100 relay makes its Olympic debut in LA and they needed to squeeze that in between the individual 100s & 200s and men's & women's 4x100 relays that are always at the end.  The mixed 4x100 is on Day 3, so the women will get a day off before it and the men won't.  The first round of the men's 200 is then on Day 4, while the women's 200 doesn't start until Day 5.  So, their schedule will certainly be more spread out then the men after that busy first day.

There was one other thing people were really looking forward to potentially seeing in the track & field competition at the LA Olympics.  Sydney McLaughlin (who lives in LA) having the chance to do a 400-400 hurdles double.  You would think that they'd arrange the schedule to make it possible.  Instead, they've made it so that it effectively isn't.  The first round of the 400 hurdles and semifinals of the 400 are on the same day (in different sessions), while the semifinals of the 400 hurdles are in the same session as the 400 final.  Just stupid scheduling!

The first gold medal of the Games will be awarded in the women's triathlon, the first time since 2000 that it'll be the opening medal event.  That's just the start of a day featuring the most women's finals in Olympic history.  In addition to the triathlon and 100, other women's finals scheduled for the first full day of Olympic competition include rugby, individual epee fencing, 10 meter air rifle shooting, the shot put, and more.

Two weeks later, on what they're calling "Super Saturday," there will be 26 finals in 23 different sports.  Team sports traditionally reach their climax on the final weekend, and it'll be no different in LA.  That Saturday includes the gold medal matchups in softball, women's basketball, men's beach volleyball, men's cricket, women's soccer, women's field hockey, men's and women's lacrosse, and men's volleyball, as well as a bunch of bronze medal games in sports that conclude on the final day of the Olympics.  So, yeah, it'll be busy.

I figured that swimming being moved to the second week would result in the schedule being adjusted for all the other pool sports, but it didn't happen in the way I thought.  Water polo and artistic swimming are being held at the same venue, so, instead of water polo stretching the entire duration of the Games like it normally does, it's actually starting two days before the Opening Ceremony and ending on the middle Sunday.  Then artistic swimming moves in and starts on Tuesday.

A very interesting adjustment was also made to the diving schedule.  Instead of starting with the four synchronized events and ending with the individual competition, that's reversed.  The four individual events are at the beginning, then, after a couple days off, the synchronized events are all at the end.  I wonder what the impetus for that decision was.  Men's individual platform was the final diving event for as long as I can remember.  (Also, if this will be the Olympic diving schedule moving forward, they can easily fill that gap with the mixed team event.  Just saying!)

As for the swimming competition, that's seen all kinds of adjustments because they added the 50s in the backstroke, breaststroke and butterfly.  They'd already extended the swimming schedule to nine days starting with the Paris Games, which allowed them to spread out the events a little more for those attempting doubles.  They still changed it up in a pretty major way, though, which I'm sure was likely to accommodate NBC.  The women's 800 freestyle (aka Katie Ledecky's best event) was moved to the final day and will literally be the last individual event of the entire Olympics.

Two of the sports the organizers added to the program for the LA Games were baseball and flag football.  The hope is that MLB and NFL players will participate.  While that's by no means a guarantee, they've set it up to improve the chances of it happening.  The entire baseball competition lasts just a week and is over by July 19.  Assuming the 2028 All*Star Game is on July 11, they could theoretically just extend the All*Star Break an extra week (I don't see that happening, or MLB players participating in the Olympics, but that's a topic for another post).  Likewise, flag football will be done on Friday, July 21...before NFL training camps open in the last week of July.

Baseball's just one of the sports that will begin competition before the Opening Ceremony.  Soccer always does, and rugby has since its debut in 2016, as well.  They're also starting basketball two days early for reasons I still don't quite understand.  Cricket, handball and field hockey also start before the Opening Ceremony, while there will be canoe slalom competition on the day of the Opening Ceremony itself.  Canoe slalom, of course, is taking place in Oklahoma City along with softball, though (I guess that means Jessica Fox won't be Australia's flag bearer again).

In tennis, they're evidently taking the mixed doubles format that debuted at this year's US Open and using it at the LA Olympics.  Because the tennis schedule starts with just the first two rounds of mixed doubles on the first day, then the semifinals and bronze/gold medal matches the following day.  When the initial list of events came out, it just said "Mixed Event TBA," so I'm glad they opted for traditional mixed doubles rather than some sort of team format.  I just wish it wasn't the new format from the US Open.  (John McEnroe may like it, but I don't.)

It's crazy to think about how fast LA28 is approaching.  Before we know it, it'll be here.  Releasing the schedule always makes it feel a little more real.  Yes, it's still two and a half years.  There's a whole Winter Olympics in Italy before it.  But LA28 seems like it's just around the corner.  Especially now that there's a schedule.  Start planning for July 2028.