Some Scheduling Suggestions

I have to admit I'm not completely in love with all of the changes in Baseball's new CBA that goes into effect next season.  I don't think there's any need for a second wild card team in each league (unless they were looking for a way to make sure that not a season goes by without both the Yankees and Red Sox making the playoffs) and I'm lukewarm about year-round interleague play, but that's something I'll probably get used to.  Besides, it's a necessary evil if there are going to be two 15-team leagues, which there probably should be.  The Astros moving to the American League is kind of weird, but I have no problem with it.  And it's not like they'll all of a sudden start playing the Yankees all the time, so I might not even really notice.  (My only question is this: Why didn't they just move Milwaukee back?)

Now the questions about scheduling will come into play.  When this whole two 15-team leagues talk first came about over the summer, one of the popular ideas was to have everybody play everybody else once at home and once away.  This idea is stupid.  What would be the point of having leagues and divisions then?

Some of Bud Selig's critics say that he's trying to basically eliminate the two leagues and merge them into one entity.  That's not even remotely close to true.  The DH isn't going anywhere and the National League is never going to adopt it, so that's problem number one with that scenario.  But, mostly, you need to have two different "conferences" to have a World Series anyway, so why would you do away with the leagues?  And baseball's still a sport that's pretty rich in tradition.  The National League was founded in 1876 and the American League dates back to 1901.  That means something, and it ain't changin' anytime soon.

Then there are those who wonder if they'll do away with the unbalanced schedule.  That would be a bad idea, and I hope it doesn't happen.  If they're going to put more of an emphasis on winning the division (which is the only positive aspect of the new wild card games), then why would they make it so teams play fewer games against their division rivals?

One element of the schedule that's often criticized (a criticism that I agree with) is the interleague schedule.  Because of the uneven number of teams in each league, some of the National League squads would play 15 interleague games, while others would play 18.  Likewise, teams in the same division wouldn't play the same interleague schedule.  Take last season for example, the AL East played the NL Central, yet the Yankees didn't play the Astros or Pirates (yet did play the Rockies for some reason), while the Red Sox played both of those teams but not Cincinnati (and neither one played the Cardinals!).  The "natural rivalries" obviously cause some imbalance, as well, but there really isn't anything that can be done about those.  Unfortunately for the Mets, they're still going to have to play the Yankees every year.

Personally, I think the NFL schedule is done perfectly, and that's the model they should use when determining how to change the baseball schedule (if at all).  In the NFL, teams in the same division play 14 of their 16 games against common opponents.  Most of the schedule is set up years in advance under this formula.  The best part is that you play one division in the other conference each season and that division rotates, meaning you'll play everybody at least once every four years (and at home at least once every eight years).  Baseball has had interleague play for 15 years, yet Tampa Bay has still never played in Dodger Stadium and the White Sox have never visited the Mets (among other series).  We somehow managed to have a World Series this season between teams that had played once previously, and never in St. Louis!  Now baseball can use the football model to balance interleague play.

With that in mind and using the NFL as a model, here's my proposal for how the baseball schedule should be constructed when the Astros switch leagues in 2013:

• 18 games (6 series) against each of the other four teams in your division
• 18 interleague games (one series against a predetermined division and one against your natural rival)
• the divisions would have a predetermined rotation (2013: AL East vs. NL East, AL Central vs. NL Central, AL West vs. NL West; 2014: AL East vs. NL Central, AL Central vs. NL West, AL West vs. NL East; 2015: AL East vs. NL West, AL Central vs. NL East, AL West vs. NL Central), who ever you play at home in 2013, you play on the road in 2016 and vice versa
• the natural rivalries would also be predetermined (Orioles vs. Nationals, Red Sox vs. Braves, Yankees vs. Mets, Rays vs. Marlins, Blue Jays vs. Phillies, White Sox vs. Cubs, Indians vs. Reds, Tigers vs. Pirates, Royals vs. Cardinals, Twins vs. Brewers, Astros vs. Rockies, Angels vs. Dodgers, Athletics vs. Giants, Mariners vs. Padres, Rangers vs. Diamondbacks), you wouldn't play a home-and-home every year, but would play at home two years in a row, then just on the road in the third year

That gives us 90 games: 15 series (45 games) at home and 15 series (45 games) on the road, leaving 72 games (or, more importantly, 11 home series and 11 road series) against the other 10 teams in your league.  Here's how I propose those games be distributed:

• 7 games against six teams (4 at home against three, 4 on the road against the other three) 
• distribution of these series is the only thing I haven't worked out yet
• 6 games against two teams (3 at home, 3 away)
• 9 games against the team in each of the other two divisions that finished in the same place as you the previous season (for example, this season the Yankees would play the Tigers and Rangers, the Phillies would play the Brewers and Diamondbacks, etc.), with the extra home series and extra road series alternating each season (East hosts Central and visits West in 2013)

My last little change is actually more of a pet peeve.  The start of the season moves back to the first Monday in April, where it belongs.  Maybe the addition of that stupid wild card game in each league will result in that change, which is the only possible silver lining that I can find in that.  I'd also make it so that the No. 1 seed in each league automatically plays the wild card in the Division Series, even if it's a team in their same division.

Feel free to show this plan to the Commissioner and all 30 owners.

Week 12 Picks

That's more like it.  I think I might finally be back on track with my weekly NFL picks.  Although, it's not lost on me that the only two games I picked incorrectly last week were the two involving New York teams.  But c'mon, did anybody actually have Denver over the Jets?  I didn't think so.  Anyway, after a 12-2 last week, I went 3-for-3 on Thanksgiving.  As I said, that's more like it.  Of course, it took until Week 11.  On to the rest of Week 12:

Vikings (2-8) at Falcons (6-4): Atlanta-This is a good opportunity for Atlanta to take advantage of that Lions loss to move into playoff position in the NFC.  A Falcon loss here all but hands the NFC South to the Saints and makes Atlanta's road to the playoffs a tricky one.  A loss at home to the Vikings would also be pretty inexcusable.  I'm pretty sure the Falcons already know all this.  That's why I'm making them the pick before their big game at AFC South-leading Houston next week.

Browns (4-6) at Bengals (6-4): Cincinnati-Cincinnati is somehow holding down the last wild card spot in the AFC.  I still don't think they're going to hold off all those 5-5 teams that are better than them, especially with Pittsburgh and Houston as the next two games on the schedule.  If the Bengals are going to make the playoffs, they can't lose to the Browns at home.

Buccaneers (4-6) at Titans (5-5): Tampa Bay-The Titans are one of those 5-5 teams on the outside looking in at the AFC race, while the Bucs, who were 4-2, are now 4-6.  Needless to say, to have any hope of making the playoffs, Tampa Bay needs to get off the sneid.  Don't ask me why, but I just have a feeling about the Bucs in this game.

Panthers (2-8) at Colts (0-10): Carolina-The Colts didn't lose last week!  They might not this week either.  Carolina at home, especially after a bye, is possibly the only winnable game left for the Peyton-less crew.  But alas, as I say every week, I'm not picking the Colts until they finally win one.

Cardinals (3-7) at Rams (2-8): Arizona-All of the NFC West games have been backloaded for our enjoyment, making San Francisco's inevitable march to the division crown even easier.  If the Rams win and Seattle loses either this week or next, the 49ers could clinch the division before they even play again.  Anyway, I don't think St. Louis wins.  The team that used to play in St. Louis will.

Bills (5-5) at Jets (5-5): Jets-Three weeks ago when these teams met in Buffalo, the Jets dealt the Bills a pretty big blow that they still haven't recovered from.  In the last two weeks, the Bills have gone to Dallas and reenacted the two Super Bowls, then laid an egg again in Miami.  The Jets haven't won since that game, falling to the Patriots and (somehow) the Broncos.  This might as well be an elimination game.  The loser has no chance of qualifying for the playoffs (especially if it's the Bills).  For the Jets, there's some hope left, while the Bills are in a downward spiral that I don't think they'll be able to climb out of.  Jets win.

Texans (7-3) at Jaguars (3-7): Houston-Matt Leinart gets a chance to show the Cardinals that they were wrong in giving up on him.  The Texans get a chance to show that they're a good team no matter who's at quarterback.  If the Texans hadn't had a bye last week, I'd like Jacksonville's chances a little more, but Houston's had two weeks to get used to a different Matt behind center.  The Texans move closer to the first division title in franchise history.

Bears (7-3) at Raiders (6-4): Chicago-Outside of Giants-Saints, this might be the best game of the week.  Chicago's not going to be the same team without Jay Cutler, but the Bears are on a roll right now.  The Raiders, who are probably going to win the AFC West by default, have won two straight.  Chicago hasn't lost since Week 5.  Even without Cutler, the Bears are playing too well right now to let the Raiders slow them down.  I don't think an Oakland win is inconceivable, but I'm taking Chicago.

Redskins (3-7) at Seahawks (4-6): Seattle-Washington was 3-2.  Now the Redskins are 3-7.  That winning the NFC East guarantee made by Rex Grossman clearly wasn't prophetic.  Seattle has a chance to make the NFC West resemble an actual race, at least for another week, by extending that losing streak to six.

Patriots (7-3) at Eagles (4-6): New England-Who thought this might've been a Super Bowl preview when the season began?  As it is, Philly faces yet another must-win against a good team.  I give the Eagles credit for really coming to play last week against the Giants, but this might be a much tougher task.  Michael Vick's probably not going to play again.  Although, they clearly weren't hurting too badly with Vince Young against the Giants.  The Patriots probably have the AFC East safely in hand, but need a win in that battle with Baltimore/Pittsburgh and Houston for the No. 1 and 2 seeds in the AFC playoffs.  A Patriots victory would be all but a death blow for Philly.  It's going to happen eventually, so it might as well be this week.  (Sidebar, how does New England always end up with such an easy December schedule?)

Broncos (5-5) at Chargers (4-6): San Diego-For the record, I still don't think Tim Tebow's going to cut it as an NFL quarterback.  But the University of Florida's winning games, so who am I to criticize?  In fact, the Broncos have somehow managed to pass the Chargers and are only a game out of first in the AFC West.  Way back when, San Diego was 4-1.  If the Chargers are going to make the playoffs, they need to right the ship.  Quickly.  But they always play their best football at the end of the season, and I think that starts this week.

Steelers (7-3) at Chiefs (4-6): Pittsburgh-The Tyler Palko Era in Kansas City lasted a whopping one week.  A 34-3 drubbing in New England on Monday night was enough to end that experiment in favor of Kyle Orton, who was displaced in Denver by the Tim Tebow Aerial Circus.  I'm not sure why this is a Sunday night game, but I don't think Orton fares much better against the Steelers than Palko did against the Patriots.  Pittsburgh needs to keep winning to have any hope of catching Baltimore and getting a playoff bye.  The Steelers' only losses this season have come against teams that are currently in first place, which Kansas City is not.

Giants (6-4) at Saints (7-3): New Orleans-The Giants' remaining schedule is simply brutal.  The Saints are the third of five first-place teams that they'll face in a six-week span.  That's what makes last week's loss to the Eagles such a big blow.  Of course, with both Dallas games still on the schedule, the Giants are still in decent shape to win the NFC East, but they need to pick up a victory either this week or next (at home against undefeated Green Bay) to feel comfortable.  And now they're half-a-game behind the Cowboys in the division!  But I think winning this week will be a tough task.  The Saints got that gift win over the Falcons, who are basically handing them the division title, and are well-rested after their bye.  With that 49ers loss on Thanksgiving night, they're now thinking about a playoff bye.

This Week: 3-0
Last Week: 12-2
Overall: 102-61

NL MVP

The writers got one right.  Justin Verlander was named AL MVP, as he should've been.  That moved me to a perfect 7-for-7 in baseball award picks with one to go.  And this one might be the most challenging of the bunch.  NL MVP.  Are Matt Kemp's otherworldly numbers for an otherwise mediocre Dodgers team enough to overcome Ryan Braun, who led the Brewers to their first division title in 29 years.  As I see it, it's a race between those two.

If the Dodgers hadn't been an 82-79 third-place team, the decision to go with Kemp would be easy.  His stats blew everyone else out of the water.  He was in the running for the Triple Crown all season, finishing first in homers (39) and RBIs (126) while finishing third in average (.324).  Kemp also led the National League in runs (115) and total bases (353), and was second in hits (195), slugging percentage (.586), extra-base hits (76) and stolen bases (40).  He also played a Gold Glove center field. 

Yes, the Dodgers finished third, but that wasn't held against Clayton Kershaw in the Cy Young voting.  I don't think it should be held against Kemp either.  Besides, he didn't really have any protection in that lineup.  If anything, that makes his numbers more impressive.  (I'm aware that I used the exact same argument against Jose Bautista, but the difference is that Bautista's overrated and Kemp isn't.  That and the fact that Kemp hits more than just homers.)  Matt Kemp is your classic five-tool player.  This was his breakout year, but he'll have plenty more seasons like 2011.  The Dodgers were smart to lock him up to a long-term deal.

Ryan Braun and the Brewers aren't the Upper Midwest's little secret anymore.  Braun led the league with a .597 slugging percentage and finished second with a .332 average, 336 total bases and 109 runs.  He also won his fourth straight Silver Slugger Award while leading Milwaukee to the division title.  Braun missed the All-Star Game because he was on the DL.  When he came back, the Brewers were half a game out of the wild card race.  They ended up winning the NL Central by six games.

The 800-pound gorilla in the room is Braun's teammate Prince Fielder (go ahead and insert the obvious joke about Prince's weight here).   His numbers weren't too shabby, either.  Batting behind Braun in that awesome Milwaukee lineup, Fielder hit 38 homers and drove in 120.  He also finished second in the NL in walks (107) and on-base percentage (.415).  Prince was the only player in the Majors to play all 162 games, which can't be overlooked either.

I think the two Brewers will cancel each other out.  Milwaukee had a tremendous season.  But they wouldn't have done it without both of them.  Take Fielder out of the lineup and Braun has no protection.  (We'll see how well that works out for the Brewers next season.)  Take Braun out of the lineup (and left field) and that entire lineup is made weaker.  I'm not saying they weren't both valuable.  On the contrary, I think Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder are clearly the two most valuable players on that team.  But it's tough to differentiate one's value over the other.  They just complement each other so well.

Those are the big three, but there are obviously plenty of other candidates, too, starting with Diamondbacks right fielder Justin Upton.  He hit .289 with 31 home runs, 88 RBIs and a .529 slugging percentage for a surprising Arizona team that won the NL West.  That doesn't happen if Upton doesn't have the kind of season he had.  Nor does it happen if Ian Kenndey doesn't come out of nowhere to go 21-4 with a 2.88 ERA.  And don't forget the two pitchers who've already won awards.  Dodgers lefty, the Cy Young winner, won the pitching Triple Crown this season, while Braves closer Craig Kimbrel, the Rookie of the Year, set a rookie record with 46 saves and pitched every freakin' day until his arm fell off in September.

There's a reason Albert Pujols is always in the MVP discussion.  He had the worst regular season of his 11-year career in 2011.  Albert hit just .299 and drove in only 99 runs this season, the first time that he didn't hit .300 or have 100 RBIs.  God, he sucks.  Just a hunch, but I think the World Series ring made up for it.  Jose Reyes became the first Met in history to win the batting title, but had two separate trips to the DL.  There's no question that the Mets were a better team with him in the lineup.  And you can't ignore all of those Phillies pitchers.  Philadelphia was the only team in the Majors to win 100 games for a reason.  Oh yeah, they had guys like Shane Victorino and Ryan Howard, too.

My pick: Matt Kemp-His numbers were too good to ignore, and I think Fielder's going to take some votes away from Braun.  Yes, the Dodgers finished third and only won 82 games, but how much worse would they have been without Matt Kemp?  The rest of the ballot: 2-Ryan Braun, 3-Prince Fielder, 4-Justin Upton, 5-Albert Pujols, 6-Clayton Kershaw, 7-Roy Halladay, 8-Jose Reyes, 9-Ian Kennedy, 10-Craig Kimbrel.

AL MVP: Will He Win It?

There are a number of candidates worthy of consideration for MVP honors in the American League.  But there's one that stands out in the crowd...Tigers pitcher Justin Verlander.  Verlander's dominance in 2011 was pretty obvious, as his unanimous Cy Young Award suggested.  His value to the Detroit Tigers was without question.  That's why, in my opinion, he's at the top of the list when discussing AL MVP candidates.

Unfortunately, some of the writers who vote for the MVP award have this antiquated notion that starting pitchers aren't as valuable as position players because they don't play in every game.  As a result, they don't  vote for pitchers for MVP (these are many of the same writers who regularly give LCS and World Series awards to pitchers, mind you).  Some also argue that since pitchers have their own award, the Cy Young, they shouldn't be eligible for MVP, too.  Well, they are.  The rules allow pitchers to win MVP, so writers shouldn't be able take it upon themselves to decide if they deserve it.

I'm not saying pitchers should regularly be considered for MVP.  I'm just saying they shouldn't be screwed in the voting just because they're pitchers.  Are you telling me Pedro Martinez wasn't the Most Valuable Player in the American League in 1999?  Anyone who watched baseball that year could tell you he was.  The MVP is called "Most Valuable" Player for a reason.  It's not designed to go to the best player.  I define "Most Valuable" as the player who's individual success directly impacts his team's success (just ask the Indianapolis Colts about Peyton Manning's value).  Take Justin Verlander off the Detroit Tigers.  Do they still win the AL Central?  Absolutely not!  Thus, it's pretty clear to me how valuable he is.  I don't care that he only played in 35 games.  He proved his worth in those 35 games more than many position players did in 140.  And in this case, he was the best player, too.  The dominant numbers (24-5, 2.40 ERA, 250 strikeouts, 0.92 WHIP) speak for themselves.

Among the guys who played in all 162 games (or thereabouts), the best options are probably the Yankees' Curtis Granderson, Verlander's former Tigers teammate, and Boston's Jacoby Ellsbury.  After struggling in his first season with the Yankees, Curtis put the "Grand" back in his last name in 2011.  He led the American League in RBIs (119) and runs scored (136) while hitting a career-high 41 homers and stealing 25 bases.  Of course I'm a little biased, but I think Granderson was far and away the best player on the team that finished with the best record in the American League.

At the All-Star Break, it looked like Adrian Gonzalez was going to be a runaway winner of AL MVP honors.  In the end, though, Gonzalez wasn't even the most valuable Red Sok.  That was Ellsbury, who seemed to be the only guy on that team to give a crap in September, when he hit .358 with eight home runs and 21 RBIs while the rest of the team decided to take the month off.  Overall, he hit .321 with 212 hits, 32 homers, 105 RBIs, 39 steals and an incredible 364 total bases.  Ellsbury, who only played in 18 games last season, has already been named AL Comeback Player of the Year.

I don't think Ellsbury's going to win, though.  The Red Sox' historic collapse is too much to overlook.  Besides, there are two other Boston players in the discussion who are likely to take some votes away from him.  The first is Gonzalez, who clearly had no problems adjusting to American League pitching.  All Gonzalez did was hit .344 with 197 hits, 48 doubles, 30 home runs, 105 RBIs and 111 runs scored while also winning the Gold Glove at first base.  That annoying little pipsqueak Dustin Pedrioa is the third Red Suk who'll get votes.  He had 21 homers and 91 RBIs while playing a Gold Glove second base.

Two other guys worth a look are Miguel Cabrera and Michael Young.  Cabrera, the second-best player on the Tigers, is basically just one massive scary beast at the plate.  He won the batting title with a .344 average, but it's not like he's a slap-hitting singles hitter.  Cabrera's 197 hits included 48 doubles and 30 homers.  He also drove in 105 and scored 111 times.  Young deserves some credit for taking all the crap the Rangers dealt him during the offseason, then responding with one of the best years of his career.  He had a league-leading 213 hits, a .338 average and a .380 on-base percentage while playing all over the infield.  Young also made the All-Star team yet again, at a third different position (DH).  He's the heart and soul of a team that's won back-to-back American League pennants.  While his value is more intangible than what you'll find in the box score, there's no doubt Michael Young is an important piece in the Texas Rangers' lineup.

People in Canada think Jose Bautista actually has a chance of winning.  I give him credit for doing more than hitting fastballs really far this season, but c'mon Canadians.  The Blue Jays finished fourth.  He's the only hitter in that lineup, so it also continues to confuse me why pitchers don't just walk him all the time.

My vote: Justin Verlander-The truth of the matter is that none of the hitters had the kind of year Verlander did.  A starting pitcher hasn't been the MVP since Roger Clemens in 1986.  Hopefully that changes this year, because no matter how you choose to define it, the "Most Valuable" player in the American League this season wore an Old English D on his hat and the number 35 on his back.  The rest of my ballot: 2-Curtis Granderson, 3-Jacoby Ellsbury, 4-Adrian Gonzalez, 5-Miguel Cabrera, 6-Jose Bautista, 7-Michael Young, 8-Dustin Pedroia, 9-Paul Konerko, 10-Robinson Cano.

Week 11 Picks

My uncanny ability to predict the winners of NFL games continued on Thursday when the Jets got Tebowed in Denver.  This really is getting ridiculous.  I used to be good at picking NFL games.  Maybe I should just focus on the MLB awards, where I'm a perfect 6-for-6 with two to go.  Anyway, I have a feeling that the NFL is going to go back to semi-normal at some point, so I'll continue to make my picks as if that's actually going to happen.  The fact that it's Week 11 and it still hasn't yet can probably help explain my embarrassing record so far this season.  I'm already 0-1 this week.  Here we go with the rest of them:

Jaguars (3-6) at Browns (3-6): Cleveland-These are the games that really screw with you.  It's a game nobody cares about between two bad teams.  The Browns are at home, so I'll throw the Dawg Pound a bone and make Cleveland the pick.

Panthers (2-7) at Lions (6-3): Detroit-This could easily be a trap game for the Lions, who suffered that tough loss to the Bears last week and have the short week before that matchup with the undefeated Packers on Thanksgiving.  I don't think they'll get caught up in it, though.  Cam Newton will put up his crazy fantasy numbers, but Detroit will win.

Buccaneers (4-5) at Packers (9-0): Green Bay-I still don't think the Packers are going to finish undefeated.  But I don't think the Bucs are going to be the team that beats them, either.  On Thanksgiving in Detroit, though...that might be where Green Bay runs into some trouble.

Bills (5-4) at Dolphins (2-7): Miami-The Bills have started to come back to Earth.  After losing to the Jets, they went to Dallas and reenacted their two Super Bowl losses to the Cowboys.  That's what makes this game one of the hardest picks of the week.  The Dolphins aren't good, but they've won two straight since handing a game to Tim Tebow, severely damaging their Andrew Luck chances.  Buffalo's the better team, but the way each squad is playing right now scares me.  The Dolphins are headed in the right direction.  The Bills aren't.  That's why I'm going against my instincts (and, probably, better judgment) and taking Miami.

Raiders (5-4) at Vikings (2-7): Oakland-It's crazy that Oakland is in first place in the AFC West at midseason.  It's even crazier that an Oakland loss on Sunday means the Broncos will be tied with them.  Fortunately for the Raiders, they're playing the Vikings, who have to be in the discussion among who's the five worst teams in football.  Even in Minnesota, I don't think the Vikings will pose much of a challenge to Darren McFadden and Co.

Cowboys (5-4) at Redskins (3-6): Dallas-As everyone in the world except for Rex Grossman already knew, the Redskins have dropped back into the category of an "also-ran" in the NFC East.  Dallas, meanwhile, has won two straight, including that rout of the Bills last week.  The Cowboys, of course, have the short week before playing on Thanksgiving, and the Redskins would like nothing more than messing with their archrival's playoff chances.  But I don't see that happening.  The Cowboys win to keep pace with the Giants in the division, as well as the Bears, Lions and Falcons in the wild card race.

Bengals (6-3) at Ravens (6-3): Baltimore-The Ravens are one of the most confusing teams in all of football.  They look incredible one week, then look absolutely horrendous the next.  They've lost games to both Jacksonville and Seattle this season.  The loss to the Seahawks came last week and dropped Baltimore out of first place.  Cincinnati, meanwhile, finally played a division game last week and lost to the Steelers.  I think the Bengals' start was the result of an easy early schedule.  Baltimore needs to win to move back into a first-place tie with Pittsburgh (sidebar: why did they play a full week last week, then have the final four byes this week?).  The Ravens are a much better team at home than they are on the road.  The game's in Baltimore, so I'm going with the Ravens.

Seahawks (3-6) at Rams (2-7): Seattle-A Rams win and a 49ers win over Arizona means San Francisco clinches at least a share of the division title.  Last year, it was these two playing for the NFC West crown on the final Sunday night, and Seattle won to become the first 7-9 division winner in NFL history.  We won't have to worry about this season, as Rams-Seahawks goes back to a No. 6 regional offering available in only the St. Louis and Seattle markets on FOX.  I'm taking the Rams at home if anybody cares.

Cardinals (3-6) at 49ers (8-1): San Francisco-Is everyone convinced that the 49ers are for real now?  That win over the Giants last week was an important character-building, statement victory over a team pretty unanimously agreed to be one of the best in the NFC (this just in, San Francisco's also in that group).  The 49ers should have no problem at home against the Cardinals.  The only things left for them to worry about are "When will we clinch the NFC West?" and "Will we get a first-round bye in the playoffs?"  The Harbaugh Bowl awaits San Francisco on Thanksgiving night.

Titans (5-4) at Falcons (5-4): Atlanta-This is an important game for the playoff chances of both teams.  The loser probably isn't going to make it, while the winner will definitely still be in the thick of the race.  I think Atlanta's the better team, but the Good Matt Ryan needs to show up.  I think he will.  The Falcons win.

Chargers (4-5) at Bears (6-3): Chicago-Does any team need a win more than the Chargers?  San Diego was once sitting pretty in the AFC West at 4-1.  A four-game losing streak later, the Chargers are in their usual predicament in a crowded AFC West.  But a win reestablishes San Diego as a potential division winner.  And we all know the Chargers are a much better second-half team.  The Bears, meanwhile, have won four straight, including a big victory over the Lions last week.  As a result, Chicago currently holds one of the two NFC wild cards.  This has the potential to be one of the better Week 11 matchups.  While the Chargers are capable of pulling off the upset, I think the fact that the game's in Chicago tips the scale in the Bears' direction.

Eagles (3-6) at Giants (6-3): Giants-Can we write off the Eagles' "Dream Team" yet?  This team finds a way to blow a fourth-quarter lead every week.  The Giants, of course, know all about that after what happened when these two met at MetLife Stadium last year.  Philadelphia has been the thorn in their side for the last couple of years, but it was the Giants that picked up the W when these teams met in Philly.  The Giants have a brutal remaining schedule, and Dallas is coming (the Cowboys are only one game back).  They need to take advantage of a reeling Eagles team that may or may not have Michael Vick available on Sunday night.

Chiefs (4-5) at Patriots (6-3): New England-Matt Cassell's return to New England turns into Tyler Palko's first NFL start.  The Chiefs are still technically in the race in the AFC West, but that's going to change quickly with Palko at quarterback.  The Patriots entered last week's game against the Jets on a two-game losing streak, then they looked like the Patriots team we've all gotten used to seeing in the second half.  I still don't know what to make of New England.  But with a win, the Patriots would become one of at least three (potentially four if Baltimore also wins) with an AFC-best record of 7-3.  A matchup against Kansas City in Foxboro should be enough for the Patriots to join that group.

This Week: 0-1 (lost with the Jets)
Last Week: 7-9 (you have no idea how embarrassing it is for me to type that)
Season: 87-60

NL Cy Young

For the record, the Jets are my Thursday night football pick.  If anyone cares.  I know, I suck this season.  I'll reveal the rest of them on Saturday, giving you plenty of time to take the other team in each game.
We've got another baseball award to discuss, so that's going to be the topic today.  (And I'm 5-for-5 so far in baseball award predictions.)  The NL Cy Young Award will be given out on Thursday, and, while I don't think it's as clear-cut as Justin Verlander's obvious selection in the AL, there is a clear favorite and I'll be very surprised if he doesn't win.

I'm of course talking about Dodgers left-hander Clayton Kershaw, who, like Verlander, won the pitching Triple Crown this season.  He tied for the NL lead with 21 wins while also recording 248 strikeouts and a 2.28 ERA.  He also had a WHIP of 0.98 and won a Gold Glove.  Sadly, a lot of that went unnoticed because of the mess that was the 2011 Los Angeles Dodgers season.  And because that guy roaming center field (the likely NL MVP) took most of the good headlines. 

But, whether you were aware of what he was doing or not, his numbers speak for themselves.  He's just the eighth National League pitcher since 1956 to win the Triple Crown, and each of the previous seven won the Cy Young.  Kershaw won eight straight to end the season, and the Dodgers did play significantly better down the stretch.  And if they can give the AL Cy Young to a .500 pitcher on a last-place team last season, the Dodgers' relatively pedestrian 82-79 record shouldn't be held against Kershaw.  In fact, the Dodgers' record might actually help him.  If you think about it, he was responsible for a quarter of their wins.

But Kershaw wasn't anywhere near as dominant as Verlander, which is why I expect the NL vote to be slightly closer.  Let's start with the guy who matched him for the league lead in wins, former Yankees flameout turned Diamondbacks ace Ian Kennedy.  Kennedy went 21-4 with a 2.88 ERA for a surprising Arizona team that won the NL West.  He was one of the main reasons why.

Then there's the Phillies' trio of aces.  Roy Hallady was the unanimous winner last season, his first in the National League.  Halladay was just as good this season, going 19-6 with a Major League-leading eight complete games as Philadelphia ran away with the NL East once again.  He also finished second behind Kershaw in ERA (2.35) and third in the league in strikeouts (220).  Prize free agent signee Cliff Lee also had a solid season.  He finished second in the NL in strikeouts (238) and third in ERA (2.40) while going 17-4.  Cole Hamels didn't have the numbers of Halladay and Lee, but he was easily the best No. 3 starter in baseball.  Hamels went 14-9 with a 2.79 ERA, and he held opponents to a .214 batting average.

I also think there are a couple of closers worthy of at least being in the discussion for fourth- or fifth-place votes.  The first is the Brewers' John Axford.  Axford has an outstanding Fu Manchu mustache, so let's just get that out of the way right now.  (He also gets bouns points for having attended the same college as me.)  But he was also one of the big reasons why Milwaukee won its division for the first time in 29 years.  Axford went 46-for-48 in save opportunities while notching a 1.95 ERA and holding opposing hitters to a .212 average.  He also struck out 86 in just 73.2 innings. 

Braves closer Craig Kimbrel, who already won the Rookie of the Year, may pick up some Cy Young votes, as well.  Kimbrel pitched in 79 games and set a rookie record with 46 saves.  He also had that incredible scoreless-innings streak in the middle of the season and struck out a ridiculous 127 hitters in 77 innings.  That entire Braves bullpen was great all year, but Kimbrel was the best of that bunch.  Yes, he wasn't that good in September, but as I said the other day, that's mainly because Fredi Gonzalez overused him.  Kimbrel's season wasn't at the same level as Kershaw's or Kennedy's, but his name is still a worthwhile one to throw out there, even though he's not going to win.  Besides, Kimbrel has already gotten one piece of hardware this week, and no Rookie of the Year has ever won the Cy Young in the same season.

My vote: Clayton Kershaw-Again, I don't think there's that much of a debate.  I don't expect it to be unanimous, but Kershaw was simply too good this season.  There's a reason why no pitcher that's won the pitching Triple Crown was ever denied the Cy Young that season.  As for the rest of my ballot, it goes: 2-Kennedy, 3-Halladay, 4-Lee, 5-Axford. 

Managers of the Year

As anticlimactic as Justin Verlander winning the AL Cy Young Award was, there's also very little suspense that goes into tomorrow's announcement of the AL and NL Managers of the Year.  Both winners should be pretty clear cut, although they're not as obvious as Verlander's Cy Young selection.  Regardless, it would be very surprising if Joe Maddon (AL) and Kirk Gibson (NL) aren't presented with the Manger of the Year Awards.

American League
Joe Maddon, Rays-This was supposed to be the year Tampa Bay came back to the pack after a few years of contending in the monster known as the AL East.  Instead, they hung around all season, then completed a remarkably surprising run by clinching the AL wild card on the final day.  The Rays did all this with a bullpen that they rebuilt from scratch in the offseason.  They also lost two of their best position players (Carl Crawford and Carlos Pena) to free agency, then their prized addition, Manny Ramirez, abrupty retired in May after failing another steroids test.  Tampa Bay's winning the wild card this season was just as surprising as their AL East crown and run to the World Series in 2008, which earned Maddon his first Manager of the Year award.  I'd be shocked if he doesn't win a second.

Manny Acta, Indians-For four and a half months, the most surprisingly good team in the American League was Cleveland.  The AL Central was supposed to be a two-team race between the Tigers and the Twins.  Instead, Minnesota struggled with injuries all season and it was the Indians that gave Detroit headaches until August.  Yes, they ended up fading down the stretch and finished third, but Cleveland was one of the most surprising teams in baseball all season.

Ron Washington, Rangers-I don't think Ron Washington gets enough credit for how good the Texas Rangers actually are.  They went to the World Series last year, but still went out and got Adrian Beltre and Mike Napoli.  They also lost their best pitcher, Cliff Lee, in the offseason.  Washington moved Alexi Ogando into the rotation to replace Lee, and somehow managed to figure out a way to work both Beltre and Napoli into the lineup while still getting Michael Young his at-bats.  All of those moves resulted in the Rangers' second consecutive pennant.

Joe Girardi, Yankees-Just like Ron Washington doesn't get enough credit, neither does Joe Girardi.  I was at a game this year where one of the other fans said to me, "You're telling me you couldn't manage this team?"  No I couldn't.  For the most part, Girardi made all the right moves this season.  The rotation was a question mark going into the season, yet Freddy Garcia and Bartolo Colon both proved so dependable that Girardi decided to utilize a six-man rotation for the final two months of the season.  Keeping all those hitters happy is a challenge, but he handled the Jorge Posada situation the way it needed to be handled, and his bullpen management was tremendous all season.  Managing the Yankees isn't as easy as most people think.  In fact, it might be one of the hardest jobs in baseball.  Yet, with all their "problems" all season, Girardi led the Yankees to the best record in the American League.

National League
Kirk Gibson, Diamondbacks-This selection is as much of a slam-dunk as Verlander's Cy Young.  Even having seen Arizona play live this year, I can still only name a handful of players on the Diamondbacks.  This is a team that finished last last season and plays in a division that features more talented teams in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Colorado.  Yet the Diamondbacks somehow won the NL West and were in contention for home field in the Division Series until the season's final day.  I certainly didn't expect anything out of Arizona, especially with a first-year manager at the helm.  But Gibby is a protege of both Sparky Anderson and Tommy Lasorda, so I guess we shouldn't really be surprised that he knows what he's doing.

Ron Roenicke, Brewers-While Arizona's success this season came as a complete surprise to everybody, the Brewers were a team that everyone knew was on the rise.  Ron Roenicke took over as Milwaukee's manager this season and came aboard at just the right time, becuase this was the year everything clicked for the Brewers.  It's not that hard to hit when you've got Prince Fielder, Ryan Braun and Rickie Weeks in the middle of your lineup, but it takes more than hitting to win games, and the Brewers had solid pitching, too.  Then there was the decision to keep John Axford at closer even after the Brewers got Francisco Rodriguez.  Milwaukee had the best home record in baseball and won its division for the first time in nearly 30 years.

Tony La Russa, Cardinals-His name always seems to come up in the Manager of the Year conversation.  I guess that's what happens when you're a Hall of Fame manager.  We all know the story.  Adam Wainwright goes down for the season in Spring Training.  Albert's pending free agency looms over the season.  The bullpen's a mess, so they completely rebuild it at the trade deadline.  They don't have a closer.  They're nine and a half games out of the wild card race at the end of August.  Yet somehow the Cardinals make the playoffs.  Then they beat the Phillies and their four aces.  Then they beat a Brewers team that finished six games ahead of them in their own division.  Then they went and won an amazing World Series for one of the most unexpected titles in baseball history.  Then La Russa went out on top.  It really was incredible what the Cardinals did in September and October.

Don Mattingly, Dodgers-The third rookie manager on my list, the Dodgers' off-the-field mess overshadowed what Don Mattingly's team did on the field this season.  They had the best player in the National League, Matt Kemp, and the best pitcher in the National League, Clayton Kershaw.  Frank McCourt turned a proud franchise into a laughingstock, yet the Dodgers finished the season with a winning record.  I don't know how many people even realize they went 82-79 this season.  Joe Torre left the Dodgers in good hands.

My vote (AL): Joe Maddon-It's not even close.  What Maddon with that Rays team this season was incredible.  Rounding out my ballot: Acta and Washington.

My vote (NL): Kirk Gibson-This one's also easy.  With all the surprise teams in baseball this season, Arizona was certainly the most surprising.  The Diamondbacks finished last with this same team last year.  Roenicke No. 2 and La Russa No. 3.

AL Cy Young: There's No Debate

Justin Verlander is going to win the AL Cy Young Award.  There's absolutely no doubt about it.  He had the award locked up by the All-Star break.  Verlander won the pitching Triple Crown and led the AL in every major pitching statistic (except, obviously, for saves).  He went 24-5 with 250 strikeouts and a 2.40 ERA as the Tigers won their first division title since 1987.  Oh yeah, Verlander also led the AL in innings pitched (251), held opponents to a .192 batting average and had a WHIP of 0.92.

There are no other candidates.  That's by no means a knock on the rest of the pitchers in the American League.  Jered Weaver had a very solid year.  CC Sabathia won 19 games.  James Shields had 16 wins, including four shutouts, for a Rays team that surprisingly won the wild card.  But Verlander was far and away the best pitcher in the American League all season.  He wasn't just good, he was dominant.  Everyone knows that.

So, instead of making the case as to why Verlander deserves to win the Cy Young, I'm going to argue why he belongs in the discussion for AL MVP, an award that hasn't gone to a pitcher (in either league) since Oakland's Dennis Eckersley in 1992.  There's undoubtedly going to be a number of people who feel that since pitchers have their own award, the MVP should go to a position player.  While I disagree with them, they're entitled to have that position.  However, sometimes a pitcher's season is so exceptional that you can't help BUT put him in the MVP discussion.  That's certainly the case this season with Justin Verlander.

I thought Pedro Martinez was worthy of winning AL MVP honors in 1999, when he went 23-4 with a 2.07 ERA and a ridiculous 313 strikeouts for the Red Sox.  However, despite collecting the most first-place votes, he finished second in the MVP vote to Ivan Rodriguez.  The reason?  Two of the voters left Martinez completely off their ballot, arguing that pitchers don't deserve consideration for MVP.  That's completely ridiculous.  According to the rules that are in place, pitchers are eligible for MVP.  Yet two guys decided that Martinez shouldn't be since he wasn't an everyday player. 

Hopefully, the same thing doesn't happen to Verlander this year.  It's clear to anybody who watched baseball this season that he was the most dominant figure in the game.  I'm usually pretty hesitant to make the case for a pitcher for MVP, but this year is an exception.  MVP stands for Most Valuable Player.  Justin Verlander's value to the Detroit Tigers was pretty obvious.  The Tigers knew they were going to win every fifth day.  Yes, he only played in 35 games compared to the 140 or so that Curtis Granderson, Jacoby Ellsbury, etc., played.  But the Tigers won the AL Central because of those 35 games.  Without Verlander, they don't win the division. 

Sadly, this principle is also used in Cy Young voting.  The last closer to win the Cy Young was Eric Gagne in the NL in 2003.  The last AL closer to win the Cy Young was Eckersley in that 1992 MVP year.  Mariano Rivera has never won a Cy Young Award.  I'm not saying that there's a closer in either league that should be in this year's Cy Young discussion, but I do think there are cases where a standout season by a closer can't be overlooked.  It really is the same argument: if the rules say a closer can win the Cy Young Award, the voters really shouldn't be able to take it upon themselves to decide whether or not they're worthy of the award. 

In my opinion, Justin Verlander wasn't just the best pitcher in the American League this season.  He was the best player.  I don't care that he didn't play every day.  Anyway, more on that next week when they actually award the MVP.  As for Cy Young, there's no question.

My vote: Justin Verlander-That's pretty obvious.  But since the actual voters are required to put five guys on the ballot, I'll follow those same rules and make selections 2-5.  2-Jered Weaver, 3-James Shields, 4-CC Sabathia, 5-Jon Lester.

Rookies of the Year

Baseball's awards season is upon us!  Six of the eight major awards will be handed out this week, with the two MVP awards wrapping things up next Monday and Tuesday.  Continuing in the tradition started last year, I'll break down each of the awards the day before they're announced, as well as giving you my pick for the winner.  To get things started, MLB is doubling-up the Rookies of the Year, with both winners being announced tomorrow.

American League
If AL Cy Young is the easiest of the eight awards to pick (Justin Verlander had it locked up in like June), AL Rookie of the Year might be the hardest.  There are about five or six viable candidates, and I really have no idea who the writers are going to choose.  This is one of the most wide-open years I can remember.  Any one of these guys would be a deserving winner.  The way I see it, this race comes down to three starting pitchers--Jeremy Hellickson, Ivan Nova and Michael Pineda--and two first basemen--Eric Hosmer and Mark Trumbo.  There's also been some discussion about Mariners second baseman Dustin Ackley, but I don't think his candidacy is as strong as the other five.  A case could also be made for Angels closer Jordan Walden, but again, he's not as strong a candidate as the other guys.

Let's start with the pitchers.  Hellickson and Nova were No. 2 starters on teams that made the playoffs, while Pineda made the All-Star team.  Jeremy Hellickson led all Major League rookies with a 2.95 ERA and was third in all of baseball with a .210 opponents' batting average.  He went 13-10, and 20 of his 29 starts were quality starts.  The reason the Rays made the playoffs was because of their pitching, and Hellickson was one of the big reasons why.  He was Baseball America's choice.  Then there's Ivan Nova, who went 16-4 for a Yankees team that had the best record in the American League.  He got sent down in June because the Yankees had too many starters, then came back and won each of his final 12 decisions, including an eight-game winning streak.  Nova provided some semblance of stability behind CC in that rotation that had a lot of question marks even during the season.  And the voting was already done, so it doesn't help his case at all, but who can forget that performance in Game 1A of the ALDS against the Tigers?  Michael Pineda looked like he'd run away with the award at midseason before struggling down the stretch.  He finished just 9-10, mainly becuase Seattle isn't good, with a respectable 3.74 ERA.

Trumbo took over as the Angels' first baseman when Kendrys Morales broke his leg jumping on home plate after a walk-off homer.  He took full advantage of the opportunity.  Trumbo played in 149 games and belted 29 home runs.  He also had 87 RBIs to help the Angels stay in the race longer than they probably should have.  Hosmer was the first in that stable of top-notch prospects to reach the Royals' Major League team.  He led all AL rookies in runs (66) and hits (153) to go along with 19 homers, 27 doubles and 78 RBIs.  Oh yeah, and he's just 21.

My pick: Jeremy Hellickson-This was a tough one, but I think I'm going to go with Hellickson.  The Rays wouldn't have made the playoffs without his contributions, and being a starting pitcher on a contending team in September is tough for anybody, let alone a rookie.  Trumbo and Nova round out my ballot.  But it wouldn't surprise me at all if Hosmer won.

National League
The NL Rookie of the Year isn't anywhere near as up in the air as the AL award is.  But that doesn't mean it's a lock for anybody, either.  Last year it was San Francisco's Buster Posey edging out Atlanta's Jason Heyward.  This year, two more Braves are in the mix, and I expect them to go 1-2 in the voting.

I think Braves closer Craig Kimbrel has the slight edge over his teammate Freddie Freeman.  Closers have won the last two AL Rookie of the Year awards, but the last to do it in the NL was Cincinnati's Scott Williamson in 1999.  Kimbrel was overused all year, which is one of the reasons why Atlanta collapsed down the stretch.  Even with a rocky September, he put up some pretty impressive numbers: a rookie record 46 saves, a .178 batting average against, 127 strikeouts in 77 innings (14.84 per nine).  He also had a stretch of 37 2/3 consecutive scoreless innings from June 14-September 8.  Christened Atlanta's everyday first baseman coming out of spring training, Freeman led NL rookies in seven different offensive categories.  He hit .282 with 161 hits, 32 doubles, 21 homers and 76 RBIs.  He might've been the Braves' most consistent bat all season.

Brandon Beachy is a third Brave in the discussion, but he's a distant third behind his teammates.  He was in Atlanta's postseason rotation in 2010, and he followed that up by going 7-3 this year, his first full season in the Majors.  Beachy recorded 169 strikeouts and held opponents to a .236 batting average.  If you've never heard of Vance Worley, it's probably because the other four guys in the Phillies rotation got just a bit more press than he did.  Being on the Phillies obviously helped, but Worley went 11-3 with a 3.01 ERA.  He took over the fifth spot in Philadelphia's rotation in mid-June and pitched so well they couldn't take him out of it.  Nationals second baseman Danny Espinosa is also worth a mention.  He had 16 homers at the All-Star break before fading badly down the stretch.  He's not going to win, but had a nice season nonetheless.

My pick: Craig Kimbrel-In a tight race with Freeman, I think Kimbrel's contributions to the Braves were more valuable.  Yes, he faded down the stretch, but that's Fredi Gonzalez's fault.  Kimbrel was so reliable all season, Gonzalez used him a little too much.  And the Braves probably wouldn't have been in a position to blow it in September if Kimbrel hadn't been lights out for the first five months of the season.  Freeman is second with Worley a distant third.

A Sad End

I've made my general disdain for college football well-known throughout the history of this blog.  So today is truly an exception in that I'm doing a college football post.  More specifically, I'm writing about the sad ending of the Joe Paterno Era at Penn State.  He was at the school for 46 years, yet this is how he goes out.  What's even worse, this is how he's going to be remembered.

The ending came swiftly and abruptly.  Personally, I think Joe Pa was scapegoated for something that wasn't at all his fault.  It's not Joe Paterno's fault that Jerry Sandusky is a pervert.  Is he completely blameless in this scandal?  Absolutely not!  But I also don't think he's anywhere near as responsible for everything as some people are making him out to be.  Could he have done more?  Yes.  But you're never going to be able to convince me that Joe Paterno turned a blind eye to what was going on, either.  I've never met the man, but he doesn't strike me as the type to put up with something as disgusting as that.  His guilt is more by association than anything else.

If it were up to me, Joe Paterno wouldn't have been fired immediately.  I would've let him finish out the season then "retire," which is what he "decided" to do on his own during the day on Wednesday.  He deserved that.  Joe Paterno has meant so much to Penn State University that he had earned the right to go out on his own terms.  In fact, he IS Penn State to so many people.

However, while I don't necessarily agree with it, I do see the point that a number of people made about Paterno's role in the scandal.  Penn State had no choice.  Whether he was directly involved or not, he's the biggest figure in this mess, so he was going to be the one that took the fall.  The fact that the Penn State Board of Directors has been trying to get rid of Paterno for years didn't help his case, either.  It's similar to when Bobby Knight was fired at Indiana.  Whether or not they wanted to let Knight go, they had to cut ties with him before things got any worse.  Penn State pretty clearly wanted to let Paterno go.  This finally gave them their reason.

But, like I said, the saddest part about all this (outside of those boys who were victimized by Sandusky, many of whom have never been the same again) is that Joe Paterno, one of the greatest coaches in college football history, will be remembered because of how he went out.  It didn't end on his terms.  He was fired.  He was fired because of sick actions by a depraved individual who happened to be a Penn State assistant coach.  It happened under his watch, so it was his "fault."  Nevermind all the good things he did in 46 years, one really bad thing is all it took to bring him down.

Instead, I'm going to choose to remember Joe Paterno for all those good things.  He came to Penn State in 1950 and took over as head coach in 1966.  In those 46 years, the most by any coach with one program in history, he won a record 409 games, including 24 bowl victories in 37 appearances.  The Nittany Lions won national championships (at least the college football version of such) in 1982 and 1986 and had five undefeated seasons.  (It was Penn State's undefeated 1994 team getting screwed out of the national championship that began my realization that college football is a complete joke, as well as my conscious decision to stop caring about college football at all as long as that ridiculous system is still in place.)  In addition, he sent so many guys to the NFL that you can't even begin to name them all (Penn State is nicknamed "Linebacker U" for a reason).  Perhaps most importantly, his players graduated.

Joe Paterno has been cleared of any legal wrongdoing (at least for now).  The criminal charges are reserved for Jerry Sandusky, who deserves to go away for a long time if these allegations prove to be true, as well as former AD Tim Curley and Penn State President Graham Spanier, who was fired along with Paterno on Wednesday.  But let's not forget that this isn't about any of them.  It's about these innocent kids who will never be the same because of the actions of one sick man.

Many fans are obviously upset.  That's always the case when a legend falls.  There are plenty of other fans who feel exactly the opposite.  They think Paterno got what he deserved.  My stance?  While not innocent, Joe Paterno is still one of the many victims in this scandal.  He shouldn't go out like this.

Penn State's fine season will continue, as will its football program.  But it's safe to say that it'll never be the same again.  Ask Indiana basketball about that one.  "Happy" Valley?  Not right now it isn't.

Week 10 Picks

We're already up to the Thursday night games.  I still don't know if that means the picks will be made earlier every week (or if I'll still do them on Saturday and just tell you whether or not I got Thursday right), but it does this week.  I also find it somewhat weird that 28 of the 32 teams have already had their byes, yet we're playing a full 16-game schedule this week and saving those remaining four byes until next week.  That doesn't make much sense to me.  Anyway, I digress.  On to the picks:

Raiders (4-4) at Chargers (4-4): San Diego-At the halfway point, there are three-way ties for first in both the AFC East and AFC West.  The AFC West is more interesting because Denver's just one game back.  That's thanks to the Raiders, who lost at home to the Broncos last week.  The Chargers really need to get back on track, too.  San Diego was 4-1 before visiting the Jets.  Now they've lost three straight, including that Monday night game they should've won in Kansas City.  Needless to say, this is an important game in the AFC West race.  NFL Network gets a good one for its first game of the year.  I think the Chargers are a better team, thus they're the pick.

Saints (6-3) at Falcons (5-3): New Orleans-The Saints are one of those teams that hasn't had their bye yet, and they enter this one with a half-game lead over Atlanta.  They meet again in New Orleans on a Monday night in Week 16, and that game could decide which one wins the division.  The Falcons have won three straight, including a victory over the Lions.  The Saints rebounded from that inexcusable loss to the Rams with a win over the Bucs last week.  This is a good matchup that I expect New Orleans to win.

Steelers (6-3) at Bengals (6-2): Pittsburgh-This week we finally get to find out if Cincinnati is actually good or if the Bengals' record is just a reflection of their easy early schedule (my theory).  Cincinnatti hasn't played either the Steelers or the Ravens yet, while Pittsburgh and Baltimore are done with each other.  Blowing that game on Sunday night really cost the Steelers.  Not only did it knock them out of first place, it gave the Ravens the tiebreaker.  Pittsburgh can't really afford another division loss.  I think the Steelers knock the Bengals back to reality.

Rams (1-7) at Browns (3-5): Cleveland-Little known fact: both of these teams actually started in Cleveland, and the Rams moving to Los Angeles is part of the reason the original Browns came into existence in the first place.  Sometimes the NFL gives us games like this one.  Is Cleveland OK with everybody?

Bills (5-3) at Cowboys (4-4): Buffalo-The Bills had a chance to take sole possession of first place in the AFC East last week, but lost at home to the Jets and are now stuck in a three-way tie.  This the first of three straight home games for Buffalo, while Dallas has this one, then visits archrival Washington before that Thanksgiving game against Miami that the NFL for some reason is going to make us watch (although, in fairness, this was the only other option for the Cowboys' Thanksgiving game and nobody knew the Bills would actually be good this year).  Both teams' playoff chances are definitely on the line this week.  I'm going with the Bills.

Jaguars (2-6) at Colts (0-9): Jacksonville-Now that the Dolphins somehow managed to screw up and get a win last week, the Colts are now the leaders in the Andrew Luck Sweepstakes.  With both games against Jacksonville and a matchup with the Panthers left on the schedule, I don't think they'll go winless, but in following my "pick against the Colts until they win" policy, Jacksonville's the pick.

Broncos (3-5) at Chiefs (4-4): Kansas City-Maybe going to Tim Tebow was the right move.  Since he took over as the starter, Denver has won a pair of road games, but lost its only home game.  They're on the road this week, which improves their chances.  But I'm still going with the Chiefs to rebound after last week's disaster against Miami.

Redskins (3-5) at Dolphins (1-7): Washington-Attention Rex Grossman.  This just in: the Redskins aren't going to win the NFC East.  I just wanted to clear that up.  With that being said, they're better than Miami.

Cardinals (2-6) at Eagles (3-5): Philadelphia-How much of a killer was that loss on Monday night for the Eagles?  At 3-5, it's going to be hard for them to make the playoffs and nearly impossible to win the division (they're three games behind the Giants, who beat them the first time).  The Eagles really can't afford to lose to the Cardinals at home.  And they won't.

Texans (6-3) at Buccaneers (4-4): Houston-This was one of the toughest picks to make this week.  Houston's probably going to run away with the AFC South and make the playoffs for the first time in their history.  The Bucs, meanwhile, need a win to keep pace with the Saints and Falcons (a loss drops them two back of the Atlanta-New Orleans winner).  Tampa Bay hasn't won since Week 6, while Houston has won three straight.  That's why I'm taking the Texans in a close one.

Titans (4-4) at Panthers (2-6): Tennessee-The Titans are the only team that actually has a chance of giving Houston a race in the AFC South.  Carolina is the only team that won't be in the race in the NFC South.  I'm taking Tennessee in one of this week's dud games.

Ravens (6-2) at Seahawks (2-6): Baltimore-After last week, I think Baltimore might be the best team in the AFC.  A loss to the Seahawks would be unacceptable.  But then again, the Giants lost (at home) to Seattle, and it doesn't seem to have that adverse of an effect on them.  The Ravens already laid their egg for this season, though, in that Monday night game against Jacksonville.  They'll take care of business in the Pacific Northwest.

Lions (6-2) at Bears (5-3): Detroit-The Bears jumped right back into the thick of the playoff race with last week's win over the Eagles.  Now they can make a move in the division with a win over the Lions.  Detroit, meanwhile, hasn't played either the Bears or the Packers yet, so this is an important test for them, too.  The Lions are coming off a bye, while the Bears are coming off a short week, having played on Monday night.  That's enough for me to like the Lions in a close one.

Giants (6-2) at 49ers (7-1): Giants-It's safe to say that the winner of the NFC West won't be 7-9 this year.  In fact, this matchup will probably determine which of these teams gets the other NFC bye (I don't think the 49ers will have any problems winning the NFC West).  It's nice to see a Giants-49ers game meaning something again.  I can totally see either team winning.  San Francisco already has signature wins over Philadelphia and Detroit, and is a blown lead and resulting overtime loss to Dallas away from being undefeated.  The Giants got their signature win last week in Foxboro.  FOX has a tremendous doubleheader game for the second straight week.  For no other reason than the fact I'm a Giants fan, I'm going with the Giants.

Patriots (5-3) at Jets (5-3): New England-Well, well, well.  What have we here?  The Patriots have actually lost back-to-back games for just the third time since 2003.  The Jets, who were 2-3 after a three-game losing streak, have now won three straight, including their first road win of the season last week in Buffalo.  As a result, they're tied for first place.  A Jets loss means their chances of winning the division, and thus hosting a playoff game, will be slim to none.  New England is in danger of not making the playoffs at all if they drop their third straight.  I know I said before they played the first time that I expected the Patriots and Jets to split this season, but I don't see Bradicheck losing three in a row.

Vikings (2-6) at Packers (8-0): Green Bay-Did the NFL think this Favre retirement was like all of the other ones when they set Vikings-Packers at Lambeau as a Monday night game?  I thought the first Packers loss might come last week in San Diego it didn't.  Now we've got to wait until either that Thanksgiving matchup at Detroit or the following week at the Giants.  In other words, the Packers aren't losing at home to woeful Minnesota.

Last Week: 6-8 (I know, it's embarrassing.  I'm doing worse than a 10-year-old girl making her picks by pulling the teams out of a hat.  I don't even know why I insist on making these picks public.)
Overall: 80-50 (Not terrible, but should be much better.)

Miscellaneous Musings

The NFL's in full swing.  College basketball season is fast approaching.  Baseball's awards are right around the corner (and so is free agency).  In other words, there's a lot of stuff going on in the world of sports.  Time for my thoughts on some of it:

• I have to admit, I've been suckered into ESPN's "live" coverage of the World Series of Poker.  It's not really live.  The Nevada Gaming Commission is making them do it on a 15-minute delay, but that's more live than some Olympic coverage, so I'm going to count it.  They did this over the summer when the main event was actually going on, and I thought it was really stupid.  Not seeing or being able to talk about the cards the players actually have really takes a lot away from televised poker.  Then the "live" coverage returned for the final table and, embarrassingly enough, I found myself watching it.  It's not even close to the same, but it's still addictive.
• The New York City Marathon was yesterday.  There's been talk that they want to extend it into a two-day event in the future.  I'm somewhat lukewarm about this idea.  I just can't envision some random schmo from Brooklyn who didn't actually "win" crossing the finish line first.  The only way I see a two-day marathon working is to separate the men's and women's events entirely.  Have the women go on Saturday and the men go on Sunday.  That way, the first person to cross the line each day is an actual winner of the race.
• I'm starting to rethink my position on the Colts drafting Andrew Luck.  I've been saying all along that they obviously don't need a quarterback (the fact that their quarterback's out is the main reason why they're in this position in the first place).  They really won't next season when Peyton's back.  But it wouldn't be a bad idea to draft Luck and have him apprentice behind a Hall of Famer for a couple years.  Just ask the Packers how well that plan can work out.  It could benefit Luck, too.  If he goes to Indy, not only does he get to learn behind Peyton, but he won't be in the position where he's starting from day one and automatically anointed as the franchise "savior."
• Am I the only person who's completely confused by what's going on in the NFL this season?  Other than the Packers, you have no idea who's going to win each week, let alone who the second-best team is.  (That's clearly been my problem with my picks this season.)   And then there are the teams that came out of nowhere like Cincinnati and Buffalo.  Behind Green Bay, the rest of my top five NFL power rankings is: 2. San Francisco, 3. Baltimore, 4. Detroit, 5. Giants.
• Tony Stewart has won four straight Sprint Cup races and is now just three points behind leader Carl Edwards with two races remaining.  I don't really have a preference one way or the other.  I'm just happy that it's finally going to be somebody other than Jimmie Johnson that wins the championship.
• David Stern and the NBA owners are still trying to convince themselves that there's going to be a labor deal in place that will still allow them to have a season.  The rest of us know that they're fooling themselves, so why don't they?  The players seem perfectly content to go without playing for the foreseeable future, which they should take as a sign.
• The Mets are moving in the fences at Citi Field.  Evidently they realized that the stadium is a little too big.  In the five games I've been to at Citi Field since it opened, I've seen a grand total of one home run, which didn't even go out (it hit the orange line on the top of the wall).  Bringing the fences in was necessary if they ever want a hitter to come play for the Mets.  The best part is that the "Mo's Zone," that stupid area in right field where the wall is 15 feet further back than it should be, will be eliminated.  What made the "Mo's Zone" even stupider is that there was an overhang that jutted out that same 15 feet, and if it hit the overhang, it was a homer.
• I think the fine institutions that make up the BCS conferences are done being selfish, greedy hypocrites (at least for this year).  The only school I'm letting off scott-free in all this conference-jumping is TCU, which is the only one that made its decision based on the best interest of all its student-athletes.  The West Virginia thing is the latest disgusting twist in this whole mess.  They're suing the Big East to get out early, claiming that they can't be held to the exit time frame that every Big East school agreed to when joining the conference.  All of these moves were exclusively about football, which we all already knew.  The worst part is that all of the travel these athletic departments will now be making all of their other student-athletes do will mean they'll rely on the football money even more.
• Call me blissfully ignorant, but I do think that Joe Paterno was being honest when he said he didn't know anything about these sexual assault allegations against the former Penn State assistant.  He saw something and reported it to the AD, which was his job.  If Paterno had known, that guy would've been fired long before he was.  He doesn't strike me as the type to turn a blind eye to that sort of thing.
• The term "all-star" was used very loosely for the MLB team that played five games in Taiwan.  Robinson Cano and Curtis Granderson were there, and so was Pablo Sandoval, but the rest of them certainly don't qualify as all-stars.  It was a bunch of random Marlins and Nationals, with the occasional Royal or Oriole thrown in.  The starting catcher was Drew Butera, who's Joe Mauer's backup in Minnesota.  I was watching one game where Kansas City's Felipe Paulino started, then was relieved by some completely random middle reliever from Washington who went a whopping 1-5 last season.

Week 9 Picks

It's hard to believe that we're already halfway through the football season, isn't it?  It's also hard to believe that we can't figure out who's the second-best team behind the Packers.  Is it the Steelers?  Is it the 49ers?  Is it the Lions?  Is it the Ravens?  Is it the Patriots?  We'll obviously start finding some of this stuff out as the season goes on, starting with this week, which boasts a couple of intriguing matchups.

Jets (4-3) at Bills (5-2): Buffalo-This game feels like it's almost a must-win for the Jets, who sit behind both the Bills and Patriots in the AFC East.  However, the Jets play both teams in the next two weeks, so they can definitely jump back in the race.  They're coming off their bye week, which was preceded by an important win over the Chargers.  However, the Jets are 0-3 on the road this season.  The Bills, meanwhile, look like a serious contender for the first time in years.  They've already beaten the Patriots, and a victory over the Jets will firmly establish them as a legitimate force to be reckoned with.  Circle the wagons.  The Bills are coming.

Seahawks (2-5) at Cowboys (3-4): Dallas-Dallas continued its usual M.O. of looking good one week then terrible the next in last Sunday night's loss to the Eagles.  The Seahawks, meanwhile, have scored 15 points in two games since beating the Giants.  The Cowboys get back to .500.

Falcons (4-3) at Colts (0-8): Atlanta-I seriously think Peyton Manning should be in the MVP discussion.  Yes, he hasn't played a game, but would the Colts be 0-8 if he was playing?  No.  They'd be the Colts.  But alas, they still haven't won.  Following my self-imposed rules, I'll continue picking against them until they do.

Dolphins (0-7) at Chiefs (4-3): Kansas City-The also-winless Dolphins might be the only team in football worse than the Colts right now.  Indy can at least blame injuries.  Miami is clueless.  Don't worry Dolphins fans, Andrew Luck is coming.  The Chiefs, meanwhile, barely resemble the team that got slaughtered by the Bills and Lions to start the season.  After that win over San Diego on Monday night, they're in a three-way tie for first in the AFC West.  This one's an easy pick.

Buccaneers (4-3) at Saints (5-3): New Orleans-These two played just three weeks ago in Tampa and the Bucs picked up a statement win.  New Orleans has a half-game lead in the NFC South standings and needs to win this one.  If the Bucs win, that'll give them a sweep of the season series, and, assuming the Lions get the first wild card, that tiebreaker could potentially cost the Saints come January.  New Orleans won't let that happen.  Especially at the Superdome.

49ers (6-1) at Redskins (3-4): San Francisco-After a fast start that saw them actually somehow sitting in first place in the NFC East, reality has begun to set in for the Redskins.  Last week in Toronto, a Mike Shanahan-coached team was shutout for the first time ever.  The 49ers haven't officially won the NFC West yet, but, let's face it, San Francisco's already playing for a first-round bye.  Whether or not they're for real is a question that will continue to persist (for the record, I think they ARE for real), but the Niners should move to 7-1 with another road win.

Browns (3-4) at Texans (5-3): Houston-First-place Houston continues to prove it's the team to beat in the AFC South.  The Browns, meanwhile, are the only team out of the race in the AFC North.  Cleveland doesn't have a favorable matchup this week, and the road's only going to get tougher for the Browns.  The Texans win at home ahead of their tough road game in Tampa next week.

Bengals (5-2) at Titans (4-3): Cincinnati-I was wrong about the Cincinnati Bengals.  Evidently they do know what they're doing.  This game is a definite toss-up that could go either way.  My gut tells me Cincinnati, so that's what I'm going with.

Broncos (2-5) at Raiders (4-3): Oakland-This battle in the AFC West is going to come down to the wire.  That means all three teams need to take care of business against Denver.  The Raiders have had two weeks to think about their 28-0 loss to Kansas City, but the bye week also gave Carson Palmer extra time to get familiar with Oakland's system.  The addition of T.J. Houshmandzadeh, one of his favorite receivers in Cincinnati, should help, too.  The Raiders win.

Giants (5-2) at Patriots (5-2): New England-The last time these two teams met, it was "One Giant Upset" over the undefeated Pats in Super Bowl XLII.  This year's Patriots are definitely flawed, especially on defense, as the Steelers exposed last week.  Meanwhile, the Giants barely escaped against a bad Dolphins team.  But, they're in first place and they've played better on the road this season.  However, I think I'm leaning in New England's direction.  There's a reason the Patriots haven't lost back-to-back games in a long time.  I also doubt Belichick's forgotten the Super Bowl.  Revenge could definitely come into play here.

Rams (1-6) at Cardinals (1-6): St. Louis-St. Louis somehow beat New Orleans last week.  Arizona somehow almost beat Baltimore last week.  Now these two bad teams get to play each other, meaning one has to win.  The NFC West at its finest.

Packers (7-0) at Chargers (4-3): San Diego-Once the Packers and Lions were the only two undefeated teams left, I started looking down both teams' schedules to see if it was possible for them to both be undefeated when they play on Thanksgiving.  That obviously won't happen, but while combing through Green Bay's schedule, I thought to myself that Week 9 at San Diego could be their first loss.  I don't know why, but I'm sticking with that feeling and taking the Chargers.  I think San Diego's the best team in the AFC West, and they certainly need to rebound after road losses to the Jets and Chiefs.  I'd also be willing to bet that to a certain extent FOX wishes Giants-Patriots was another weekend.  Going against that matchup is the only thing that prevented this one from being a yummy national game.

Ravens (5-2) at Steelers (6-2): Pittsburgh-Speaking of yummy national games, we get what's currently the best rivalry in the NFL on Sunday night.  The Steelers made a statement by beating the Patriots last week.  In fact, I think Pittsburgh is the second-best team in the NFL.  They take a half-game lead in the AFC North into their second meeting of the season with the archrival Ravens.  Don't think Pittsburgh's forgotten that drubbing they took in Baltimore in Week 1.  Since beating the Texans in Week 6, the Ravens laid an egg against the Jaguars before needing a huge comeback to barely survive against Arizona.  Maybe the Ravens were playing down to their competition and playing a good team will be good for them.  But the Steelers know that they need to win this one to avoid Baltimore automatically having the tiebreaker if they finish tied.  Plus, Pittsburgh's playing much better football now and is at home.  In typical Steelers-Ravens fashion, there'll be a lot of hard hits and a lot of penalties in a defensive struggle that someone wins by a field goal.  That team will be the Steelers, 17-14.

Bears (4-3) at Eagles (3-4): Philadelphia-Has a 3-4 record ever looked so good?  After starting 1-4, Philadelphia is finally starting to look like the team we all thought they would be.  Look out for the Eagles in the second half!  Chicago hasn't lost since the last time it played on Monday night, winning two straight before its bye week.  If the Bears have any shot at the playoffs, they need to collect as many non-division wins as they can.  But getting one in Philadelphia against an Eagles team that's finally clicking might be a tough task.

Last Week: 10-3
Season: 73-42

A Step In the Right Direction

Did you all enjoy my NBA preview the other day?  Ha ha.  Just kidding!  I do want to talk about some guys that will probably be in the NBA soon, though.  I'm of course talking about college basketball players.

The NCAA recently passed legislation that allows student-athletes to receive a stipend of up to $2,000 in addition to their scholarships.  Critics of this new rule claim that this is the beginning of the end of the NCAA as a strictly amateur organization.  Mind you, these are many of the same critics that argued it was unfair the student-athletes didn't receive any sort of compensation for their services other than a scholarship.  Their argument is: "Now that they're getting $2,000, what's to stop some schools from giving $5,000?"

For starters, that argument doesn't make any sense.  Whether or not they want to, schools can't give student-athletes more than $2,000 per year ($1,000 per semester) as a stipend.  The reason this rule was even discussed is because the value of a full scholarship doesn't cover the full cost of attending college.  It covers tuition, books and room & board, but not things like food, travel, etc.  As a result, student-athletes were still paying a significant amount out-of-pocket despite having a "full" scholarship.  (Just imagine how much out-of-pocket student-athletes on partial scholarships have to pay per semester.)  This is designed to be a remedy to that. 

$1,000 a semester isn't a lot, but it's enough.  In fact, it's roughly the same amount regular students receive in federal work study.  Nobody has a problem with that.  Most student-athletes don't have time to find work study jobs, let alone something off-campus.  As a result, there previously wasn't a way for them to do something as simple as order a pizza with there roommates or go out on a date.  All this is doing is making it so that student-athletes can enjoy the same college experience other students enjoy.

This isn't the end of amateurism as we know it.  It's a way to make an inherently unfair system a little bit fairer.  And just maybe, it'll help curb the blatant rules-breaking that has run amok among athletes at BCS schools lately.  I'm not condoning knowingly and deliberately breaking NCAA rules, but I'd be willing to bet (no pun intended) that many of the athletes who accepted "extra benefits" felt justified in doing so.  "If my school is making money off me and I can't even afford to pay my rent, why shouldn't I be allowed to have a piece of the pie?"  Especially with the size of these TV contracts that lead to all this disgusting conference-jumping.  It doesn't make it right, but you do kind of have to see their point.

The other big change involves the scholarship structure.  Previously, scholarships were one-year agreements that were renewable each year.  Now schools have the option of offering multi-year scholarships, going all the way to a full four-year commitment.  Furthermore, they can no longer be terminated based on performance alone.  Doing something stupid like getting arrested or flunking out of school are still valid reasons to be kicked off a team.  As they should be.  Point is, now schools will be more invested in these student-athletes, and these student-athletes will be more invested in the program.

Yes, the offering of a student-athlete stipend does open up a can of worms.  The NCAA didn't mandate these changes.  They just said that it's an option schools now have.  That obviously means the BCS schools will choose to utilize this new rule, while smaller schools that don't have the budget probably won't be able to afford it, since giving the football players a stipend means you have to give one to the women's soccer players and female gymnasts, too.  This could be a huge recruiting advantage (why go to Illinois when you can go to Michigan and get $2,000 in addition to your scholarship?), as well as possibly creating an even larger gap between the haves and have-nots of college sports.

Even with these new rules in place, there are still going to be shameless boosters that try to get around the system.  But I'm going to choose to look at the positive.  This gives student-athletes the chance to enjoy being college students.  Yes, some of the football and basketball players are going to make their millions when they leave college, but they aren't yet.  And they deserve the chance to be regular college students, too.