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.

Australian Open 2026

My favorite thing about this year's Australian Open already happened.  After the US Open moved the mixed doubles tournament to the week before the tournament proper, you knew Australia would come up with something of its own.  What they came up with was a One-Point Tournament, where pros, celebrities, random amateurs, men, women all competed against each other in a single-elimination event.  It was exactly like it sounds.  Each match was one point.  You serve and hit an ace, you win.  You serve and hit an error, you lose.  Anyway, some local dude beat Jannik Sinner and went on to win the whole thing!

Sinner may not have won the One-Point Tournament, but don't expect it to have any impact on his pursuit of a third straight Australian Open title.  It was here in 2024 that he beat Novak Djokovic (badly) in the semifinals and started this new era in men's tennis where he and Carlos Alcaraz have split the last eight Grand Slam titles between them (four apiece).  Sinner has to come into the tournament as the favorite to make it three in a row.  Alcaraz, after all, has never been past the quarterfinals here.  But to say he's motivated would be an understatement.

Alcaraz has already done so much in his career, and he got back to No. 1 after winning the US Open last year.  And he hasn't been shy about how much he wants this title.  It's the only one he's missing for a career Grand Slam.  Alcaraz is still just 22.  If he wins, he'll become the youngest man to complete the career Grand Slam.  He's obviously got plenty of time to win the Australian Open, but he really wants it here.  (Sinner will look to finish off his career Grand Slam at the French Open.)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it sure looks like we're on a collision course for another Sinner vs. Alcaraz Grand Slam final.  Should it happen, that would make it four Grand Slams in a row where they've met for the title.  And, frankly, I'm not sure I see anybody getting in either of their way.  Well, except for maybe one guy.

We didn't know it at the time, but Sinner's win over Djokovic in the 2024 semifinals really was a changing of the guard.  Novak's still looking for that 25th Grand Slam title, which would leave him alone as the all-time leader.  Simply by playing in the tournament, he'll tie another all-time record.  This will be Djokovic's 81st appearance in a Grand Slam, matching Roger Federer and Feliciano Lopez.  Assuming he's healthy, he'll break that record in Paris.  (He's been to at least the semifinals in 53 of the previous 80, an insane percentage!)

Djokovic can reach two other milestones during the tournament.  A first-round victory would be his 100th at Melbourne Park, making this the third Grand Slam where he'll have 100 wins (which is kinda odd, considering he's a 10-time champion).  He needs three wins to become the first player ever with 400 career Grand Slam match victories.  If those numbers sound insane, it's because they are.  As are his 10 Australian Open titles.

Is Djokovic a favorite to make it 11?  No.  But a run wouldn't surprise anyone.  And, don't forget, he made the semifinals last year, but had to retire after losing the first set to Alexander Zverev.  If he wasn't injured, we very well might've seen a Djokovic vs. Sinner final in 2025.  This year, they'd face each other in the semifinals should they both get there.  Should that happen, you'd have to think it'd be Sinner's match to lose.

Zverev is worth mentioning, too.  He was the finalist last year and blew a two-set lead in the 2024 semifinals.  Zverev has the Olympic gold from Tokyo, but still hasn't gotten over the hump at a Slam.  Could this finally be his time?  Unfortunately, I don't think so.  Not when he'll have to be Alcaraz in the semis and either Sinner or Djokovic in the final.

There's also somebody looking to complete a career Grand Slam on the women's side--Iga Swiatek.  Last year, Swiatek reached the semifinals for the second time in her career, losing a third-set tiebreak to Madison Keys.  As fate would have it, that could be the semifinal matchup again this year.  After that great semifinal they played in 2025, you almost want to see the rematch.  Although, that's assuming Keys gets through the American gauntlet.

Last year, an American woman made the final at all four Grand Slams.  It's actually five in a row going back to Jessica Pegula at the 2024 US Open.  Pegula, Keys and Amanda Anisimova (who's been to the last two Grand Slam finals) are all in the same section of the draw, where they're joined by 2020 Australian Open champion Sofia Kenin.  The good news is it looks good for an American to reach the semifinals from that section of the draw.  The bad news is they'll likely have to take out each other to get there.

The other American woman who made a Grand Slam final last year was Coco Gauff, who won the French Open.  She's the No. 3 seed and on the opposite side of the draw.  Gauff followed up her 2023 US Open title by reaching the semifinals here, so a deep run wouldn't be a surprise at all.  Her second-round match could be the one worth watching, though.  Coco Gauff's big breakthrough was at Wimbledon in 2019, where she reached the fourth round.  In the first round, her first-ever Grand Slam match, the 15-year-old Gauff upset Venus Williams.  If they both win their opening matches here, Coco would play the now 45-year-old Venus in the second round.  A full-circle moment to be sure.

Of course, the one name I'm yet to mention is the best women's tennis player on the planet right now.  Not to mention the best hardcourt player.  That's World No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka, the two-time champion who saw her 20-match Australian Open winning streak snapped by Keys in last year's final.  Sabalenka has been to the last six Grand Slam finals played on hardcourts.  There's no reason to think she won't make it seven.

Sabalenka is probably a bigger favorite than Sinner is.  Especially when you look at her draw and don't really see any names that should challenge her.  Even a potential semifinal matchup against Gauff she should easily handle.  And, if Sabalenka cruises into the final (which wouldn't be a surprise), a third title in four years could easily be on order.  In fact, I think the only one who can prevent that might be Swiatek.

So, yes, I'm being boring and going with the chalk.  But going with the chalk is sometimes the wise bet.  Because Jannik Sinner and Aryna Sabalenka have just been that dominant both on hardcourts and at the Australian Open over the past several years.  Expect that to continue in 2026.

NFL Picks, Divisional Round

A lot was made about the fact that Seahawks-49ers is on Saturday and Rams-Bears is on Sunday, even though the Rams and Bears played on Saturday last week.  I agree that it would've made more sense to put that game on Saturday night and Seattle-San Francisco on Sunday.  My guess is NBC is to blame for why Bears-Rams ended up on Sunday. 

Last week, there was that interesting piece explaining why Bears-Packers was the Prime game and how NBC essentially drew the short straw on Wild Card Weekend.  That same article implied NBC would get first choice this weekend.  So, if they wanted Rams-Bears and were tapped for a Sunday game (FOX usually gets Saturday night), that would explain it.  Does it suck for the 49ers to have a cross country trip AND a short week?  Yes.  But I bet that's why.

Do I know this for sure?  No.  But it does make sense.  Just like how the "times and networks TBA" announcement after the Patriots-Chargers game makes sense in hindsight, too.  If the Steelers had won, New England-Pittsburgh likely would've been on Sunday night (probably on CBS instead of ESPN).  Since the Texans won, that game became less appealing, so Bears-Rams got the late slot on Sunday.  Do I know this for sure?  Also no.  But if the timeslots weren't dependent on the Steelers-Texans result, we almost certainly wouldn't have had to wait until after the Monday night game to find them out.

What's weird, though, is how neither of the Sunday afternoon networks has a game on Sunday afternoon.  CBS has Bills-Broncos on Saturday afternoon and FOX has Seahawks-49ers on Saturday night.  When was the last time there was a Sunday with multiple games that didn't feature any on either CBS or FOX?  Has it ever happened?  It's especially odd because CBS won't have a primetime playoff game at all this season (the AFC Championship Game is first this year).

Anyway, Divisional Playoff weekend is typically the most anticipated weekend on the NFL calendar.  The top eight teams in the league, all two wins from the Super Bowl.  I'm not sure it'll be able to match last weekend, though.  The first four games of Wild Card Weekend, especially, were exceptional.  They were decided by a combined 14 points!  Sure, the last two games weren't close.  But those were two dominant defensive performances by teams that will face each other this weekend.

Before the playoffs started, I thought it was wide open and had absolutely no idea who'll be in the Super Bowl.  What happened on Wild Card Weekend did nothing to change that opinion.  In fact, it might've had the opposite effect.  I can legitimately see all eight teams playing this weekend taking the field in Santa Clara on February 8.  So, if that's the case, this week could very well give last week a run for its money.

Bills (13-5) at Broncos (14-3): Denver-The Bills earned their first road playoff win since the 1992 AFC Championship Game last week.  And they did it because Josh Allen was being Josh Allen.  He essentially willed them to victory.  That playoff experience was on full display.  Now Buffalo is tasked with winning another road playoff game in conditions that would be a problem for any other team and any other quarterback.

When these two met in the Wild Card round last season, it was clear the Bills were the better team.  This time, I'm not so sure.  Buffalo has Josh Allen and hasn't lost a playoff game to an opponent other than Kansas City since 2022.  They obviously don't have to face the Chiefs this year, but they do have to face that Broncos defense.  In Denver.  If the game were in Buffalo, I'd take the Bills.  Since it's in Denver, I'm going with the Broncos.

49ers (13-5) at Seahawks (14-3): Seattle-These two are meeting on a Saturday night for the second time in three weeks.  And the first one directly set up this one.  Had the 49ers won, they would've gotten a week off and been at home.  Instead, they had to travel to Philadelphia and face the defending champions.  They came away with a win, but lost George Kittle, the latest in their long line of injuries.

Can they overcome another injury and take down a rested division rival on the road?  A division rival that completely shut them down two weeks ago.  That Week 18 game could end up proving to make a big difference in this one.  The Seahawks earned the 1-seed with a dominant effort in that game.  They haven't played since.  While this game won't be a carbon copy of that one, it'll be pretty close.  The NFC Championship Game will be in Seattle.

Texans (13-5) at Patriots (15-3): New England-Both of their defenses stole the show in their Wild Card wins.  Neither offense did much.  Which leads you to believe that we'll see a low-scoring struggle.  Points will almost certainly be at a premium, and whichever offense is able to move the ball with any sort of regularity will figure to be in good shape.

Houston has a championship-caliber defense and is the hottest team in football.  The Texans got their first-ever road playoff win last week, and it's a very realistic possibility that they'll be playing in their first-ever AFC Championship Game next week.  Winning on the road two weeks in a row will be a tall order, though.  The Patriots' defense isn't the Steelers' defense.  New England shuts down Houston enough to get the win.

Rams (13-5) at Bears (13-5): Rams-I saw the craziest stat the other day.  This will be Sean McVay's 15th playoff game as Rams coach.  In those 15 games, the Bears will be their 15th different opponent.  All he needs to finish off the entire NFC is the Giants and Commanders.  Of course, he can't make it 16-for-16 with a win since they've already played both Seattle and San Francisco in the postseason.

Heading into the playoffs, I thought the Rams were the best team.  They got a bigger challenge than expected from the Panthers, but managed to pull it out.  The Bears, meanwhile, did their regular thing and had a fourth-quarter comeback.  It wouldn't be a surprise at all to see them do it again.  It also wouldn't surprise me to see the Rams not let them get away with it this time.  I still think they're the best team.  They've already got one road win.  Now they'll add another.

Last Week: 3-3
Overall: 174-103-1

What's Wrong With 162?

Ever since Rob Manfred hinted about potential MLB realignment when they inevitably expand to 32 teams, people have been coming up with their thoughts on what those new divisions should look like.  Even if they don't make any sense and run completely contradictory to what Manfred himself has said.  (I can't tell you how many times I've seen the Mets & Yankees, Cubs & White Sox and Dodgers & Angels in the same division, even though Manfred has made it abundantly clear that the two-team cities will continue to be in opposite leagues.)

I'm not saying MLB can't, won't or shouldn't expand.  And, when it does, realignment into four four-team divisions in each league makes the most sense for practical and logistical reasons.  Don't expect that realignment to be too drastic, though.  Depending on where the expansion teams are, I'm not even sure any teams would switch leagues.

Baseball, perhaps more than any other sport, is bound by its traditions.  Manfred knows this.  That's why, as much as some fans might not like it, any realignment will be minimal.  Because anything more than that would anger the traditionalists just as much, if not more.

One of those traditions is the schedule.  When asked about the possibility of an NBA-style in-season tournament, Manfred poured cold water on the idea.  While not completely ruling it out (probably to appease the reporter who asked the question), he essentially shut it down right then.  Baseball's season structure doesn't really allow for it.  Nor is there any sort of appetite to have an event of this type.  But that, of course, hasn't stopped people from suggesting it.

Another popular suggestion is shortening the season (presumably to accommodate this nonexistent in-season tournament).  The long season has long been one of Major League Baseball's defining characteristics.  After playing 154 games for the first half of the 20th Century, the American League went to a 162-game schedule in 1961 and the National League followed suit a year later.  It's been 162 games ever since.

Apparently, that's too many games for some people.  What I've found is that most of those people aren't baseball fans.  So why do they care how long the season is then?  Because real baseball fans don't think the season is too long at all.  Game 7 of the World Series was on November 1.  It was the most-watched baseball game in 35 years.  Clearly watching baseball in November wasn't an issue for the 35 million viewers.

Most of the suggestions around shortening the season seem to be stuck on the idea that it either starts too early, ends too late, or both.  The "ends too late" crowd clearly seem to think that baseball should be over in late September/early October so that it doesn't overlap with football season.  Because the two seasons overlapping for two months is apparently some sort of problem!  Likewise, the "starts too early" crowd uses the early April weather in certain cities as their excuse.  (That excuse is also used by the other side as their argument for not playing in late October...meanwhile, if your team's playing in late October, it means they've made it deep into the postseason.)

Yes, once upon a time, the World Series ended in early October.  That was a long time ago!  As MLB expanded and added extra rounds of playoffs, the postseason became longer.  Sometimes that will result in the World Series not ending until November.  Which, again, to actual baseball fans, isn't a problem at all.

Meanwhile, the entire baseball season, including the playoffs is only seven months long!  Yes, teams play practically every day for the first six of those months.  But the point remains, baseball season is actually shorter than the NBA and NHL, which follow their six-moth seasons with two months of playoffs!  Yet no one is complaining that those seasons are "too long."  Or is it just the 162 number that's "too many?"

And, while the advocates for a shorter season may think it's not that big a deal, reducing the number of games is nowhere near as easy as it sounds.  Even if they were to say, cut eight games and go from 162 back to 154, good luck on getting either the owners or players (let alone both!) to sign off.  For the owners, that would mean four fewer home games.  That means less revenue.  And that would also mean less money for the players, since the owners wouldn't be bringing in as much.  Can you really see them agreeing to lower salaries?  It would cause even more labor strife than what we're about to see after next season.

There's this, too.  I mentioned Baseball's respect for its traditions and history before.  Single-season baseball records are sacred.  So sacred, in fact, that when Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's home run record, it carried an asterisk for 30 years because Maris did it in 162 games instead of 154.  If they were to go back to 154, it would be that much harder to ever challenge an MLB single-season record again.  And baseball's the one sport where everyone knows the single-season records at the top of their heads!

It isn't just individual records, either.  When the Dodgers won the World Series in 2020, it was completely legitimate.  But, because that was the COVID-shortened 60-game season, a lot of people (the Dodgers included) didn't consider it on par with a full-season championship.  It was one of their guiding motivations for the next four years until they finally got that full-season title in 2024.  No one could question it or attach any sort of qualifiers that time.

Reducing the schedule would also interfere with MLB's well-crafted formula.  When they played 154 games, it was because the math worked out (22 games against each of the other seven teams in your league).  The current schedule format was devised in 2023, when teams began playing every other team in the Majors each season.  That was a long time coming, and it came about after certain franchises had been requesting it for years.  Now that you've finally given it to them, good luck taking it back.  Especially since you want them to have fewer home games to begin with.

The current schedule format was set up for a 162-game season.  Slight adjustments will be necessary when they go to 32 teams, but those will be easy to make.  In fact, it would be much easier to do that than to figure out an entirely new formula which may or may not include playing every other team in the Majors.  No matter how you try to do that, the math doesn't work!

Any adjustments to the schedule would also need to be collectively bargained with the MLBPA.  The current CBA calls for 162 games in 186 days.  Excluding the All*Star break, the players get 20 off days during the season.  The CBA also defines the 26 1/2-week period during which those 162 games are played.  If you want to change that, the players would have to agree.  Which is easier said than done.

All of which brings me back to my original point.  Who involved with Baseball actually thinks any of these suggestions are good ideas?  The only people who are looking to "improve" the game don't even care.  So, why does it make a difference how many games teams play or how the divisions are set up then?  As the old adage goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  And the 162-game season ain't broke.  So stop trying to "fix" it.

The Best Available Jobs

Mike Tomlin has resigned after 19 years and 19 consecutive non-losing seasons in Pittsburgh.  Even though his departure was voluntary, his fate was probably sealed when the Steelers got shellacked by the Texans in the wild card game, their seventh straight playoff loss (five of which have come in the wild card round).  Tomlin did win a Super Bowl, but that was 17 years ago.  So, maybe the time was right for a change in Pittsburgh.

The Steelers job is the ninth head coaching vacancy heading into next season.  Barring anything unforeseen, it'll likely be the last.  And, if history is any indication, all nine teams will move fast to hire a new head coach.  I'd imagine that most, if not all of the jobs are either filled by the Super Bowl or on hold only because they want one of the conference champions' coordinators but can't officially hire them until their season's over.

Not all nine of those jobs are created equal, though.  And not all eight coaching hires will be home runs.  Look at the Raiders.  They're looking for a coach for the second straight year after getting rid of Pete Carroll, who didn't lead the turnaround that was expected.  Others you figure will work out swimmingly, like Mike Vrabel with the Patriots or Ben Johnson with the Bears.

Obviously, there are only 32 NFL head coaching jobs.  If you're offered one, you'll take it.  But, if given the option, which would you choose?  Which of the nine available jobs is the best?

9. Cardinals: Winning in Arizona will be tough.  The Cardinals have a lot of holes to fill, and the other three NFC West teams all reached the Divisional Playoffs.  So, the first year or two won't be easy.  Will ownership and the fan base be patient enough to wait it out?  I have a feeling they won't and the Cardinals will be looking for a new head coach again in another year or two.

8. Raiders: Well, the Pete Carroll thing sure didn't work out, huh?  As a result, the Raiders will start over again!  And they'll be doing it in a division with three very good teams.  Plus, whoever they hire will be their fifth head coach since Jon Gruden's resignation midway thru his third season back with the Raiders in 2021.  This is one of the most difficult jobs for any head coach.  In multiple respects.  Whoever gets the Raiders job probably shouldn't plan on being there very long.

7. Titans: I'm sure in hindsight, they're wishing they'd never fired Mike Vrabel.  They've finished 3-14 in each of the two years since they let him go.  Meanwhile, he's probably gonna win Coach of the Year in New England!  Still, there's always opportunity in the AFC South (although, maybe not with the team Houston has built).  Plus, the benefit of being so bad in back-to-back years is that this season they have the No. 2 pick after taking Cam Ward No. 1 last year.

6. Giants: Let's be honest.  This is a tough job, and whoever takes it will have his work cut out for him.  There are definitely some pieces in place, so a successful first season isn't unheard of.  Both Ben McAdoo and Brian Daboll made the playoffs in their first season with the Giants.  Sustained success has been the issue, though.  But still.  It's the Giants.  It's one of the marquee franchises in the NFL.

5. Browns: Kevin Stefanski brought some stability to the Browns and won two Coach of the Year awards in six seasons.  They've got a good foundation, too.  Myles Garrett just set the sack record and will probably be the Defensive Player of the Year.  So, it probably won't take too much for the next Browns coach to be successful.  Of the three available AFC North jobs, it's the third-most desirable.  But compared to some of the other openings, it's far more appealing.

4. Dolphins: Mike McDaniel's firing was perhaps the most surprising of them all.  Especially since the Dolphins waited a few days after the end of the season.  I originally suspected McDaniel was only let go once Harbaugh became available, and I wouldn't be surprised if he lands one of the eight other available head jobs.  Whoever replaces him in Miami will take over a roster with enough talent to contend for a playoff spot next season.

3. Falcons: Arthur Blank clearly got tired of his team's continually failing to meet expectations.  That's why he brought Matt Ryan in and completely restructured the organization.  So, it's obvious that he wants to win.  Which is certainly doable in the NFC South.  He's a good owner and he'll set up his new coach for success, so this should be a very attractive job.  Harbaugh has already said this is one he'll consider, so it wouldn't be a surprise if he ends up in Atlanta.

2. Ravens: John Harbaugh's time in Baltimore had run its course, but the Ravens job is still one of the better ones in the NFL.  The Ravens also have a history of coaches with longevity, with Brian Billick lasting nine years before Harbaugh's 18.  This is probably the team looking for a new head coach in the best position to be successful next season.  After all, a missed field goal on the last play in the final game was the only thing that kept the Ravens out of the playoffs this year.  And that was after a terrible start and key players missing time with injuries.   

1. Steelers: Chuck Noll.  Bill Cowher.  Mike Tomlin.  That's a complete list of the Steelers' head coaches since the merger.  Which was in 1970!  Whoever gets the Pittsburgh job will have job security.  Not to mention patient ownership and a winning culture.  This is easily the most desirable of the available coaching jobs.  Of course, the Steelers also have a passionate fan base who'll expect results, so the pressure will be on whoever gets it.

Of course, the job being desirable doesn't guarantee success.  And a job that may not be that desirable on paper could end up being the perfect fit for both team and coach.  But if past success and organizational history are any indication, those two jobs in the AFC North should be the most coveted of the available coaching positions.