2026 MLB Awards (Cy Young)

Let's not beat around the bush.  Jacob Misiorowski and Cam Schlittler are going to win the Cy Young.  There's no reason to even pretend they won't.  In fact, I think it's possible they'll both be unanimous.  In the NL, it almost certainly will be.  There's a chance Schlittler didn't get all 30 first-place votes in the AL, but if he didn't, he got like 27 or 28.  So, the Cy Young announcement shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

The real suspense will come with the new kid on the block--the Reliever of the Year.  This isn't a new award, but it's being announced at the same time as the others for the first time.  And here's where the competition comes in.  Well, at least in the AL.  The Padres' Mason Miller should have it on lockdown just as much as Misiorowski does with the Cy Young.

Miller is the best reliever in baseball.  Period.  End of sentence.  This season, he tied for the NL lead with 38 saves and had a career-best 1.67 ERA.  Miller also had a ridiculous 129 strikeouts in 70 innings pitched.  You could actually make the argument that he should be in the Cy Young mix.  In fact, I bet he did probably get a lot of down-ballot Cy Young votes.

Trevor Megill of the Brewers and Jhoan Duran of the Phillies are the other two NL finalists.  Megill is the representative of that outstanding Milwaukee bullpen we all saw on full display during the World Series.  Duran had a 1.82 ERA and went 33-for-35 in save opportunities.  Unfortunately, neither one of them had anywhere near the same type of season as Mason Miller.

In the AL, meanwhile, Reliever of the Year is actually a race between Tampa Bay's Bryan Baker and Cleveland's Cade Smith.  Louis Varland of the Blue Jays is the third finalist, but that just means he finished third the voting.  Varland had a fine season and made his first All*Star team.  This after pitching in seemingly every game of Toronto's World Series run last year.  His 2026 just wasn't on the same level as either Baker or Smith.

Personally, I'd go with Baker.  He was the definition of lights out closer in the second half of the season.  Baker saved 30 consecutive opportunities to end the regular season.  If Tampa Bay had the lead in the ninth inning, it was game over.  It's not that Smith's season was bad!  In fact, he tied Baker for the Major League lead with 41 saves and had an absurd 107 strikeouts in 74 innings.  A Guardians lead in the ninth inning was nearly as automatic.  I'd have no problem with Smith winning.  But, since you can only put one guy first, my pick is Baker.

Now moving on to the Cy Youngs.  It's incredible to think that this was each of their first full season in the Majors.  Misiorowski was called up in June last year, and Schlittler started 2025 in Double A, then made only five Triple A starts before he was promoted to the Yankees in July.  Then he had that shutout in Game 3 of last season's Wild Card Series against the Red Sox.  Even after that, I don't think anyone expected him to become the best pitcher in the whole damn American League this year.  But that's exactly what happened!

Schlittler had a 1.95 ERA in 33 starts.  You read that correctly.  A starting pitcher, making 33 starts, with a sub-2.00 ERA.  He was just as dominant as that suggests.  Schlittler allowed one run or fewer 22 times.  Oh yeah, he had 239 strikeouts, too.  On a team that also had Gerrit Cole, Max Fried and Carlos Rodon, Schlittler emerged as the clear ace.

Dylan Cease signed a seven-year deal with Toronto in the offseason and it was worth every penny for the Blue Jays.  He started the All*Star Game and tied Schlittler with 239 strikeouts.  However, he made fewer starts and pitched for a last-place team.  Cease's season wasn't anywhere near as impactful as Schlittler's.  Still, it was the best statistical season of his career.

Parker Messick was second in Rookie of the Year voting and finished either second or third for the Cy Young.  That's impressive.  Especially when you consider the seasons some other American League pitchers put together.  But it's Messick who's the Cy Young finalist after going 12-9 with a 2.56 ERA in 32 starts for Cleveland.  He emerged as the Guardians' ace, as Cleveland won another division title.  His WHIP of 1.06 was among the best in the league.

There are two other names worthy of a mention.  I'm actually surprised that they didn't finish in the top three.  Because they both easily could've been.  The first is Drew Rasmussen.  Tampa Bay's ace was 16-5, had a league-leading 0.91 WHIP and a batting average against of .199.  One big reason for the Rays' success this season was their pitching.  Rasmussen was the biggest part of that.  The other name I want to throw out there is Sonny Gray.  He led the American League with 18 wins while making 29 starts for the Red Sox.  His other numbers don't compare that favorably to the other candidates, but Boston won nearly every time he went out there, and that means something.

Over in the National League, Misiorowski had one of those seasons.  He effortlessly threw 100 mph fastballs over and over again while dominating every lineup he faced.  The Miz led the Majors with 252 strikeouts and a 1.80 ERA.  His batting average against, meanwhile, was an absurd .157.  He also somehow only allowed 96 hits all season.  In 174.2 innings!  That's ridiculous!  Is it any wonder that the Brewers set a franchise record with 103 wins enroute to their first World Series title?  Once it becomes official, Misiorowski will become the first pitcher since Orel Hershiser in 1988 to start the World Series clincher and win the Cy Young in the same season.

If not for Misiorowski, we could easily be talking about Chris Sale's second Cy Young season.  Just think about what that trade from Boston to Atlanta did for his career!  Sale has been reborn with the Braves, and he was outstanding again this year.  A 2.16 ERA that was second only to The Miz.  An even 200 strikeouts.  Only 10 home runs allowed in 162.2 innings for a team that won its division.  Another second-place Cy Young finish.

Cristopher Sanchez of the Phillies started the All*Star Game in his home park.  The Cy Young runner-up last season, he placed in the top three again this year.  Sanchez emerged as the ace of a very good Phillies rotation and tied for the Major League lead with 18 wins.  His ERA was a little on the higher side (2.91), but he made up for it with 231 strikeouts in 207 innings.

Since closers have their own award, they don't get as much Cy Young consideration as they did in the past (Eric Gagne was the last reliever to win in 2003).  But Mason Miller really should.  Without him at the end of games, there's no way the Padres post 90 wins.  Also, how about Chase Burns?  He gets lost in the shuffle since he pitches for Cincinnati, but Burns went 15-3 this year, which includes a string of 12 straight decisions without a loss.  The Reds' record in his starts was 21-8, and two of the losses were shutouts.  That's a guy giving his team a chance to win virtually every time out.

So, if it wasn't already obvious.  I'm in complete agreement with the Schlittler and Misiorowski selections.  My AL vote goes: 1. Schlittler, 2. Rasmussen, 3. Messick, 4. Cease, 5. Gray.  In the NL, I'd put Misiorowski first and second if I could.  But, since you have to put five names on the ballot, I'll go with: 1. Misiorowski, 2. Sale, 3. Miller, 4. Sanchez, 5. Burns.

2026 MLB Awards (Manager of the Year)

MLB Network may have inadvertently revealed the winner of every MLB award.  In fact, I don't think there's anything inadvertent about it.  Their schedule for the week includes games from this season.  On Wednesday, they're showing a Yankees game started by Cam Schlittler and a Brewers game started by Jacob Misiorowski.  Wednesday's also the day that the Cy Young winners are being announced.  But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Which games are on tap for Tuesday?  The Brewers and White Sox clinching their postseason berths.  So, I guess that means congratulations Pat Murphy and Will Venable.  Sure takes the suspense out of the Manager of the Year announcement, though.  Doesn't it?

For the record, I completely agree with the selection of Will Venable.  The White Sox had back-to-back 100-loss seasons in 2024-25.  This season, they made the playoffs.  They were in first place for a good portion of the season before being overtaken by Cleveland late in the year.  That's all the argument you need for why Will Venable is deserving of AL Manager of the Year.  Frankly, it shouldn't even be that close.

Murphy, meanwhile, stands to make history.  No skipper has ever won three straight Manager of the Year awards.  Until now.  The Brewers had the best record in the Majors, setting a franchise record with 103 wins.  Then came the postseason, when they went 11-2, had an eight-game winning streak, swept the two-time defending champion Dodgers in the NLCS for their first pennant in 44 years, then won the first World Series title in franchise history.  None of that counts for Manager of the Year, of course.  But it goes to show just how good things went in Milwaukee this season.

My vote for NL Manager of the Year wouldn't have gone to Murphy, though.  It would've gone to Don Mattingly.  The Phillies had high expectations coming into the season.  They were 9-19 on April 26.  That's when they replaced Rob Thomson with Mattingly.  And that's when the Phillies started playing the way everybody thought they would.  Sometimes the manager can make that much of a difference.  Which is why Philadelphia removed Mattingly's "interim" tag for next season.

The third National League finalist is Atlanta's Walt Weiss.  Weiss was the 1988 AL Rookie of the Year, which would put him in elite company as both a Rookie and Manager of the Year winner.  He didn't win, but he's still got a chance of joining that list in the future.  And if not for the seasons put together by the Brewers and Phillies, he'd be much more of a contender this year.  Weiss took over a Braves team that struggled last season and won the NL East as a first-year manager.

That top three in the NL is pretty clear.  If they were the top three on every ballot, it wouldn't surprise me.  There are a couple other names worthy of consideration, though.  One is another first-year skipper, the Padres' Craig Stammen.  San Diego had a blistering finish to go from fighting for a wild card to winning 90 games and hosting the Wild Card Series.  And do you want to know how many starting pitchers the Padres used this season?  Fourteen!

Also worthy of a mention is the Pirates' Don Kelly.  Pittsburgh was actually relevant this year.  In fact, the Pirates finished above .500 for the first time since 2018.  And they did it by going 15-9 in September.  In a division that includes the Brewers and Cubs.  The Pirates were in the wild card race until late in the season and only ended up six games out.  This despite Paul Skenes going just 10-11.

But still, the National League Manager of the Year race had a very clear top three.  Murphy may have been the winner, but he didn't get by first-place vote.  I actually have him third.  Mattingly No. 1 and Weiss No. 2.

Over in the American League, there was some thought that Kevin Cash might snag his third career Manager of the Year award.  The Rays had a rough 2025.  They had no stadium and finished in last place.  In 2026, it was a complete turnaround.  They had the best record in the AL and won the monster division that is the AL East thanks to their dominance at the repaired Tropicana Field.  Tampa Bay's pennant was well-earned.

Don Mattingly wasn't the only midseason interim replacement whose success earned him both the full-time gig and a Manager of the Year finalist nod.  It was the same thing for Boston's Chad Tracy.  The stories are remarkably similar, too.  The Red Sox were really bad when Alex Cora was fired.  They were still middling in June when they suddenly forgot how to lose, putting together a 32-5 stretch that thrust them into playoff position.

Cleveland's Stephen Vogt won this award in each of his first two seasons at the helm.  We know he obviously didn't make it three since he's not a finalist, but he easily could've been.  The Guardians had the lowest payroll in baseball, yet they once again made the postseason.  And, for the second straight year, they rallied in September to win the division after trailing for most of the season.

And, I know Yankees fans won't want to hear this, but Aaron Boone did a hell of a job this season!  Just consider the amount of injuries they had to overcome.  That vaunted starting rotation wasn't all pitching together until September.  Aaron Judge missed most of the year.  Yet they still finished with the second-best record in the AL.  Fans considered this season a disappointment because of their lofty expectations.  In reality, though, it really is kind of remarkable that this team won 93 games.

Will Venable's your very clear, very deserving winner here, though.  Nobody saw the White Sox coming.  Yet they went from a record 121 loss to the playoffs in just two years.  If that doesn't get you Manager of the Year, I don't know what does.  Rounding out my ballot are Cash second and Vogt third.

2026 MLB Awards (Rookie of the Year)

As usual, Baseball's award season starts with the Rookies of the Year.  This year, the competition for the award doesn't seem to be particularly close in either league.  I wouldn't be surprised if they're both unanimous, in fact.  What I question is the third finalist in each league.  I know it's just who finished third in the voting, but still, I think it should've been somebody else.

Let's start in the American League.  How did Munetaka Murakami not finish in the top three?  The Japanese import was a sensation in Chicago, and he was a huge reason why the White Sox had that turnaround from 100 losses to a playoff team.  He had an injury, which limited to just 127 games, so maybe that came into play.  And he played in Nippon Professional Baseball before coming over, which is held against some players, but not others.  Still, though, Murakami had more home runs (35) than any other rookie in either league.

Or, how about another Japanese import, the Blue Jays' Kazuma Okamoto?  He played 156 games, so limited action wasn't an issue.  He hit 33 home runs and had 92 RBIs.  Sure, Toronto struggled the year after a World Series appearance.  Okamoto was one of the bright spots, though. 

For that matter, what about Kansas City catcher Carter Jensen.  He's right there among the AL rookie leaders in every major category.  Because of Jensen, Salvador Perez turned into a full-time DH.  He led AL rookies in doubles and was third in both homers and RBIs.  Frankly, I would've put any of those three over Red Sox pitcher Payton Tolle.

Which isn't to say Tolle didn't have a fine rookie season.  He made 26 starts for a playoff team and got the ball in Game 1 of the Wild Card Series at Yankee Stadium.  Tolle ended up second behind Parker Messick in most pitching categories.  But was his season better than those three hitters?  I'm not sure it was.

Parker Messick, on the other hand, absolutely belongs in the Rookie of the Year conversation.  It's one of two awards for which he's a finalist (but likely won't win).  He wasn't just the best rookie pitcher in the AL by a wide margin, he was one of the best pitchers in the AL period.  Messick went 12-9 and finished third in the AL with a 2.56 ERA while making 32 starts.  He was a big reason why Cleveland won the AL Central.

However, the AL Rookie of the Year is Tigers shortstop Kevin McGonigle.  McGonigle even figures to get a good number of MVP votes.  As he should.  This guy bypassed Triple A entirely and ended up putting numbers not seen by an AL rookie since Ted Williams in 1939.  There's also a whole bunch of other stats where he was in historical company.  McGonigle was also a stud defensively.  That's why, as solid as Messick's season was, this vote shouldn't be close.  McGongile will continue the trend of a Tiger winning Rookie of the Year every 10 years (Justin Verlander in 2006, Michael Fulmer in 2016).

In the National League, I have less of an issue with the third-place finisher than I do in the American League.  But that doesn't mean I don't think there were plenty of other viable candidates.  Starting with Brewers pitcher Logan Henderson.  This dude started Game 2 of the World Series!  I know that shouldn't factor into anything, but his 11-3 record, 2.47 ERA, .183 batting average against and sub-1.00 WHIP should be.  Although, Henderson only threw 98.1 regular season innings, which, granted, isn't a lot for a starting pitcher.

If you want a starting pitcher who put in a truly full season instead, how about the Mets' Nolan McLean?  He made 31 starts and pitched 179.2 innings.  Sure, he was just 12-10.  But he finished over .500 for the Mets!  And McLean recorded almost 200 strikeouts while holding opponents to just a .214 batting average.  Just imagine how much worse the Mets would've been without Nolan McLean!

Another name worth mentioning is Rockies first baseman TJ Rumfield.  He plays for a really bad team.  Which is actually a perfect situation for a rookie since it means a lot of playing time.  And he made the most of it.  Rumfield hit .300, the only qualified rookie to do so.  He had 49 extra base hits and drove in 73 runs.  Rumfield also led NL rookies in on base percentage.  One bright spot in another bad season for Colorado.

The Mets' Carson Benge was the third finalist over Rumfield and his teammate, McLean.  And I actually can see why.  He was right up there in every major offensive category.  He also played elite defense in right field (the Mets moved Juan Soto to left so that they could make Benge their everyday right fielder).  Benge had 10 outfield assists, the most among all NL right fielders, and was ridiculous in September!  So, while he wouldn't have taken my No. 3 slot, I don't have as many complaints about Benge finishing third as I do Tolle.

I'm actually less confident about the NL being unanimous as I am about the AL.  Because there's a very strong argument for the Cardinals' J.J. Wetherholt.  Wetherholt was elite defensively at second base.  That's, by far, his biggest attribute, but he was also elite on the basepaths.  He stole 14 bases in 15 attempts and was really hard to strike out (just 104 in 139 games).  Is it a conventional Rookie of the Year case?  No.  But it's a viable one nonetheless.

Ultimately, though, there's a clear frontrunner for NL Rookie of the Year.  The Reds' Sal Stewart.  His power numbers were impressive (32 home runs, 112 RBIs, 87 runs scored).  So was the fact that he played in all 162 games.  That's something that simply doesn't happen anymore.  Stewart made the All*Star team and was just the 15th rookie ever to have a 30/100 season.  Sounds like a pretty open and shut Rookie of the Year case to me!

So, there you have it.  My Rookies of the Year are Kevin McGonigle in the American League and Sal Stewart in the National League.  As for my full vote, in the AL it's 1. McGonigle, 2. Messick, 3. Jensen.  In the NL, I've got Wetherholt and McLean in the second and third spots behind Stewart, who stands to become the ninth Rookie of the Year in Reds history.

NFL Picks, 2026 Week 9

We've made it to the midway point of the NFL season.  Although, with bye weeks, we won't officially hit halfway until Thursday night.  But, it's Week 9 of an 18-week schedule.  So, for all intents and purposes, this is halfway.  It feels like this season's been going on forever, though, hasn't it?  I mean, it honestly feels like we should've reached halfway like two weeks ago. 

After a one-week break, 9:30 AM football from Europe also returns.  This time, it's the Bengals and Falcons from Madrid, their second trip to Spain after the Dolphins and Commanders went to overtime last season.  There's only one more left after this, Patriots-Lions in Munich next week, before the International Series concludes with a Sunday night game in Mexico City.  Yeah, it's a lot.  And the novelty of it has certainly worn off.  Not that the NFL plans on stopping anytime soon.

Thursday Night: Jacksonville (Win)

Bengals (5-2) vs Falcons (3-5): Atlanta-Our Spanish friends get to see Joe Burrow, JaMarr Chase & Co. take on the most schizophrenic team in the league, the Atlanta Falcons.  Which should actually make for an entertaining game.  Atlanta's ups and downs continued last week.  They go from beating the 49ers to getting shut out by Tampa Bay.  If the Good Falcons show up, they can easily win this game.  If the Bad Falcons show up, Burrow could have a field day.

Cowboys (3-5) at Colts (2-6): Dallas-For some reason, FOX decided that most of the nation will get this game in the early window.  I'm not entirely sure why.  I guess the Cowboys' brand really does carry that much clout.  Anyway, Indianapolis is in open sell mode.  They've made it known that they're talking to teams about Daniel Jones.  Another Jones, Jerry, believes Dallas is still good enough to win the NFC East.  They very well might be.  They have to start winning games at some point in order to do that, however.  A loss here all but dooms the Cowboys to being on the outside looking in come January.

Jets (2-6) at Chiefs (5-2): Kansas City-Somebody hit the panic button!  Kansas City has lost two straight!  I kid, of course, but the Chiefs sure got a little reality check on their two-game trip to Seattle and Denver.  No reason to freak out, though.  Those were road games against two good teams.  This week, it's the Jets at Arrowhead.  Both of which are a recipe for Kansas City to get back to its winning ways.

Lions (5-2) at Dolphins (1-6): Detroit-You can't lose to the Dolphins.  Period.  End of sentence.  Especially when you're in a four-team division race.  I hate to put it so bluntly.  But that's the situation for Detroit.  They're getting on a plane to Germany for a game with the Patriots after this.  That flight will be a lot longer if they can't beat one of the worst teams in the league.  Not to mention, the NFC North is so crazy that it could drop them into last place if they don't win.

Browns (5-3) at Saints (2-5): Cleveland-Cleveland has been one of the surprise teams in the NFL this season.  The Browns are only a game behind Pittsburgh and right in the thick of the playoff picture.  They'll have Shadeur Sanders starting at quarterback this week, which should be interesting.  Still, that defense is top notch.  That's why they've been winning games.  And it's that defense that'll get them to 6-3 with a very favorable second half schedule.

Giants (4-2-1) at Eagles (2-6): Giants-The Giants have a golden opportunity in front of them.  Philadelphia's struggles this season are well-documented.  And things have been progressively getting worse for the Eagles.  The Giants lead the division almost by default because the other three teams have all been so bad, but this is a chance for them to really make a statement.  Because they don't care about the Eagles' struggles.  They just see a chance to improve to 5-2-1 and really take control of the NFC East heading into a Thursday night game with Washington.

Rams (4-4) at Commanders (2-4-1): Rams-When the Seahawks went into Washington, they lost.  When the Giants went into Washington, they would've lost had the Commanders understood clock management.  Don't think the Rams aren't aware of both those results.  Although, I must say, over the past few weeks, the Rams have looked like the team we all expected them to be.  They haven't been over .500 all season.  They have a chance to change that here and head into the second half on a three-game winning streak.

Broncos (6-2) at Panthers (3-4): Denver-With four straight wins, the Broncos suddenly find themselves riding high and leading the AFC West.  Can they take that momentum with them on the road?  I know I say this every week, but I don't get Carolina (or the entire NFC South, really).  Are the Panthers actually good or not?  I really think it might depend on the week.  And, the crazy thing is, the rest of their division is so bad, they may stay in first place even at two games under .500.

Texans (2-5) at Chargers (0-7): Houston-This might be our best chance to finally see that first Chargers win.  If it doesn't come this week, I'm not sure when it will.  It's also both of my fantasy quarterbacks squaring off against each other, so I hope there's a lot of points in this game.  Either way, I see the Texans coming out on top.  The Chargers will have to wait until the Jets visit SoFi in two weeks for that first win (or maybe they'll get it next Monday night against quarterback-less Baltimore in a game America dreads watching).

Packers (5-3) at Patriots (5-3): Green Bay-Tom Brady returns to New England as a broadcaster for the first time.  Will he take a picture with the Tom Brady statue?  It's also a rematch of the Super Bowl from 30 years ago, which was the first on FOX.  Will we get any Madden & Summerall Super Bowl XXXI clips during the broadcast?  I sure hope so.  Anyway, about the game.  They have the same record, yet the Packers are a last-place team because of how good the NFC North is.  The Patriots, meanwhile, could potentially move just half a game behind Buffalo in the AFC East with a win.  They've got a little bit more of a wild card buffer, though.  Which is why I'm going with Green Bay.

Raiders (4-4) at 49ers (6-1): San Francisco-They aren't undefeated anymore, but I actually think that may be a good thing for the 49ers.  Takes the pressure off and is one less thing for them to think about.  Besides, this is still a really good team with Super Bowl aspirations.  What's been happening around them has probably come as a bit of a surprise.  They can really assert themselves as the team to beat in the NFC West, if not the entire NFC, by moving to 7-1 here.

Cardinals (3-5) at Seahawks (4-4): Seattle-Which team is the real Seattle Seahawks?  The one that sucked the life out of Patrick Mahomes & Co.?  Or the one that had the life sucked out of it by the Bears?  That loss dropped them to 4-4 and three behind San Francisco in the loss column.  Losing again this week would be even more devastating.  Not only would the Seahawks be under .500, they'd have a loss to the Cardinals on their resume.  They won't fall into that trap.  The first meeting was 31-7 Seahawks.  This one should be similar.

Buccaneers (3-5) at Bears (6-2): Chicago-Everyone already knew the Bears were good.  I'm not sure people realized how good until they saw them go into Seattle and thoroughly dismantle the defending champions.  Now they're back at home to take on one of the most disappointing teams in the league this season--Tampa Bay.  You know the crazy thing, though?  Even with a loss here, the NFC South is still entirely winnable for the Bucs.  Especially when you consider that it's mostly division games for them in the second half.

Bills (6-1) at Vikings (6-1): Minnesota-Somehow, ESPN ended up with the best game of the week on Monday night.  Two division leaders, both at 6-1.  Minnesota's loss is fresh.  Their general lack of scoring finally caught up with them against the Lions.  Scoring hasn't been a problem for the Bills.  But how will they fare against that Vikings defense?  Buffalo's last Monday night game was a statement win against the Rams in SoFi.  I think it's the Vikings who make the statement here.  They'll let people know that 6-0 start wasn't a fluke and see how good they really are.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 10-4
Overall: 65-56-1 

More Standalone Games, More Bad Standalone Games

We all know the NFL is after world domination.  They haven't exactly been subtle about it.  Nor have they been shy about their plans.  The NFL keeps finding new windows for exclusive games.  Which sounds great in theory.  But, as we're seeing this season, the more standalone games you create, the greater the chances those games may suck.

This season, the NFL expanded its international slate to a record nine games.  Eight of them are in exclusive TV windows--the six in Europe on Sunday mornings, Rams-49ers from Australia on a Thursday night and a second 49ers game, a matchup with the Vikings in Mexico City, on a Sunday night.  (They lucked into a really good game for that one.)  The only international game that wasn't in a standalone window was Ravens-Cowboys from Rio in Week 3, which was the national doubleheader game on CBS.

That Week 1 Rams-49ers game was part of a new package of exclusive games for Netflix.  They'll also have another Rams game against the Packers on Thanksgiving Eve, as well as a doubleheader on Christmas and a Week 18 game.  That's five games on Netflix to go with the Black Friday game on Amazon Prime (which is essentially their replacement for not having a game on Thanksgiving).  Throw in ESPN's Week 18 doubleheader and the exclusive game on Peacock in Week 17, as well as the Kickoff Game, Thanksgiving, the NFL Network Saturday games and every Thursday, Sunday and Monday night, and you've got more standalone NFL games than ever before.

With the increase in primetime games, we've also seen another new wrinkle this season.  Teams playing multiple primetime games in a row.  It isn't completely new.  We've seen a team play Sunday night then Monday night or vice versa, but that would be maybe one or two teams a season.  Now it's multiple teams with three or more primetime games in a row.

The Rams actually didn't play on a Sunday afternoon until Week 4.  Their first three games were all in primetime (our time).  Then it was the Falcons, who did the primetime trifecta in Weeks 3-5 and the Cowboys in Weeks 5-7.  The Bears will play their third straight primetime game on Monday night, and the Bengals will start their run of three standalone games in a row when they play Atlanta (there's the Falcons again!) in Madrid on Sunday morning.

More standalone games obviously means teams playing in standalone games more often.  Which can be a good thing.  Or a really, really bad thing.  Because sometimes there may be a team you don't want to see playing in primetime get featured not only multiple times, but multiple times in a row.  As we've already seen more than once this season.

Granted, this isn't entirely the NFL's fault.  They make the schedule in May.  They have no idea of knowing which teams that were supposed to be good will end up sucking or being beset by injuries when those scheduled standalone games come around months later.  They can only base it on who they think will be good and/or worth watching.  That's why flex scheduling was invented in the first place.  To replace less desirable games with better ones.  Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way, though.

One consequence of having so many games scheduled in exclusive windows is that there are fewer games on Sunday afternoons.  Which means that if they are considering flexing, they have fewer options to replace the primetime games with.  And, logistically, some of those standalone games can't be moved regardless.  So, people get stuck with those less desirable matchups whether they like it or not.

Flex scheduling has been a feature of Sunday Night Football since NBC acquired the package in 2006.  It's only used a handful of times a season, if at all.  They haven't used it once this year.  Which doesn't necessarily speak to the quality of NBC's schedule as much as it says they have no better available to replace games they may want to flex out.  So, they leave them, knowing people will watch anyway.

They added flex scheduling for Thursday and Monday nights a few years ago.  However, that's used far more sparingly, and with good reason.  Moving a game from Sunday afternoon to Sunday night is easy.  Moving a game from Sunday afternoon to Thursday or Monday night is a far bigger logistical challenge.  It obviously means the teams having to change their preparation, but it also affects fans' plans, especially if they're traveling to the game.

International games, obviously, can't be flexed.  Neither can some of the other standalone contests.  That Packers-Rams game is on a Wednesday, a day when the NFL typically doesn't play.  Yet there are two Wednesday games this season.  If that's not a sign that they want to eventually play every day of the week, I don't know what is.  The only day left is Tuesday.  And Tuesday, frankly, is a lot easier to add to the schedule than Wednesday.  Which may be the point of all this.

It certainly seems like the reason for so many teams getting three straight primetime games is because they're giving seven-days-a-week a test run.  Just think about it.  You come out of your bye week and play Wednesday night, then play on Tuesday, then play on Monday before getting back to Sunday.  Or you go the other way and go Wednesday night, Thursday night, Sunday.  It's not that crazy to think about.  Especially since the NFL keeps squeezing in more standalone windows.

As the number of standalone games continues to grow, though, the problem won't get any better.  In fact, it'll only get worse.  Because the more standalone games you have, the harder it is to avoid having a bad team, a bad matchup or both.  It even seems likely that will become the norm rather than the exception.  And, as we've seen, it weakens the Sunday afternoon slate, too.  Which, in turn, further makes it hard to get out of less desirable games in featured, exclusive timeslots.

So, I think we may just have to get used to it.  There will be some good games in the NFL's standalone windows.  There will also be some really bad ones.  But you know what?  The NFL only cares so much.  Because they know people will watch anyway.

NFL Picks, 2026 Week 8

Last week, I think it was Cris Collinsworth on Sunday night, who made a good point.  Do we even know who's actually good in the NFL?  So many of the teams we thought should be pretty good are either below .500 or, when they lose, they get blown out.  Then we have teams who people didn't think would be any good over .500 or leading their divisions.  Then you've got the undefeated Vikings, who keep winning, even though no one understands how.

Thursday Night: Green Bay (Win)

Ravens (4-3) at Bills (5-1): Buffalo-This is what I'm talking about.  Is Baltimore good or not?  Back-to-back division losses has dropped them from 4-1 to 4-3 and the bottom of the AFC North.  Things don't get any easier this week, either, with a trip to Buffalo.  The Bills, by and large, are one of those teams that has so far lived up to lofty expectations.  Although, their last home game was their first loss in their new stadium, so you know they'd like to give their fans a show.

Titans (1-6) at Bengals (4-2): Cincinnati-When good teams see the Titans on their schedule, especially at home, they have to take advantage.  The Bengals consider themselves a good team.  And they're in a what figures to be a tight division race all season long.  They know just how devastating a loss to Tennessee would be.  Meanwhile, a 5-2 record will have Cincinnati sitting comfortably heading into the second half of the season.

Cardinals (2-5) at Cowboys (3-4): Dallas-Dallas finally got back in the win column on Monday night in Philadelphia.  Now the Cowboys return home with a chance to get back to .500 and, more importantly, move within a half-game of the first-place Giants (who are on their bye week).  So, maybe that confidence Jerry Jones has is in his team isn't misplaced.  It's not such a crazy thought to see them in the playoffs.  If you want to be a playoff team, though, you can't lose to the Cardinals at home.

Vikings (6-0) at Lions (4-2): Detroit-And then there was one.  With the 49ers and Chiefs losing last week, that leaves the Vikings as the only remaining undefeated team.  Minnesota's days of having a 0 in the loss column definitely seem numbered, though.  In fact, I think it ends this week.  The Lions know the importance of this game.  They're either three games out with the Vikings holding the tiebreaker or one game out with the tiebreaker.  In the NFC North, having the tiebreaker is significant.  Detroit won't waste the opportunity, especially knowing what Minnesota's upcoming schedule looks like.

Raiders (3-4) at Jets (2-5): Las Vegas-I called it!  The Jets actually enter a game as the favorite...and go on to lose to the previously winless Dolphins!  Although, it's the Jets, so it shouldn't really be too surprising.  Think about the difference that made, though.  If they'd won, they'd be 3-4 and have a chance at getting to .500 this week.  Instead, they're 2-5.  It's only a one game difference, but it looks so much worse.  Especially since it's about to become 2-6.  The Raiders, meanwhile, will be the team who comes out of this game with a .500 record.

Browns (5-2) at Steelers (5-2): Cleveland-They couldn't flex this game to Sunday night because the previous Browns-Steelers game was on a Thursday.  That's the only reason this battle for first place in the AFC North stayed as a 1:00 start.  I'd argue that Pittsburgh needs a win here more.  The Browns won that first game, so this would be a one-game lead with a season sweep.  However, I just have a feeling that's exactly what'll happen.  Cleveland moves into sole possession of first place.

Falcons (3-4) at Buccaneers (2-5): Atlanta-What's going on in the NFC South?!  Just when we thought Carolina might be the best team in the division, they give up 43 to Tampa Bay at home!  Then, some weeks, we think Atlanta might be the best team.  Like last week, when they handed the 49ers their first loss of the season.  So, what'll happen here is anyone's guess.  I'll say Atlanta if, for no other reason, than to not have the entire division be under .500.

Colts (2-5) at Jaguars (4-2): Jacksonville-It's Jacksonville's third straight home game, but their first in Florida since Week 3.  That was intentional to give the construction crew an entire uninterrupted month to work on their stadium.  And, if you'd told them they'd split their London games, they would've been happy with that.  Except, they probably would've expected a loss to the Eagles and a win over the Texans, not the other way around.  They would've (already) had a stranglehold on the AFC South had they beaten Houston.  Still, a victory this week against Indianapolis will mean a three-game division lead.

Chargers (0-6) at Rams (3-4): Rams-One of these teams will finally win a home game!  (Yes, the Chargers are technically the road team, but you get the point.)  I don't think anyone expected either the Rams or Chargers to be in this position at the Battle of SoFi, but here we are.  Even if they win, this season's not gonna get any better for the Chargers.  The Rams, the overwhelming preseason Super Bowl favorites, still have a chance to climb out of the hole they've dug for themselves.  Need to assert whose stadium this really is first, though.

Chiefs (5-1) at Broncos (5-2): Denver-Denver beats Seattle in overtime.  Then Seattle's defense completely dominates Kansas City.  Does that mean this little three-week round robin ends with the Chiefs beating the Broncos?  Or does the transitive property apply and it means Denver hands Kansas City its second straight loss after a 5-0 start?  That's what I think will happen.  You know the Broncos were all over that game tape of the Seahawks-Chiefs game.

Patriots (4-3) at Dolphins (1-5): New England-During the Brady years, Miami was always a thorn in the Patriots' side.  That's not really the case anymore.  But the Patriots sill remain on guard for their annual trip to South Florida.  They know that they'll have a tough game on their hands.  It doesn't matter that the Dolphins only have one win and it came against the Jets.  New England will avoid the upset, but Miami will make them work for it.

Eagles (2-5) at Commanders (1-4-1): Washington-For some reason, they didn't flex it out.  So, we're stuck with Philadelphia-Washington on Sunday night.  Neither team is having the type of season they'd want.  There's no denying that.  Yet, the NFC East isn't very strong this season, so the division is still within reach.  Have to win here, though.  The Commanders should get Jayden Daniels back this week.  The Eagles won't have Jalen Hurts for the rest of the year.  That's enough of a difference for me to give Washington the nod.

Bears (5-2) at Seahawks (4-3): Seattle-Seattle's three-week primetime stretch ends with another one that isn't exactly easy.  They get the Bears at home on Monday night.  That dominant win over Kansas City coupled with San Francisco's loss to Atlanta suddenly puts the NFC West back in play for the Seahawks.  Chicago, meanwhile, is in a four-way NFC North race.  So, this is a big game for both teams, and not just because the winner will have the head-to-head tiebreaker should that come into play.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 6-8
Overall: 55-52-1

A Historic First (and Maybe Last)

Olympic history is set to be made.  The Youth Olympics are set to begin in Dakar, Senegal, the first Olympic event ever to be held on the African continent.  It's obviously a significant moment for the Olympic movement.  One that's been a long time in the making.  It may also be the swan song for the Youth Olympics.

The Youth Olympics were conceived by former IOC President Jacques Rogge and first held in 2010 (with Summer Youth Olympics in Winter Olympic years and vice versa).  The whole idea was to have an IOC-sanctioned competition for athletes aged 15-18 that was a smaller-scale event than the main Olympics, giving different cities and countries that don't have the size and/or resources to host the Olympics themselves an opportunity to host.  It's also given them a chance to experiment with different things like mixed-nation team events and been the testing ground for different events, some of which have made their way to the Olympic program.

However, the Youth Olympics haven't quite caught on the way the IOC hoped.  Interest has been lukewarm at best.  Some athletes in traditional sports have used the Youth Olympics as a springboard to success at the regular Olympics, but, in general, the Youth Olympics have been, at best, more of a curiosity than anything else.  And I think the IOC realizes that.  That's why current IOC President Kirsty Coventry doesn't seem too keen on continuing the Youth Olympics beyond this year's edition.

It's worth noting that this year's Olympics are the first in eight years.  Buenos Aires hosted in 2018, with the next edition planned for 2022.  However, after the COVID-19 pandemic pushed the Tokyo Games back a year to 2021, it created a situation where two Olympics were held six months apart.  The Youth Olympics would've made three Olympic events in little more than 12 months, so the decision was made to postpone the 2022 Youth Olympics until 2026.  Frankly, I'm not sure how many people noticed.

That delay pushed back the first Olympic competition ever to take place in Africa.  Which might've been the Youth Olympics' only saving grace.  Because the optics of outright cancelling the event scheduled for Dakar wouldn't have been good and they know that.  Plus, Dakar had already been announced as the host, so it wouldn't have been right to take that opportunity away from them completely.  The writing does seem to be on the wall beyond this edition, though.

After she became IOC President last year, Kirsty Coventry did a wholesale review of all things Olympics.  That included the future of the Youth Olympic Games.  When that review concluded earlier this year, Coventry announced that there would be a "pause" on the awarding of any Youth Olympics beyond 2026.  Which sure makes it sound like there will be no Youth Olympics in 2030.  If the IOC President doesn't see the value in doing it, that doesn't bode well for the future of the event.

There is one more Youth Olympics scheduled for beyond this year.  The 2028 winter edition will be held in northern Italy, pretty much entirely reusing venues from the Milan Cortina Games.  It was the same thing with the most recent Youth Olympics, as the 2024 winter event in South Korea primarily used the same venues as the 2018 PyeongChang Games.  So, while there will be a Winter Youth Olympics in 2028, the "pause" will take effect after that.  The 2028 Winter Youth Olympics very likely will be the last for either season.

Which, frankly, felt inevitable.  The Youth Olympics were a great idea in theory.  That's why the IOC gave them the greenlight.  But the execution failed to live up to expectations.  Public interest simply wasn't there.  Worse, the Youth Olympics didn't make any money.  Which would make it very hard to justify their continued existence.  So, it really was just a matter of having the guts to pull the plug.

While the Youth Olympics may not have become the permanent, long-term event that was originally envisioned, they still left a lasting legacy on the Olympic movement.  The Youth Olympics are where they tried out some different sports and events that eventually became part of the Olympic Games.  And the reason youth-oriented sports like 3x3 basketball and breaking made their way into the Olympics was almost entirely because of how well they were received at the Youth Olympics.

At the last Summer Youth Olympics in 2018, the Opening Ceremony didn't take place in a stadium.  It was held in Downtown Buenos Aires at the Obelisk.  The idea was to make it more open and allow more people to attend.  This was six years before Paris did its boat parade down the Seine and eight years before the dual ceremony in Milan and Cortina.

I'm not saying Paris wouldn't have tried their ambitious Opening Ceremony anyway.  However, it had to have been incredibly reassuring to know that they also tried something innovative at the Buenos Aires Youth Olympics and it worked.  Doing it was a risk.  It's much easier to take that risk at a lower-profile event like the Youth Olympics than the much larger stage of the Olympic Games, with its worldwide television audience in the billions.

An interesting note, too, is how the Summer Youth Olympics have never been held in Europe.  The first two editions took place in Asia (Singapore in 2010, Nanjing in 2014), then Buenos Aires 2018 and now Dakar 2026.  In one way, that makes sense since it fit right in with the theme of bringing Olympic competition to different places and areas that may not be considered for the regular Olympics.  However, you have to wonder if that lack of European exposure also contributed to their downfall.  Had the Summer Youth Olympics been held somewhere like Budapest or Madrid somewhere along the line, how much would that have increased the overall interest?  (The Winter Youth Olympics have the opposite problem.  The 2024 edition was the only one not held in Europe.)

Or maybe it wouldn't have mattered and the Youth Olympics were doomed to failure regardless.  After all, even though they share the Olympic name, they're not the Olympics, so that same sense of national pride simply isn't there.  The fact that the Youth Olympics are an afterthought for the TV rightsholders doesn't help, either (NBC has relegated them entirely to Peacock).  Although, in fairness, the TV networks were required to cover the Youth Olympics as part of their rights deals, so the degree to which they want to show them is a matter of debate.  But, either way, the Youth Olympics simply don't have that same cache, so it was tough for them to find a place in a crowded sports calendar.  (Especially since the Summer Youth Olympics were always scheduled for World Cup years.)

Is it a done deal that this is the end of the Youth Olympics?  No.  Using the word "paused" was very deliberate.  But, at the very least, this will probably be the last one for a while.  The first Olympic event in Africa is also a swan song for the IOC's hotbed of innovation after 16 years.