NFL Picks, 2026 Week 2

I did NOT have a good week when it comes to picks last week.  Which really is my own fault since I spent so much time saying why one team would/could/should win, then went and picked their opponent.  Although, last week also showed how in Week 1, nobody really knows anything.  Who saw the Cardinals thumping the Chargers coming?  Or how thoroughly the Giants would beat the Cowboys?  And those are just two examples.  Now we move into Week 2, where teams get a reality check after overreacting to whatever happened in Week 1.

Thursday Night: Buffalo (Win)

Panthers (0-1) at Falcons (0-1): Atlanta-Somebody in the NFC South will pick up the division's first win after going a collective 0-4 last week.  Not that many people expected Carolina to beat Chicago, but the Panthers choosing Option B when asked whether or not they wanted to play defense certainly came as a bit of a surprise.  Likewise, were there really that many people expecting the Falcons to beat the Steelers in Pittsburgh?  So, it's not really a shock that they both come in 0-1.  With Atlanta playing at home, let's give them the nod in this one.

Vikings (1-0) at Bears (1-0): Chicago-Is the Bears offense really that good?  Or do the Panthers just have no defense?  And how about that Vikings comeback?!  Every NFC North game this season will be so magnified because of just how close the four teams are.  And these two were both impressive last week.  The Bears slightly more so.  Although, if the Vikings can start the season with two division wins, that will give them an early leg up.

Eagles (1-0) at Titans (0-1): Philadelphia-These two both had predictable results in Week 1.  The Eagles played Washington at home and showed that they're still the superior team in the NFC East.  The Titans had a golden opportunity to start 1-0, but proved there's still a lot of work to do in a loss to the Jets.  This week not only doesn't get any easier, it's significantly more difficult.  Philadelphia should take this one pretty handily (which probably means that, in reality, the Titans will have the lead the entire game).

Steelers (1-0) at Patriots (0-1): Pittsburgh-Here's where we get a team that had some serious questions about itself after Week 1 potentially getting some answers.  It seems like it's been forever and a day since the Patriots' opener.  That gave them a lot of time to think about what happened in Seattle.  Which was either a good or bad thing.  Either way, playing the Steelers shouldn't give them any sort of reassurance.  I think Pittsburgh goes into Foxboro and wins.

Packers (0-1) at Jets (1-0): Green Bay-What is wrong with Green Bay?  In each of their last two games (the playoff game against the Bears, last week against the Vikings), they blew a fourth quarter lead and ended up losing.  Why can't this team finish?  And will it come back to bite them?  As for the Jets, kudos on getting off to a 1-0 start.  Although, let's not get too excited just yet.  They beat the Titans.  The Packers will be a far different test.

Browns (0-1) at Buccaneers (0-1): Tampa Bay-Tampa Bay-Cincinnati was one of the more surprising results for me last week.  I had a lot of confidence in the Bucs and was certain they'd win that matchup.  I was wrong!  They get an AFC North redo in their home opener against the Browns, who got smacked by Jacksonville.  A second straight trip to Florida won't yield a result that's much different than the first.

Saints (0-1) at Ravens (1-0): Baltimore-The Saints were an overtime two-point conversion away from pulling the upset in Detroit to open the season.  Had that happened, it would've sent shockwaves across the NFL.  But, alas, New Orleans is 0-1 just as many would've expected.  This week, they play a Ravens team that impressed on the road in Week 1.  Their home opener should be just as impressive.

Bengals (1-0) at Texans (0-1): Houston-Are we doing this with the Bengals again?  Acting like they're this sudden juggernaut after one game?  Were they the better team against Tampa Bay?  Yes.  But let's not crown them AFC champions just yet!  There are still a number of teams that are significantly stronger.  Like the Texans.  Who should recover just fine from their Week 1 loss to Buffalo.

Jaguars (1-0) at Broncos (0-1): Denver-Last season, at the end of the year, the Jaguars went into Denver and won.  Don't think the Broncos forget that or that they'll take Jacksonville for granted.  Especially not after how each team's Week 1 game went.  The Jaguars looked good, but were playing Cleveland.  The Broncos looked bad, but were playing Kansas City.  How much of that was each of them and how much of that was their opponents?

Raiders (1-0) at Chargers (0-1): Las Vegas-It's not just that the Chargers lost at home to the Cardinals last week.  It's how they lost.  The game was never close!  That's really not a good sign, and it makes this week almost a must-win.  Imagine the Raiders, with a new coach and the No. 1 overall draft pick sitting on the bench instead of starting, following up a Week 1 win by going into SoFi and making it two in a row to start the season.

Commanders (0-1) at Cowboys (0-1): Dallas-As the league continues to lean heavily into the NFC East to start the season, last week's two losers meet in the FOX national window.  In all honesty, neither looked that bad last week.  Both games were close and Washington, especially, could've won.  Still, this is a big game for both.  You never want to start 0-2 with both losses coming in the division.  Yet that's the situation in which the Commanders are likely to find themselves as they fly back to the nation's capital.

Seahawks (1-0) at Cardinals (1-0): Seattle-Arizona was the biggest surprise of Week 1.  Hard stop.  I don't think anyone will dispute that.  Now comes the challenge of following it up against the defending champs.  Seattle didn't play the prettiest game in the opener, but it really reminded you of what they did in the Super Bowl.  Just utter defensive domination.  That translates on the road.

Dolphins (0-1) at 49ers (1-0): San Francisco-Miami's been on the West Coast all week after opening at the Raiders.  The 49ers, of course, had a very long road trip in Week 1, where they were rewarded for actually caring about the fact that the game was in Australia.  Still, you have to wonder if there will be any lingering effects of the travel, especially against a Dolphins team that only had to go from Las Vegas to San Francisco.  There's been enough time that I don't think it should.  Plus, the 49ers are simply the better team.

Colts (0-1) at Chiefs (1-0): Kansas City-If there were any lingering doubts about whether last season was the start of the Chiefs' decline or just a glitch, last week's performance should've answered them.  It was the type of showing we've grown accustomed to seeing from Kansas City.  That was for the Monday night audience.  Now they get a Sunday night audience that includes Cris Collinsworth, who'll get a chance to salivate over Patrick Mahomes for three hours as he does Mahomes things and lifts the Chiefs to 2-0.

Giants (1-0) at Rams (0-1): Rams-What did the Rams teach us last week?  Well, for one, Australia is far.  Also, that leaving essentially the night before and flying thousands of miles to a place with a 17-hour time difference probably isn't the best plan.  It doesn't exactly set you up for optimal performance in a football game.  Although, based on his team's travel plans and his comments afterwards, it seems like Sean McVay had absolutely no interest in playing that game (even though the NFL granted his request to have the 49ers be the opponent).  Fortunately for him, the Rams are back in the comfy confines of SoFi Stadium on Monday night.  And Week 1's no-show took care of that "Can the Rams go undefeated?" thing, so maybe he is an evil genius after all!

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-8
Overall: 9-8

Wednesday Night Football

Last Sunday was a great day for sports on TV.  It was Week 1 in the NFL, with simultaneous doubleheaders on CBS and FOX.  The US Open men's final, featuring American Ben Shelton, was on ABC.  And TNT had the gold medal game of the FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup, a rematch of the 2024 Olympic final between the United States and France.  Of course, all of those events took place at exactly the same time.  (NBC had the World Athletics Ultimate Championships, which only mattered to track & field fans.) 

It was funny to watch those sports media "experts" question why the US Open final and women's basketball game were played during the Week 1 NFL games, as if the networks broadcasting them had any control over when those events are scheduled!  Never mind the fact that the US Open is played at the same time every year and the final is always on an NFL Sunday (either Week 1 or Week 2).  Hell, when the US Open was on CBS, the men's final was scheduled for Sunday at 4:30 so that the NFL could be used as a lead-in!  Last year, ESPN moved the final to ABC and pushed the start time earlier...to 2:00.  The result?  This year's US Open final averaged 3.2 million viewers (due in large part to Shelton).  So, I don't think people had a problem with the fact that it was on at the same time as the early football games.

The women's basketball game, meanwhile, was the result of FIBA's scheduling.  The WNBA suspended its season just before the stretch run to accommodate its players participating in the tournament.  FIBA doesn't care about the NFL schedule.  And shouldn't!  The lack of coordination with the WNBA schedule is the bigger deal and will be addressed moving forward.  This was the last Women's Basketball World Cup played in September.  Future editions will be held later in the year, after the WNBA season is over.

Meanwhile, the NFL really put the "week" into Week 1, which stretched across six days.  They had the Wednesday night Super Bowl rematch between Seattle and New England, which was moved up a day so that the Australia game between the 49ers and Rams could be played on Thursday night/Friday morning (since they couldn't play that on Friday/Saturday due to the restrictions in the Sports Broadcasting Act).  And, of course, a full slate of Sunday afternoon games before Giants-Cowboys on Sunday night and Chiefs-Broncos in the Monday night game.

While an unusual day, this wasn't the first time the NFL season opened on a Wednesday.  In 2008, they played on a Wednesday night because Barack Obama's acceptance speech of his first Presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention was on Thursday.  So, it wasn't unprecedented.  Although, the Wednesday night didn't seem to be as popular.  It was the lowest-rated Kickoff game since 2022, drawing "only" 25 million viewers (on network TV...on a Wednesday night) despite being a Super Bowl rematch.

That rating has led to some of those same "experts" theorizing that the Wednesday night opener was a failed experiment that the NFL will never do again.  On the contrary.  I think the Wednesday night opener will not only return next season, it will become a semi-regular thing moving forward.  For multiple reasons.  For one, the NFL isn't shy about its plans for world domination.  For another, they can only play on Friday in Week 1 if Labor Day is between September 1-3.  So, if Labor Day is on September 4, 5, 6 or 7, the NFL opener will be on Wednesday.

Roger Goodell has made it clear that the NFL intends to continue expanding its international slate.  They also have a multi-year deal for games in Australia (sorry, Rams).  And, Netflix just inked a package of games that includes a Week 1 international game every season.  That international game (likely in Australia) will be on Friday when it can.  When it can't, it'll have to be on Thursday.  Which means the Kickoff game will have to move to Wednesday.

I'm not saying this because I necessarily think playing the Kickoff game on Wednesday is a good idea (although, Week 1 is certainly the easiest time to make a Wednesday game work).  I'm saying this because it's a reality of the calendar.  The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 dictates that the NFL can't play on Friday or Saturday nights between the second weekend in September and the second weekend in December.  Since the season starts after Labor Day, that means they can only play on Friday if Sept. 1 is Saturday, Sunday or Monday.

Then think about the logistics of where the NFL is committed to playing international games.  There's literally no other time when you can go to Australia without it being incredibly disruptive for one or both teams.  As much as the Rams might like to pretend it's not, Australia's pretty far!  It takes a while to get there and for your body to get acclimated.  It'll be the same thing if the NFL ever decides to play an international game in Japan or China.

So, as long as there continues to be an international game in Week 1 (which there will be as long as Netflix is contracted to carry it) and the NFL continues holding those international games in far-away places, they'll be on Thursday or Friday night.  They'll put it on Friday night when/if they can.  But when Friday's not an option, Thursday's the only day that is.  Then, in order to both keep the exclusivity of the Kickoff Game and keep with the tradition of the Super Bowl champion opening their defense in that game, Wednesday night is the only logical place for that to go.  Is it weird?  Yes.  But it's not going anywhere.

To say that the Wednesday night opener was a "failed experiment" is a gross exaggeration.  For one, it wasn't an experiment.  It was the NFL starting something new that will become a semi-regular thing in future years.  Labor Day isn't early enough for them to play a Friday night game in Week 1 again until 2029.  So, we'll see a Wednesday night Kickoff Game for at least the next two seasons.

Now, when/if the NFL inevitably expands the schedule to 18 games, this could become an entirely moot point.  They'll have two options for when to put the 18th game.  They could put it at the end and push the Super Bowl back even further into February (which would put it on President's Day Weekend every year).  Or, they could leave the Super Bowl date when it is and go back to playing on Labor Day Weekend (which seems less likely).  If they were to do that, playing on Friday night in Week 1 wouldn't be a problem and they could have the Kickoff Game on Thursday every year no matter what.

There's something else worth noting here.  The NFL initially said that either the Patriots-Seahawks game or the Rams-49ers game would be on Wednesday.  They opted to put the Kickoff Game on Wednesday to preserve that traditional opener for the Super Bowl champion.  If they'd done it the other way, people would've been up in arms about that, too!  So, they couldn't win either way.  It was either having the opener not involve the Super Bowl champion or having the Super Bowl champion play on Wednesday (then get a week and a half off before Week 2).

Really, it's all up to the calendar.  The NFL may not necessarily want to open the season on a Wednesday, but will when the calendar calls for it.  Because the Week 1 international game isn't going anywhere.  And, with Thanksgiving Eve now a part of the schedule, as well, NFL football on Wednesdays will become more and more of a regular thing moving forward.  Whether it's a "good" idea or not, it's happening regardless.

Africa's Turn to Shine

World Athletics has announced the hosts of the 2029 and 2031 World Championships.  And that announcement was historic.  The 2029 World Championships will be historic.  They're headed to Nairobi, the first time World Athletics' signature event will take place in Africa.  Something that was a long time coming!

There have been numerous World Athletics events held in Africa over the years.  This year's World Relays, in fact, were in Botswana.  There was a very successful World Cross Country Championships in Uganda in 2017.  Nairobi itself has already hosted the World U18 and World U20 Championships (separately).  But the marquee competition, the World Outdoor Championships, have never been in Africa.  A glaring omission that needed to be rectified.

For a long time, the United States was the glaring omission.  That's why World Athletics awarded the 2021 World Championships to Eugene, Oregon without the traditional bid process.  They wanted a Worlds in the U.S. and Eugene was the only logical place in the U.S. to do it (and had a strong bid), so they made it happen.  Once those delayed Worlds finally took place in 2026, Africa became the obvious next place they had to go.

Just as Eugene was the obvious choice for the first World Championships in the U.S., Nairobi was the obvious choice for the first World Championships in Africa.  Nairobi has already shown itself capable, not just through those age group Championships, but because of the Kip Keino Classic, an annual stop on the World Athletics Continental Tour.  Plus, they have the stadium.  Most significantly, Kenya's history at the World Championships.  So, all the pieces were there for Nairobi to be selected.

Kenya obviously has a strong history of distance running, and it's the most successful nation at Worlds behind the United States.  Some of the biggest names in the history of the sport, both active and retired, are Kenyan.  David Rudisha, Eliud Kipchoge, Faith Kipyegon, Vivian Cheruiyot, to name just a few.  And they've expanded beyond just distance running in recent years, too, from Julius Yego (World Champion in the javelin) to Ferdinand Ominyala (the 10th-fastest man all-time in the 100 meters).  So, they're not just a distance running nation anymore.  They're a track & field nation.

The initial thought was that Nairobi would be awarded the 2025 World Championships.  Those ended up going to Tokyo, mostly as a make-good after the 2020 Olympics were delayed by a year and held without spectators.  And not only did fans finally get a chance to actually experience world-class track & field at Tokyo's Olympic Stadium, every session of the World Championships was sold out!  So, there's really no questioning World Athletics' decision to make that call.  

With next year's World Championships set for Beijing, that's not just back-to-back Worlds in Asia, it's back-to-back not in Europe.  Track & field is bigger than Europe than anywhere else, and there's never been three World Championships in a row outside of Europe.  Which led to the (not unreasonable) belief that 2029 would go to one of the very strong European bids from London, Munich or Rome.  They wouldn't award two World Championships at once and not give Nairobi either, especially after going to Africa became a priority.  I was just expecting it to be 2031.  So, Nairobi getting 2029 was a pleasant surprise.

As I already noted, Nairobi was the most logical choice among potential African host cities.  There's an annual Diamond League stop in Rabat, but Morocco doesn't have anything close to the history that Kenya does.  Another thing that worked in Nairobi's favor is that the stadium is in the midst of being upgraded for the 2027 Africa Cup of Nations, which Kenya is co-hosting.  Once those renovations are complete, the stadium will hold 55,000 for the World Championships.

And, make no mistake, it isn't just Kenya that'll be hosting.  It's Africa that will be!  The 2029 World Championships will be a celebration for the entire continent, which will finally be getting its chance to shine on the global stage.  It's been a long time coming for all of them.  And you know there will be plenty of fans coming from neighboring countries losing their minds for their athletes just as much as the Kenyan fans will for theirs.  If this year's World Relays are any indication, it'll be a wild celebration.

This isn't just a big move for World Athletics, it's potentially a legacy-defining one for Seb Coe.  He's been responsible for a lot of things (both good and bad) during his tenure as World Athletics President.  Bringing the World Outdoor Championships to new places will certainly go down as one of the biggest.  They went to the Middle East for the first time (Doha 2019).  They went to the United States for the first time (Oregon 2022).  Now they're headed to Africa for the first time (Nairobi 2029).  Don't think that isn't significant.

At the same time Nairobi was awarded 2029, Munich was chosen as the host for the 2031 World Championships.  It'll mark then third time the event is held in Germany (in a third different city after Stuttgart 1993 and Berlin 2009), and the first World Championships in Europe since 2023 in Budapest.  It also sets up a string where five consecutive major global championships will take place on different continents (Beijing 2027, Los Angeles 2028, Nairobi 2029, Munich 2031, Brisbane 2032).  That's a pretty cool thing not many sports can boast!  (2033 World Championships in South America to make it 6-for-6?)

Going to Africa is historic simply because of the fact it's never happened before.  That was the case with the 2010 World Cup.  That will be the case when the Olympics finally go to Africa for the first time.  And now that the first time is out of the way, it won't be newsworthy when it happens again.  And I mean that in a good way.  Because it shouldn't be newsworthy.  If it's the best, most capable host, that's where it should be, regardless of country or continent.

But the first one is different.  And I can't think of a better place to be Africa's first than Nairobi.  Not just because of Kenya's history at the World Championships.  Not just because they have the infrastructure in place.  Not just because they've already shown they're capable.  Because of all those things put together.  Nairobi, and Kenya, deserves it!

So, was Nairobi the right choice for the 2029 World Championships?  Absolutely!  Even though it felt inevitable they'd get one eventually, now that they've actually been selected, that makes it real.  The World Athletics Championships are finally headed to Africa.  Now it's time for the Olympics to follow.

Solving a Problem, Creating a New One

When Bill Belichick wasn't voted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame on the first ballot, you knew changes to the election process were on the horizon.  What we couldn't have expected was that they would completely overhaul the entire thing.  Fewer electors, back to an in-person meeting, no automatic finalists, categories being combined and separated.  All of which were part of a "2 1/2-year review process" that they hope will improve and strengthen the selection process.  I'm not sure it'll have the desired effect, though.  Because it feels like this new voting process might be even less transparent!

Let's start with the most obvious elephant in the room.  They're eliminating the Senior category entirely.  Instead, all players will be considered together regardless of how long they've been retired.  They still become eligible after five years, but will now simply stay in that pool instead of moving into a separate Senior pool after they've been on the ballot for 15 years.  Not only do I think this is a terrible move, I think it's an incredibly unnecessary one.

Over the last two years, a grand total of two Senior candidates were elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.  Sterling Sharpe in 2025 and Roger Craig this year.  And they both got in because they were the leading vote-getter in the combined Senior/Coach/Contributor vote.  There were three Senior candidates each year.  Four of those six finalists didn't get in.  And who knows when they'll get another chance to be considered?!  Being grouped with all the Modern Era players certainly won't help their case.

The whole reason Senior players were separated from the Modern Era candidates in the first place is because of how difficult it is to compare them.  Look at baseball.  Their equivalent of the "Senior" category is split into three separate pools of candidates, each with its own separate election.  In football, they were always mixed in with the Modern Era finalists at the end, but only after a subcommittee determined the Senior finalist(s).  Not anymore.  

In the past, the Senior candidates were almost always rubber-stamped once they made it out of the subcommittee.  Once they were combined with the Coaches and Contributors, it was no longer a guarantee.  In fact, it made it even harder for the Seniors to get in.  Hence only two of six Senior finalists being selected over the past two elections.  Moving forward, by not having the Seniors in a separate category, it'll become even more difficult, if not impossible!

For that reason, I don't like the decision to drop the Senior category.  It's not an apples-to-apples comparison between the Seniors and the Modern Era candidates.  There's not even a guarantee that somebody who's been retired more than 20 years will be a finalist.  I'm not saying that the Senior finalist needed to automatically be elected in the previous selection process.  But they were at least getting a fairer shake when compared only against players of their own era.  I have no problem with separating the Seniors from the Coaches and Contributors.  I just wish they still had their own pool.

It's not like things will be much easier for the Coaches and Contributors, either.  Those subcommittees still exist and will each name one finalist, who will join with the 13 player finalists to get a final group of 15.  That brings it back to the old way when everybody was considered together.  Which they went away from because the Coaches and Contributors were almost always missing out because the voters went for the players instead.  Why should we think it'll be any different now?

One change I do support is the elimination of automatic finalists.  But only to an extent.  During the past two election cycles, players who made the final cut but weren't elected, moved right to final round of voting the next year.  That will no longer be the case.  Although, I would've liked to have seen that provision grandfathered in instead of implemented immediately.  Willie Anderson, Terrell Suggs and Marshal Yanda would've been the automatic finalists for 2027 (I think Suggs is a virtual lock to be elected next year).  It would've made much more sense to let those three retain their spots, then have no carryovers in 2028.

I'm also not thrilled with the stipulation that the new classes will be between three and seven members.  Last year, there were only four inductees.  This year, there were five.  The Pro Football Hall of Fame used to regularly have seven- or eight-member classes, which some (namely Deion Sanders) felt was too big.  So they overcorrected and made it too hard to get in.  Even for the Modern Era candidates.  If this new process gets classes back in the six- or seven-member range, I might be able to get on board.

There are two new provisions that I do like, however.  The first is the return to an in-person voting meeting.  They used to meet during Super Bowl week every year before moving to a virtual meeting during COVID.  Even after COVID ended, they stuck with the virtual meeting for reasons I don't quite understand.  The virtual meeting is not only preferred, it's better.  Face-to-face conversation and debate makes for a more thoughtful selection.  I'm glad they're going back to it.

Likewise, I like the reduction of the number of selectors from 50 to 28.  Those 28 (of which only 25 will be active voters, with the other three serving as alternates) will also have no affiliation to individual teams.  The Hall of Fame found that having the electors each linked to an individual team led to the perception of biases (whether intentional or not).  They also eliminated having each candidate presented by one of the selection committee members (which made it obvious how he was voting on that player).  Now, the candidates will all be presented by the same person, who's not a member of the selection committee.

While the Hall of Fame is still determining which voters will retain their spots, I think it's probably safe to say Tony Dungy won't keep his.  He didn't do himself any favors with how noncommittal he was when asked questions about Belichick.  And that reduction isn't necessarily making it easier to get in since they're keeping the 80 percent threshold.  That means they need a "Yes" vote from 20 of the 25 voters.  So, unless the voters are in virtual agreement before making their selections, we could still end up with smaller classes.  (We also don't even know how many people each voter can vote for, which can obviously have an impact on the results.)

Which makes me very interested to see how this new voting process will play out.  Will having everybody lumped together into one ballot be better or worse?  I think the changes to the makeup of the committee and how they'll meet are good and well-intentioned, but how much of a positive impact on the actual voting process will they have?  Because, let's face it, the Pro Football Hall of Fame's voting process is flawed.  It was flawed before, and it's still flawed after these changes.  But at least they're trying to improve, and I give them credit for that.

And, no matter what, there's going to be controversy over who does or doesn't get into the Pro Football Hall of Fame regardless.  Will it be as egregious as Bill Belichick not getting in on the first ballot?  Probably not.  But there will definitely be something that causes them to reevaluate and revamp the process again in a few years.  And maybe then they'll once again realize that Seniors and Modern Era candidates need to be considered separately.  Because comparing somebody who played in the 1970s with somebody who played in the 2010s is just stupid!

Late Night Tennis

This year's US Open has been overrun by negative headlines.  There's the social media "influencers" who've overtaken the grounds to the annoyance of players and actual fans alike.  There's the overwhelming smell of weed on the outer courts.  There's the astronomical ticket prices that are making it difficult, if not impossible, for many fans to attend the matches live.  All of that criticism is deserved.  But it pales in comparison to the reaction to the late-night matches that finish in the wee hours of the morning (with only a handful of diehards still there, falling asleep in the stands).

Late night tennis has long been a staple of the US Open.  It was the first Grand Slam to have night sessions, and those matches bring a different kind of energy.  It's always the top players, feeding off the enthusiastic crowd.  It's part of the tournament's aura.  And, because New York is the "City That Never Sleeps," neither does the tennis.  Night sessions ending well after midnight are a common occurrence.  It's almost a right of passage to win a long night match at the US Open.

Those late night finishes have been even more prominent this year.  So prominent, in fact, that the USTA has been called out by the players not just for the late finishes, but for the absurdly late start times for some night matches (which guarantees they'll end late).  And rightfully so!  Whether something will be done about it moving forward is a different question.  But you know it's one that'll be asked.

The trend started on the very first night of the tournament.  Novak Djokovic was the headliner on Night 1.  His match went five sets and lasted 4 1/2 hours.  As a result, the second match between Venus Williams and Sofia Kenin didn't start until after midnight.  Venus, understandably, was upset and questioned why her "Sunday night" match didn't actually go on court until Monday morning.

That's nothing compared to Alexander Zverev's US Open experience.  Zverev likes playing at night and, as a top-ranked player, you'd figure he'll be prominently featured in night sessions.  This year, he's had to play in night sessions.  Why?  Because his first-round match took five hours and ended after 2 AM.  His second-round match only took 4 1/2 hours but still ended at roughly the same time.  His third round followed a three-hour women's match, so it didn't start until 10:30 and had an "early" 1 AM finish.  When Zverev finished his fourth-round match before midnight, he jokingly looked at his watch!

When I went last Friday, I was excited to see Ben Shelton play.  His match was second after the Williams sisters in doubles.  The doubles match lasted three hours.  Shelton didn't take the court until 10:45.  The match didn't end until around 2:15!  (For the record, I got home around 4:30 and didn't go to bed until 5.)

Then Tuesday happened.  From a competitive standpoint, it might've been the greatest day in US Open history.  Four quarterfinal matches.  All four went the distance.  Three were decided in final-set tiebreaks.  However, that resulted in the headliner--Shelton vs. Carlos Alcaraz not starting until just before 11:00.  That match set a record for the latest-ever finish at the US Open...3:33 AM!  It was the biggest win of Shelton's life, and most of the country (including many tennis fans) was fast asleep for most, if not all of it.  The match ended at the same time the night session at the Australian Open starts.

At least they didn't set the record for the latest-ever finish at a Grand Slam match.  That belongs to Andy Murray and Thanasi Kokkinakis, whose 2023 Australian Open matchup ended at 4:05 AM local time (for perspective, that's noon Eastern time in the U.S.).  It's only the two hardcourt majors where late-night finishes are even possible.  The French Open has a night session, but it's only one match and usually doesn't last much past 11:00.  Wimbledon, meanwhile, has an 11:00 curfew.

Now, I'm willing to cut the US Open a little bit of slack about Tuesday in one regard.  They can't control the length of matches, and if the first one is long, that obviously delays the second.  And when the day session runs long, it delays the night session.  So, that was more of a perfect storm with four long matches back-to-back-to-back-to-back.  But still, it highlighted a bigger problem.

Tennis matches are getting longer in general.  Regardless of gender, close sets are taking about an hour.  So, unless they're total blowouts, a straight-sets win will still take around two (women's) or three (men's) hours minimum.  Then, once they get to four or five sets, you're looking at four hours plus.  They have the final set tiebreak (which goes to 10 points instead of seven), but if a match gets there, you know they've been playing for a while.  Which backs up the schedule.

For years, there were three matches on Arthur Ashe Stadium in the day session.  It would often run long and push back the night session, so the USTA eventually moved to a two-match day session starting at 11:30.  For the most part, that has worked.  While it still occasionally goes late, the day session usually ends early enough for the night session to either begin at or close to the scheduled 7:00 start time.  So, what then, can be done about the late-night finishes?

Don't think the USTA is unaware of this issue.  They've discussed the late-night finishes in the past and will again.  Moving off a 7:00 start time has been considered, but ultimately rejected.  For numerous reasons.  To start the night session earlier, you'd also need to start the day session earlier.  And, it's a consideration for the fans, who might have a harder time getting there if it started before 7.  Perhaps most significantly, that's the time ESPN wants.

So, since starting the night session earlier isn't really an option, what other solutions could there be?  One could be what the French Open does and only have one match in the night session.  Except that creates its own set of problems.  (There's been plenty of criticism directed at Roland Garros for its match selection, which is almost always a men's match).  And, what happens if the only match is a women's blowout that's over in an hour?  Fans wouldn't exactly be getting their money's worth then!

Maybe the smartest solution is the simplest one.  They'll never impose a curfew for a match that's already going.  Nor should they.  But what they can do is avoid having matches start late (guaranteeing they'll finish at an ungodly hour).  The Venus Williams match never should've started after midnight.  It should've been postponed until the next day (which, technically, it was).  Ditto the Shelton and Zverev matches that started after 10:30.  Those are best-of-five.  You know they're taking at least 2 1/2 hours.

My solution, then, is making a decision about the second match based on the first.  If it runs long enough that the second match won't start until after 10:30, the second match is postponed.  Then you're not having the late night/early morning finish that's unfair to both tired spectators and players alike.  Especially since those late finishes impact the winner's recovery and preparation for their next match (which then also has to be scheduled at night or in the late afternoon/evening).

Although, if you were to ask Alexander Zverev and Ben Shelton about their multiple late-night finishes at the 2026 US Open, they might not be too upset about it.  In a way, it's fitting.  The two survivors most impacted by the late-night matches are meeting in the final.  Which, fortunately, will start at 2:00 PM.

NFL Picks, 2026 Week 1

We have just the second Wednesday start to an NFL season in the modern era, but people had better get used to it.  If they want to continue having an international game in Week 1, it'll have to be on Thursday since they can't play on the Friday after Labor Day unless there are five weekends in September, which won't happen again until 2028.  Which means the Super Bowl champion's opener then has to move to Wednesday.

This week is also an interesting one in that there are five division matchups among the 16 games...and each of them is in a national window!  Rams-49ers is on Thursday/Friday, of course.  Giants-Cowboys is Sunday night.  Chiefs-Broncos is Monday night.  And both networks get a doubleheader in Week 1...with Packers-Vikings on CBS and Commanders-Eagles on FOX at 4:25.  Literally every.  Single.  Division game will be broadcast nationally (unless you're in the home market of one of the teams in the other 4:25 games).

Patriots at Seahawks: Seattle-Where have we seen this matchup before?  Oh, that's right!  In February at the Super Bowl!  We pick up right where we left off with a Super Bowl rematch.  On the same network, too.  Seattle's defense dominated that game.  This game could be much the same.  Expect the 2026 season to begin the same way the 2025 season ended.  With the Seahawks beating the Patriots.

49ers vs Rams: Rams-San Francisco's coach had the best line about playing in Australia.  "It's like we're time travelers.  It's tomorrow here."  The 49ers have been in Melbourne for about a week, while the Rams left only a few days ago.  I definitely think that could make a difference.  San Francisco is obviously much more acclimated.  Nevertheless, the Rams are the better team, so they're the pick.

Buccaneers at Bengals: Tampa Bay-Baker Mayfield's new deal is signed, sealed and delivered.  So, that won't be hanging over the Bucs' heads all season.  They get a tough Week 1 matchup having to travel to Cincinnati, where Joe Burrow is presumably healthy.  I can certainly see this one going either way, and neither wants to start with a loss.  One of them will have to, though.  And I think that team will be Cincinnati.  Tampa Bay goes on the road and wins.

Saints at Lions: Detroit-With the possible exception of Kansas City, no team had a more disappointing 2025 than the Lions.  Super Bowl dreams/expectations ended up in missing the playoffs.  They got a soft landing to start this season, though, with the Saints at home.  New Orleans isn't the worst team in the NFL, but isn't exactly good, either.  If the Lions don't win, it'll be a massive upset.

Jets at Titans: Tennessee-The NFL occasionally puts two bad teams against each other in Week 1, guaranteeing one of them will start 1-0.  That's the case with Jets vs. Titans.  It'll certainly feel good to get that Week 1 victory, but I hope it isn't misleading for either one.  Because they're both still destined for a lot more losses than wins.  At least for one week, though, the Titans will be undefeated.

Ravens at Colts: Baltimore-Indianapolis was just a pleasant surprise at the beginning of last season.  Then the injury bug hit and their second half was anything but pleasant.  How will 2026 go?  Starting with the Ravens doesn't help.  The Ravens are the better team.  I'm basing this pick entirely on that.

Falcons at Steelers: Pittsburgh-Aaron Rodgers begins his final season with a new coach who's also an old coach.  The Mike McCarthy Era starts in Pittsburgh against an Atlanta team that many feel underachieved last season.  What do the Falcons have in store this year?  Frankly, I'm not really expecting much from them.  The Steelers, meanwhile, I think will win the AFC North.

Bears at Panthers: Chicago-They both won their division last season, but in very different ways.  The Bears were one of the most impressive teams in the league.  The Panthers won the worst division in football on a tiebreaker.  A win here would make a statement to start 2026, especially for Carolina.  I think it'll be Chicago that gets the victory, however.  The NFC North is gonna be so tight that they can't afford a slip-up against Carolina.

Browns at Jaguars: Jacksonville-Remember when Cleveland-Jacksonville was a game absolutely nobody cared about?  I'm not saying this is suddenly a matchup worth watching.  But it's no longer the worst possible matchup either.  The Browns didn't help themselves by trading Myles Garrett, and who knows who their quarterback is?!  The Jaguars at least have a chance to be relevant, though.  They're the obvious pick in this game.

Bills at Texans: Houston-It's interesting that they didn't have the Bills play a home game in Week 1.  They won't open their new stadium until next Thursday night (against Detroit, which also seems really random).  Instead, their Week 1 game is a trip to Houston.  The Texans won the AFC South last season and may be even better this year.  Buffalo has high expectations, but could easily be 0-1 for that first game at Highmark Stadium.

Dolphins at Raiders: Miami-Two of the worst teams in the AFC will start the season with a win.  One will be the Jets or Titans.  The other will be the Dolphins or Raiders.  Is it silly to call Week 1 a must-win?  Yes.  But, in a way, it is.  Because whoever loses this game may need to wait a while to get one.  So, yeah, the pressure's on both teams.

Packers at Vikings: Green Bay-Any NFC North game will have extra importance this season.  The division figures to be that good.  So, yeah, huge weight in this one.  Especially for the Vikings, who are just a tick below the other three teams.  They can really send a message with a win here.  But, alas, look for the Packers to take it.

Commanders at Eagles: Philadelphia-Philadelphia did something last season that hadn't been done in 20 years...win consecutive NFC East titles!  And they have to be the favorites to make it three in a row.  Washington, meanwhile, fell back to Earth last year after their surprise run to the 2024 NFC Championship Game.  Look for the Eagles to assert their division supremacy right away.

Cardinals at Chargers: Chargers-Last season, it all seemed like it was finally going the Chargers' way.  They beat the Chiefs in Week 1 and got off to such a great start...only to see Denver be the team that won the division!  As a result, they had to go on the road in the playoffs once again!  We're obviously a long way from January, but they were given the gift of starting the season at home against the Cardinals.  They can't waste it.

Cowboys at Giants: Dallas-For a little while there, this was the NFL's official Week 1 Sunday night game.  Then the Giants started to suck way too much to justify it.  With John Harbaugh now at the helm and a new era starting, there's the hope that this is the beginning of the Giants' return to relevance.  Or this will be an "Aaron Rodgers comes to the Jets and we're gonna subject America to them in prime time every week whether they like it or not" situation all over again.  And, let's not forget the issues the Giants seem to always have with the Cowboys.  I hope not, but I have a feeling this will be more of the same.

Broncos at Chiefs: Kansas City-Last season, the law of averages finally caught up with the Chiefs.  They stopped winning all of the close games.  They also met the injury bug.  Denver took advantage, wresting the division title away from Kansas City.  Make no mistake, though.  The Chiefs are back.  They're gonna show everybody that on Monday night.

2026 NFL Preview (Part II)

When the Super Bowl was at SoFi Stadium five years ago, the Los Angeles Rams went all out to win the Super Bowl at home.  This year, with the Super Bowl at SoFi again, they're doing the exact same thing.  And the crazy thing about it is the Rams could easily do it again.  Because they were already arguably the best team in football.  Now future Hall of Famer Aaron Donald back, they're even better.

What's crazy about that, though, is how there are about seven different teams in the NFC thinking the same thing.  There are three potential playoff teams in the NFC West, with the Rams, 49ers and defending champion Seahawks all in the mix.  Ditto in the NFC North with the Lions, Bears and Packers.  Plus Dallas and Philadelphia in the East.  So, yeah, the NFC is crazy competitive.

And, unlike the AFC, there are very few really bad teams in the NFC.  That list is really limited to Arizona and New Orleans.  The Falcons and Commanders are a step below the others, but can still be scary and I wouldn't be surprised if they pull an upset or two during the season.  And you know John Harbaugh will make the Giants relevant again.  Whether that leads to a playoff appearance or simply not sucking remains to be seen.

So, we're gonna have some crazy division races in the NFC this season.  We'll also have some pretty good wild card teams.  I can also see a 10- or 11-win team missing the playoffs.  Especially since there are more than seven teams in the NFC that could be considered "playoff" teams.  And that's not including the potential sleepers, of which there's always at least one.

NFC East: Last season, the Eagles did something we hadn't seen in the NFC East in two decades--win consecutive division titles.  Of course, the Cowboys not being any good last season certainly helped Philadelphia's case, but they still won the division for the third time in four years.  The Eagles are still the best team in the NFC East, so it's easy to see them making it three in a row.  Although, I'm also expecting big things out of Dallas after two disappointing seven-win seasons by the Cowboys.

As for the Giants, the impact of John Harbaugh has already been seen.  I know it was just preseason, but this looks like a completely different team.  A playoff team?  Maybe not.  But they'll at least win more games than France or Norway at MetLife Stadium this season.  And Washington came back to Earth in 2025 after that surprising playoff run in Jayden Daniels' rookie year.  It seems more likely that the 2025 version of the Commanders is more accurate than the 2024 edition.

NFC North: The Lions suffered the same fate as the Chiefs last season.  Preseason Super Bowl expectations, ultimately missing the playoffs.  Detroit's situation was even stranger in that they were a last place team that finished above .500 (and only a half-game behind second-place Green Bay, who made the playoffs).  So, seeing the Lions bounce back to their 2024 form wouldn't be crazy at all.  In fact, I'd be more surprised if it didn't happen.

Of course, the Bears might have something to say about that.  Chicago's division title last season wasn't a fluke, and I fully expect them to be in the mix again.  And the Packers can hopefully look forward to a full year of Micah Parsons.  What a difference he made on that defense before his injury last year!  Minnesota, meanwhile, will be the best last-place team in the NFL.  If the Vikings were in another division, they wouldn't just be a playoff team, they'd be fighting for a division title.  But the NFC North is just that good top to bottom!

NFC South: Then there's the NFC South, which could give its AFC counterpart a run for its money.  There was a three-way tie at 8-9 last season, with the Panthers getting the division title on the tiebreaker.  It was the second time in four years the NFC South champion finished with a losing record.  But I guess the good news is it made for a tight division race.

This year, I think the NFC South will have a team finish above .500.  That team is Tampa Bay.  The Panthers are the only team I see challenging them for division supremacy, but even then, I don't think Carolina has enough to hold them off, especially since they'll be playing a first-place schedule.  I'm not high on Atlanta.  And New Orleans is still in the early stages of a rebuild.  The division should come down to the Bucs and Panthers.

NFC West: Seattle and the Rams don't play each other until Christmas.  They play again in Week 18.  Those two games could determine not just the division, but the overall NFC playoff seeding.  Just like it did last year, when the Seahawks rode the No. 1 seed in the NFC all the way to a Super Bowl title.  And, make no mistake, those games will matter.  Because these are two of the best teams in all of football!

Let's not forget San Francisco, either.  The 49ers always find a way to make you pay attention to them.  Being the third-best team in the NFC West is not a knock.  Because they'll be in the wild card conversation.  Arizona, like the Raiders, is stuck in a cycle of not being very good and playing in a division with three teams that are.  So, don't expect much from the Cardinals this season.  Although, their late-season matchup with Las Vegas could end up being for the No. 1 pick in the 2027 draft.

Expect tight races in three of the four divisions.  I actually ended up having the Seahawks win the West by a game over the Rams, with the 14-3 Lions making the 13-4 Bears a wild card team.  Chicago won't be the wild card team that makes the deep playoff run, though.  That'll be the Rams.  When the Bucs won the Super Bowl at home, they were a wild card team and won three games on the road, knowing that the fourth would be in their own stadium.  Look for the Rams to do the exact same thing and go from wild card to Super Bowl.

In Super Bowl LXI, I've got the Rams meeting the Buffalo Bills.  And, just like Super Bowl LV, I can see the home field advantage making a huge difference.  It won't be the complete domination that we saw that night in Tampa, but the result will be the same.  I think the Los Angeles Rams are the best team in football.  The fact that they're hosting the Super Bowl this season is a coincidence, but it's something that will motivate them all season.  And their season will end the same way as it did five years ago.  Lifting the Lombardi Trophy at SoFi Stadium.