Coaches On the Hot Seat

We've reached the halfway point of the NFL season, which means teams are starting to sort themselves out.  Some teams have established themselves as legitimate Super Bowl contenders, while a bunch of unexpected playoff contenders have emerged.  There are the teams that aren't very good, but nobody thought they would be, and then there are others that thought they would be contenders, but aren't.

For those teams, a major second-half turnaround will be necessary in order to reach the playoffs.  And in some cases, that might be the only thing that saves their head coach's job.  There have been so many seasons that would be considered "disappointments" so far that all but a handful of coaches in the league could reasonably be viewed as on the hot seat.  There are definitely some that are more on the hot seat than others.  Here are some prime candidates to get their resumes ready if they don't get their season turned around, ranked in order of whose job I think is most in jeopardy.

• Andy Reid, Eagles-Philadelphia was a chic preseason Super Bowl pick last season, but got off to a terrible start before rebounding to finish 8-8.  The Eagles were expected to be right up there again this season, but have again gotten off to a rough start.  Eagles fans got spoiled when Reid was taking them to the NFC Championship Game every year, but I'm starting to agree with them that he's worn out his welcome in Philadelphia.  It might be time for a change in Philly.  Reid's the longest-tenured coach in the league.  For that tenure to continue next season, I think the Eagles will have to make the playoffs.
• Norv Turner, Chargers-The Chargers do the same thing every year.  It involves either a slow start followed by a late-season surge that leads to them just missing the playoffs or a great start followed by a terrible finish, which yields the same result.  Either way, you have to blame it on the coaching at some point.  They play in the AFC West, which is one of the easiest divisions in the league, and have an elite quarterback in Phillip Rivers.  There's no logical reason why the Chargers continue having the same problems just getting into the playoffs year after year.  If they miss out again, Turner's done in San Diego.
• Jason Garrett, Cowboys-When Jerry Jones hired Jason Garrett, it looked like a genuis move.  He locked up one of the best young coaches in the NFL who seemed destined to be a great NFL head coach.  They went 5-3 under Garrett in the second half of the 2010 season and led the division for a good portion of the season last year, but lost twice to the Giants in December, ended up 8-8 and missed the playoffs.  Now he's in his second full season, and the Cowboys are one of the most unpredictable teams in football.  They've still got time to turn things around and make a playoff run.  If they don't, it might be sayonara to Jason Garrett.  Jerry Jones doesn't like missing the playoffs three years in a row.
• Rex Ryan, Jets-If you're going to run your mouth, you'd better be able to back it up. Rex Ryan is finding that out the hard way. For a team that's so desperate for attention, a loudmouthed coach isn't necessarily a bad thing. But when that team thinks it's better than it is, that loudmouthed coach has to shoulder a good portion of the blame. The Jets controlled their own playoff fate lasat season...until they got crushed by the Eagles, Giants and Dolphins in their final three games to end up on the outside looking in. Then in the offseason they made that "talk about us please" trade for Tim Tebow and acted as if having two quarterbacks who think they should be starting was somehow a good idea. Ryan insisted he'd make it work. It hasn't. The Jets are 3-5. They're not going to make the playoffs. And Woody Johnson's probably going to blame Rex Ryan.

Those are the four coaches I think are most likely to be looking for new jobs in the offseason.  Here are a few others who might not necessarily be gone at the end of the season, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were.

• Ron Rivera, Panthers-I know that Ron Rivera's only been the Panthers' coach for two seasons.  But his tenure in Carolina has been rocky to say the least.  Things looked encouraging last year.  They went a solid 6-10 and Cam Newton won Offensive Rookie of the Year.  All signs pointed towards a competitive 2012 season.  Well, that hasn't happened so far.  The Panthers are 1-6 and a mess.  Yes, they're young.  But Newton has taken a step backwards and that team is full of dysfunction.  The only way to change the culture might be to clean house.
• Pat Shurmur, Browns-Like Rivera, Shurmur's in just his second year as the Browns' head coach.  The lockout ruined any chance the Browns had at being competitive last year and they ended up just 4-12 (it didn't help that the other three teams in the AFC North all made the playoffs) while ranking towards the bottom of the league in virtually every category.  This season hasn't started much better.  The Browns lost their first five games, and it looks like another last place finish is a virtual certainty.  This is Mike Holmgren's final year with Cleveland, and the new owners and GM might want to bring in their own guy.
• Marvin Lewis, Bengals-I don't think Marvin Lewis' job is in jeopardy, but the lack of consistency during his tenure has to be getting frustrating for Bengals ownership.  Cincinnati has made the playoffs three times in 10 years under Lewis, but never in back-to-back years.  Their success seems to come in cycles, but how many cycles do you go through just to lose a wild card game once every couple years?  He's the best coach for that team and they know it.  I doubt they'll look to make a change, but Lewis does have to give some sort of indication that the Bengals will actually be able to beat the Ravens and Steelers at some point soon.

Lions Head Coach Jim Schwartz gets a mulligan because of last season, and Romeo Crennel and Mike Mularkey are both in their first year, so they can't be completely blamed for Kansas City and Jacksonville's struggles.  Neither one of those teams is any good.  That's a fact.  Likewise, however bad the Saints' record ends up, that can be blamed on their unique situation more than anything else.  Everyone knows Sean Payton is back next season so what they do this year doesn't really count.

Suggestions for a Lockout-Shortened NHL Schedule

Mr. Lockout and the NHL owners have made it pretty clear that they're committed to shooting themselves in the foot by continuing Lockout 2.0.  The offer that they made to the players a few weeks ago had plans for a full 82-game season starting on Nov. 2, but the players rejected it, and the owners rejected all three of their counteroffers.  As a result, the owners pulled the original proposal off the table, essentially bringing us back to square one.  It also means an 82-game season is going to be virtually impossible.

In response to their self-imposed deadline of Oct. 26 not being met, Mr. Lockout cancelled all games for November.  The All-Star Game and Winter Classic are still up in the air, but it looks like there's no way they'll be able to salvage those two events.  So, after the record revenues that have been brought in since the 2004-05 lockout, the owners are voluntarily knocking two months of games off the schedule, as well as probably the league's two marquee events.  (I also found it a bit ridiculous that Mr. Commissioner showed up a the press conference announcing the Islanders' move to Brooklyn, something predicted on this blog a few months ago, without addressing the complete hypocricy of the fact that there are currently no games to be played.  Not on Long Island.  Not in Brooklyn.  Not anywhere else.)

However, I still believe there's going to be some sort of abbreviated NHL season this year.  The owners can't possibly be stupid enough to cancel the season twice in eight years, can they?  Anyway, the length of any abbreviated season will really depend on when a deal is reached and how soon they'd realistically be able to start once they get to that point.  (Keep in mind, a lot of players are currently playing in Europe.)

When they played a shortened season due to a lockout in 1995, it was 48 games, just over half of a normal season.  Then they had a full playoffs.  That proved to be way too few games.  If you've got half the teams in each conference going to the playoffs, you need those extra games for the better teams to separate themselves from the also-rans.  Sure, even with an 82-game schedule you get the lower-seeded team that gets hot and makes a Stanley Cup run (like the reigning champion Kings), but you don't get good teams left out of the playoffs, either.  It's entirely possible that would happen in a shorter season.

I think the NHL needs to look towards the NBA for how to set up its condensed schedule.  I'm amazed that the NBA managed to lose only 16 games per team last season, and most people who actually care agreed that the 66-game schedule might've even worked out better.  You can't ultra-condense it that same way in hockey, where the physical toll is too much to play three straight nights or some of the other crazy stuff the NBA did last year, but that's still a good number to shoot for.  And one that's doable depending on when the NHL season actually begins.

Again, it all depends on when they start, but the simplest thing for the NHL to do might be to shoot for a 64-game schedule.  That can be achieved without having to adjust each team's schedule too drastically.  Under the league's current schedule format, each team plays 64 intraconference games and 18 interconference games.  All that would change for them to play a 64-game season would be the elimination of those interconference games.  (Since Red Wings-Maple Leafs is interconference, there would be no Winter Classic under this scenario.)

64 games (six against each team in your division, four against the other 10 in your conference) seems to be the easiest schedule.  But that would probably only work if the season starts sometime in December.  If the lockout stretches into 2013, they'd have to chop even more games off the schedule.  That's what happened in 1994-95, which is why they played 48 games.  Again, I think that's too few, but it's also the minimum the NHL would be able to get away with.

Should the lockout extend into January, there are two numbers that are realistic: 50 and 54.  How'd I come up with those numbers?  I got 54 by simply dropping the games other the other divisions in your conference from four to three, while 50 is dropping those 10, plus one against each of your four division opponents.  If they want to save the Winter Classic, I can also see some sort of unbalanced option with a home-and-home against a team from the other conference, but in order to preserve the integrity of the regular season, that's probably not too feasible.  It also wouldn't be practical for travel reasons, so I don't recommend having any interconference games.

They'd have to start in early January to get 54 games in, while a 50-game schedule would give them another week or two to play with, meaning that mid-January is the latest the NHL would be able to start in order to have any sort of a meaningful regular season.  For the sake of everyone, I hope they're able to salvage at least that much.

NFL Week 8 Picks

We're almost at the halfway point in the NFL, but I've been so preoccupied with baseball lately that I completely forgot there was a game on Thursday night until like 12:30 when I was watching World Series postgame and went, "Wait, there was a football game tonight."  As a result, I missed the Tampa Bay Bucs doing their usual once-a-year random high-scoring road win over a good team thing.  So, I'm off to an 0-1 start to Week 8 and officially eliminated from my survival pick 'em league.  Oh well, I prefer the straight pick 'em anyway.

Panthers (1-5) at Bears (5-1): Chicago-I missed the Bears' Monday-night win over Detroit because of the NLCS, but I'm not at all surprised to see that Chicago allowed just one measly touchdown in that game.  I've got the Bears just behind the Falcons as the second-best team in the NFC.  Yes, I think they're that good.  The Panthers, on the other hand, are a complete mess.  I don't even think they have a clue what's going on.  They won't win in Chicago.

Chargers (3-3) at Browns (1-6): San Diego-San Diego had last weekend off to think about that Monday-night collapse against the Broncos two weeks ago.  With a win there, the Chargers could've taken complete control of the AFC West.  As it is now, though, they're part of that massive group of 3-3 teams.  San Diego was 3-1 before back-to-back primetime losses.  Fortunately for them, a game agaisnt Cleveland won't be in primetime.  I think the Chargers win it.

Seahawks ("4-3") at Lions (2-4): Seattle-I still can't decide if I think Seattle's good.  Every time I think I know what the Seahawks are going to do, they do the exact opposite.  This week they take on a Lions team that really needs a win.  I don't think they get one, though.  Even though they lost a game they should've won in St. Louis earlier this season, I'm going with the Seahawks.

Jaguars (1-5) at Packers ("4-3"): Green Bay-It took a little while, but it looks like the Packers have finally turned the corner.  It was probably that game two weeks ago when they crushed the Texans that did it.  Green Bay followed up that victory with a win over the Rams.  A not-very-good Jaguars team coming to Lambeau shouldn't be a problem, either.

Colts (3-3) at Titans (3-4): Indianapolis-This game is tough to call, and the winner has the upper-hand in the battle to finish second behind the Texans.  After beating the Packers, Indianapolis got thumped by the Jets, then barely beat Cleveland last week.  The Titans, meanwhile, have won two straight.to go from 1-4 to 3-4.  Since the game's in Nashville, Tennessee is favored, but I'll take Indianapolis in a close one.

Patriots (4-3) vs. Rams (3-4): New England-The NFL's annual London game brings the Patriots and Rams across the pond for a matchup that's not really too compelling.  New England showed last week that it's still the team to beat in the AFC East.  And with the Ravens and Texans both off, they're teh only AFC team that's above .500 that's playing this week.  I'm sure it's an inconvenience to go to London, but the Patriots should end their win-loss-win-loss cycle heading into their bye.  I guarantee this game won't be anywhere near as good as that incredible USA-Canada women's soccer semifinal in the same stadium during the Olympics.

Dolphins (3-3) at Jets (3-4): Jets-The Jets won the first meeting between these two in overtime back in Week 3.  I watched that game against the Patriots last week, and I'm still not really sure how New England won.  Miami had a pair of close wins against bad teams heading into its bye last week.  As dysfunctional as the team is, the Jets are better than the Dolphins.  I think they finish off the season sweep of Miami.

Falcons (6-0) at Eagles (3-3): Atlanta-With its undefeated record on the line, Atlanta is a road underdog in Philadelphia this week.  The Falcons already have a stranglehold on the NFC South, and they look to continue the best start in franchise history.  The Eagles, who were also off last week, haven't won since they beat the Giants in Week 4.  Ordinarily I'd think Philadelphia has a great shot to knock off Atlanta, but I'm not really sure why the Eagles are favored in this one.  The Falcons stay undefeated.

Redskins (3-4) at Steelers (3-3): Pittsburgh-The RG3 show heads to Pittsburgh for a matchup with a Steelers team that picked up a huge win in Cincinnati last week.  The Steelers still have a shot in the AFC North, and a win would put them just one game behind the Ravens in the standings.  The Redskins, I think, have learned what the reality of Robert Griffin III is going to be.  Their games will be a lot closer, but the better teams will still find a way in the end.  It should be no different this week.  Steelers win.

Raiders (2-4) at Chiefs (1-5): Oakland-Remember when people looked forward to Raiders-Chiefs games because they were absolute wars between two good teams.  Now, the fact that they hate each other is the only thing that makes Raiders-Chiefs games somewhat entertaining.  Kansas City is probably the worst team in football.  They haven't had the lead all season, yet somehow have a win (on a last-second overtime field goal in New Orleans).  The Raiders are less bad, which is the same thing I said last week when they played the Jaguars.  Whatever works.  A win's a win.

Giants (5-2) at Cowboys (3-3): Giants-Doesn't that season opener between these two seem like it was forever ago?  Well, the Cowboys won that game, which puts them in an excellent position in the division race should they also take the rematch.  This Giants team is vastly different than the one Dallas saw in Week 1, though.  They've won three straight and will take complete control of the NFC East with a win.  It should also be noted that the Giants have never lost in Cowboys Stadium.  That's just a small note, but another one in the Giants' favor.  They're the better team, and they should win.  (Sidebar, FOX is so excited to finally have a Giants-Cowboys game after NBC had the last three that it's not just the national game, it's FOX's only late game before the other Giants play the Tigers in Game 4 of the World Series.)

Saints (2-4) at Broncos (3-3): Denver-Peyton's Magical Mystery Tour of national games to start the season continues with a Sunday-night matchup against New Orleans that the NFL shrewdly scheduled against Game 4 of the World Series.  New Orleans just played a Sunday night game a couple weeks ago, and that's when the Saints finally got off their shneid with a win over the Chargers.  Now that Joe Vitt's suspension is over, New Orleans will have some semblance of stability for the rest of the season, even though they continually insist on letting the embarrassment of Bountygate drag on.  I picked against New Orleans last week, mainly because I really wanted them to lose, and it ended up being my only loss of the week.  But in Peyton's last game, he proved he's still got plenty left in leading that ridiculous 24-point comeback in San Diego.  This should be one heck of a matchup, but the fact that it's in Denver has me leaning Broncos.

49ers (5-2) at Cardinals (4-3): San Francisco-Remember when Arizona started the season 4-0?  Yeah, I don't either.  They've lost three straight since, and in the interim, the 49ers have seized control of the NFC West once again.  Although, the Cardinals would technically be the division leaders with a win on Monday night.  Don't count on it.  Monday might be a banner night in the Bay Area.  They've got the 49ers in the Monday night game, and the Giants could theoretically clinch their second World Series title in three years at the same time.  I feel somewhat bad for the San Francisco fans who'll have to decide which to watch.  (I'm sure they're hoping for a Giants sweep so they won't have to worry about Monday night.)

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 12-1
Overall: 71-34

Ranking the Commissioners

With today's news that David Stern will retire as NBA commissioner in 2014, ESPN.com conducted a SportsNation poll question asking which of the four current major league commissioners was teh best.  Not surprisingly, Bud Selig was the winner.  I'm not surprised because I agree.  Even though I sometimes criticize him, I think that Bud Selig is without question the best active commissioner.  It's not even close.

The most obvious reason why Selig runs circles around Goodell, Stern and Bettman is the simple fact that there have been three lockouts in three different sports over the last year and a half.  The only sport that hasn't?  Major League Baseball.  The owners and players negotiated a new CBA a few years ago that guarantees more than 20 years of labor peace since the strike that infamously cancelled the 1994 World Series.  It's amazing to think that Baseball, the sport that used to be the most notorious for labor strife, has become the most stable of the four.

The new poster child for labor unrest is the NHL, where Mr. Lockout has presided over four work stoppages in his tenure.  The 1994 baseball strike is nothing compared to the 2004-05 lockout that wiped out the entire NHL season.  That lockout was all about changing the NHL's entire business model.  For the most part, fans understood that.  The fans came back and the product was better than ever.  You'd think Mr. Lockout and the owners would've learned from that.  Evidently not.  Because we're on the verge of Labor Armageddon again.  And it should be noted that the NHL's immediate course of action every time the CBA expires is to lock out the players.  That's no way to do business.

Ranking just ahead of Mr. Lockout is Mr. Brilliant Commissioner himself, Roger Baddell.  In the past two years, the NFL has had two different lockouts--one of the players, one of the officials.  The lockout of the players never should've happened.  The two sides couldn't agree on how to split billions of dollars in revenue.  That was the only reason for it.  But the referee lockout was even more stupid.  They easily could've come to an agreement during the offseason, but the NFL stubbornly insisted that the referees would cave.  As a result, we got three weeks of games played with replacement refs, which completely compromised the integrity of the game.

Goodell's biggest problem, though, is that he's a hypocrite.  He talks about the integrity of the game, yet locks out the officials and brings in underqualified replacements.  But the player safety thing is where he's really two-faced.  The NFL is cracking down on helmet-to-helmet hits and the same time they're facing a lawsuit from retired players about the long-term effects of concussions.  And let's not forget the additional Thursday night games and the insistence to eventually go to an 18-game schedule, neither of which is in the best interest of the players.  Then there's Bountygate, which has been an embarrassment for all involved.  (Sidebar, the Saints players really need to just serve their suspensions and get over it.  The story has gotten old, and proloning the process with all these continued appeals isn't making anybody look any better.)

David Stern, honestly, I don't have any real issues with.  He's done a lot of good for the game of basketball, and I'm actually pretty impressed that they were able to play a 66-game season last year when it looked like they were going to lose an entire year just like the NHL did.  While I think that deal was rushed because Stern was waaaaaaaay too worried about losing his beloved Christmas games, he showed the initiative to get it done.  I expect another NBA lockout once the current CBA expires, though.  Mostly, I think David Stern's been around too long.  He seems to understand that, too, and I have no doubt it entered his mind when he was thinking about retiring.

Bud Selig is also going to retire in 2014 after a career as one of the most influential commissioners baseball has ever seen.  Like them or not, all of the changes in the sport over the past two decades have been institued under Bud Selig's watch (most of them were actually his idea), and they're all here to stay.  A few examples: Interleague play.  The wild card.  The second wild card.  The All-Star Game determining home field advantage in the World Series.  The rule that states all playoff games have to go a full nine innings once they start.  The Astros switching leagues, giving the AL and NL 15 teams apiece and allowing for a balanced schedule within each division.  The implementation of a drug-testing policy.  More than 20 years of labor peace.  All of these will be part of Bud Selig's legacy.

Whether or not you agree with all he's done, there's no disputing the fact that Bud Selig has done more good than bad for Major League Baseball.  And when he leaves office, the game will be better off than it was when he became commissioner.  Throw in the fact that he's avoided even a single work stoppage at a time when lockouts in sports have become all too common, and you've got the best active commissioner in the four major leagues.

Tigers vs. Giants

So, after an incredible year of baseball playoffs where we've seen 33 of a possible 36 games played through the first three rounds, we arrive at a World Series between the Tigers and the Giants.  Who could've predicted that it would be these two teams?  Oh, wait.  That's right.  I did a month ago.  Although, I certainly didn't see the way they both arrived at the Fall Classic coming.

We've got an old-school World Series between two teams that, despite their storied histories, have never faced off in the Fall Classic.  (They've played just four series in Interleague Play.)  And while some critics might argue that these aren't the best two teams in baseball, they have been the two best over the past few weeks.  They both deserve to be here.  The Tigers' 88 wins, only the seventh-most in the American League, are irrelevant.  Nobody can tell me they didn't think Detroit had all the makings of a World Series team.  And San Francisco was my preseason NL pennant winner, so you know where I stand on the Giants.

What the Giants have done has been simply amazing.  How do you end up in a situation where you have to play six elimination games in one playoff year, let alone winning them all?!  One of the reasons I was so confident in San Francisco is because of that balanced offense, but it was the pitching more than anything that got them by the Cardinals.  Starting with Barry Zito's Game 5 shutout, San Francisco outscored St. Louis 20-1 over the final three games of the NLCS.  If the Giants' offense can get going and the rotation stays sharp, I like San Francisco's chances to win a second World Series in three years.

Pitching has also been the Tigers' main weapon this postseason.  Sure, the Yankee offense was anemic during the ALCS, but Detroit pitching had as much to do with that as anything else.  The Tigers have the best pitcher in the game, a tremendous playoff pitcher in Doug Fister, and Max Scherzer, who ranked only behind Verlander in strikeouts this season.  It also seems like they figured out the bullpen.  Phil Coke closing worked against the Yankees, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him in that spot again in the World Series.  And we know they're gonna hit.

The Tigers had an incredible amount of time off before the 2006 World Series, and proceeded to not play very well against St. Louis.  Will a similar layoff hurt Detroit again this time?  I don't think so.  The break may quiet the bats a little bit, but it also gave them a chance to line up their pitching.  Verlander will be pitching Game 1 on a week of rest, and you know he's gotta be eager to atone for his performance in the All-Star Game, which resulted in the Tigers starting this series on the road, as well as 2006, when he went 0-2, including a loss in the clinching Game 5.

Speaking of the All-Star Game, the last time the winning and losing pitchers in the All-Star Game's teams ended up meeting in that year's World Series wasn't that long ago.  It was 2008, when the Rays' Scott Kazmir and the Phillies' Brad Lidge got the decision in that 15-inning classic at the Old Yankee Stadium.  The last time both All-Star Game starters ended up in the World Series was 2001, when Roger Clemens (Yankees) and Randy Johnson (Diamondbacks) started the Midsummer Classic in Seattle.

But the Giants had to use their ace, All-Star Game starter and winner Matt Cain in Game 7 of the NLCS, which means he won't be available until Game 4.  And the Giants' second-best pitcher Ryan Vogelsong won't go until Game 3.  So, if this series goes seven games, it'll be either Cain on three-days' rest or Vogelsong.  That's where I think Detroit has a major advantage.  Even if the series only goes five, Verlander is guaranteed to go twice.  And he'd likely be available out of the bullpen in a potential Game 7, as well.

Bullpen-wise, we all know the Tigers have had some problems.  That's where Detroit has been the weakest during the playoffs.  But that's mainly because of two culprits--Jose Valverde and Joaquin Benoit.  It'll be interesting to see how Jim Leyland handles his bullpen in the World Series.  The Giants' bullpen has been tremendous, though.  And it's only bolstered by the fact that Tim Lincecum has sucked enough as a starter that he's the long reliever.  The other freak of nature on that team is left to act weird in the dugout, but his replacement, Sergio Romo, has been lights-out.  And the Giants have three lefties, which means Prince Fielder's at-bats against right-handers in the World Series will be limited to Matt Cain and Ryan Vogelsong.  If this becomes a battle of the bullpens (which I don't think it will), it's advantage Giants.

Don't worry, I'm not forgetting about the lineups.  Both teams have the likely MVP anchoring a potent offense.  Outside of NLCS MVP Marco Scutaro and Pablo Sandoval, who's nothing like the player who was benched during the World Series two years ago, the Giants didn't really hit at all during the NLCS.  That includes Buster Posey, the NL batting champion.  If Posey, Hunter Pence and Angel Pagan get going, look out.  The Giants also aren't at that much of a disadvantage when the series shifts to Detroit.  They can simply plug Aubrey Huff into that DH spot.

Detroit losing the DH in San Francisco could be interesting, though.  With Victor Martinez injured, ALCS MVP Delmon Young has DHed most of the year.  But they'll have to stick him in left field for Games 1 and 2, and since it'll be two lefties (Zito and Bumgarner) going for the Giants, that means Avisail Garcia will probably start in right and Andy Dirks will end up on the bench.  Dirks is a better hitter than Garcia and, obviously, a much better fielder than Young, so Detroit's going to be hurt both offensively and defensively by not having the DH.  It's something they have to do, though, because that lineup is ultra-scary with Young in it and nowhere near as intimidating without him.

So, how do I see this World Series playing out?  I don't think either pitching staff will be as dominant as it was in the LCS.  However, I think Detroit's extra time off in this crazy ultra-condensed playoff year will give the Tigers a slight advantage.  They've got the better lineup and the benefit of two Justin Verlander starts.  There isn't much separating these teams.  It'll be the little things that win this series.  Even though the Giants don't seem capable of losing, especially once their backs are against the wall, the Tigers have been the best team in baseball over the last six weeks.  I see Detroit getting those little things done and winning its first World Series title since 1984.  I'll say Tigers in six.

NFL Week 7 Picks

Well, last week sure was rough, wasn't it?  As I try to recover from my miserable 5-9 performance, I take solace in two things: 1. Everybody else had a terrible week, too; and 2. Like the Cleveland Browns, my fantasy team recovered from an 0-5 start to pick up its first victory of the season.  Of course, that likely wouldn't have been possible had Peyton not been Peyton on Monday night, but whatever works. 

And, since I don't utilize the spread in my picks, Jim Harbaugh deciding not to take the safety on Thursday night had no bearing on the bearing of the game.  So, I'm off to a 1-0 start in the shortest week of the year.  With six byes, there are only 13 games this week.  One down, 12 to go.

Titans (2-4) at Bills (3-3): Tennessee-I lost with both of these teams last week.  I saw about 30 seconds of the Titans-Steelers game last week.  Which was enough, since it was the last 30 seconds.  And I totally didn't see the Bills winning in Arizona coming at all.  Not after they got thoroughly dismantled by the Patriots and 49ers.  This week, Buffalo's favored at home.  For some reason, I see Tennessee winning, though.

Browns (1-5) at Colts (2-3): Indianapolis-There are only 13 games this week, and we're stuck with this one?  Cleveland finally got its first win last week, while the Andrew Lucks were the recipients of a beatdown by the Jets.  Neither team is good, but one has to win.  Indianapolis?  Who cares?

Packers (3-3) at Rams (3-3): Green Bay-I'll give the Packers a lot of credit.  Last week's game was really a must-win, and they delivered their best performance of the year against what was the last remaining undefeated team in the AFC.  Green Bay may have finally recovered from its shaky start, but the Packers have done the whole loss-win-loss-win-loss-win thing, which means they're in line for a loss if that trend continues.  I think they've righted the ship, though.  In St. Louis this game will be closer than it probably should be, but the Packers should win.

Cardinals (4-2) at Vikings (4-2): Minnesota-Who would've thought that both of these teams would have winning records at the time of this meeting?  They're both coming off losses, though.  And they both need a win this week to keep place with the first-place Bears and 49ers.  The Cardinals don't always play well when they travel east.  Even though Minnesota's in the Central Time Zone, I still think Arizona will be somewhat slowed by the 1:00 start.  As a result, I'm going with the Vikings.

Redskins (3-3) at Giants (4-2): Giants-The Redskins won five games last year, two of which were against the Super Bowl Champions.  I'm still not really sure how that happened.  Both of the Giants' losses this season have come in division games, but there's no way they forget those two matchups with Washington last year.  That, combined with last week's incredibly impressive showing in San Francisco, make me pretty confident in a Giants pick.

Saints (1-4) at Buccaneers (2-3): Tampa Bay-As the Saints players continue to refuse to let Bountygate go, we get the added pleasure of Jonathan Vilma, the Ringleader himself, being allowed to play one game before Paul Tagliabue (hopefully) reinstates his season-long suspension.  This is also the last game that Interim Head Coach Joe Vitt will miss as a result of his suspension.  I already didn't like the Saints, but the fact that Vilma's going to play makes me want Tampa Bay to win so much more.

Cowboys (2-3) at Panthers (1-4): Dallas-Since this is Denver's bye week and, as a result, my fantasy team doesn't have Peyton, I need Cam Newton to have a big game against the Cowboys defense.  Even if he does, I'm not sure Carolina can pull off a victory.  The last-place Cowboys are one of the biggest enigmas in football, but they looked great last week, when they probably should've beaten a Ravens team that's one of the best in the AFC.  I think Dallas pulls this one out.

Ravens (5-1) at Texans (5-1): Houston-There are two teams in the AFC that are above .500, so of course they're playing against each other this week.  This playoff rematch could easily be a playoff preview, as well.  The Ravens might've beaten the Cowboys last week, but they sure paid the price with not one, but two season-ending injuries on defense.  The good news is that Joe Flacco and Ray Rice now have a chance to prove they're elite players.  The Texans, meanwhile, suffered their first loss of the season last week after running into that buzzsaw of a desperate Packers team.  These are the two best teams in the AFC, and this should be a hell of a matchup.  I'll have to see the Ravens play before I can make any decisions about their new-look defense, but Houston's not the team to debut it against.  Especially in Houston.

Jaguars (1-4) at Raiders (1-4): Oakland-...And then there's this.  We not only have the two best teams in the AFC playing each other this week, we've also got two of the worst teams in the AFC playing each other.  (Jaguars-Raiders and Browns-Colts in the same week!  Thank You NFL!)  In a recent Sports Illustrated poll, Maurice Jones-Drew was rated the second-most underrated player in the NFL.  Really?  I think Jones-Drew is incredibly overrated.  Whatever.  I don't care about this game at all, and it will have absolutely no bearing on the rest of the season.  The Raiders are slightly less bad.

Jets (3-3) at Patriots (3-3): New England-The three-way tie atop the AFC East is definitely going to get broken!  The Jets are technically in first place since they're 2-0 in the division, and they actually showed up for a non-division game against former division team Indianapolis last week.  The Patriots haven't been their usual selves this season.  They've already lost to Arizona and Seattle, and they're doing that same alternating wins and losses thing the Packers have done this season.  Since they lost last week, that would mean New England's in line for a win this week.  I'm taking the Patriots for two other reasons, though.  They own their division games, especially against the Jets.  And the Jets apparently plan on using Tebow at running back this week.  As a result, I refuse to take the Jets seriously.

Steelers (2-3) at Bengals (3-3): Pittsburgh-Whodathunk that Pittsburgh would be below .500 after five games?  After that shocking loss in Nashville last week, the Steelers face a must-win in Cincinnati if they have any hope of keeping pace with the Ravens.  The Steelers have been killed by injuries this season, and they looked spent at the end of the Titans game.  The long break that follows the short week should serve them well.  A motivated Packers team played its best game of the year on Sunday night last week.  I expect to see the same from a motivated Steelers team this Sunday night.

Lions (2-3) at Bears (4-1): Chicago-The Tigers are in the World Series.  Detroit fans at least have that to celebrate.  Because the Lions' 2012 season hasn't exactly gone according to plan.  Playing the division-rival Bears on Monday night won't do much to cure what ails them, either.  The Bears just played on Monday night three weeks ago, when they spanked the Cowboys from Arlington to Dallas and back again.  Then they went to Jacksonville and did what you'd expect a good team to do to the Jaguars.  Then they had a bye.  I've been impressed with the Chicago Bears all season, and I don't see them losing to the Lions at home.

Last Week: 5-9
This Week: 1-0
Season: 60-32

A (Rod) Big Decision to Make

So, the Yankees' season won't end tonight.  Thanks to rain in the Detroit area (despite it not actually raining), the Yankees live to play another day.  But whenever their season inevitably ends, be it Thursday, Friday, this weekend, or, if a miracle happens, after the World Series, they're sooner or later going to have to deal with the elephant in the room.  The Root of All Evil in Yankees Universe.  The reason nobody on the team is hitting.  Alex Rodriguez.

I've already made my feelings on A-Rod being the Yankees' designated whipping boy known.  I clearly don't think it's fair that he's being scapegoated for the struggles of the entire team.  Nor do I think it makes any sense for Joe Girardi to say A-Rod's absence from the lineup for Game 5 against Baltimore and Games 3-4 against Detroit was based on "performance," yet he was replaced by Eric Chavez, a guy who has a grand total of ZERO hits in the entire postseason.  Or that he benched A-Rod, but kept the equally inept Robinson Cano, Curtis Granderson and (until Tuesday) Nick Swisher in the lineup.  A-Rod's being singled out for no good reason.  If you want to bench him because he's not hitting, you've got to bench the other guys, too.  (Never mind that when he was out with a broken hand during the regular season, Girardi blamed the Yankees' struggles on A-Rod's not being in the lineup.)

I understand why A-Rod's an easy target for Yankees brass and fans.  He makes $30 million a year.  He's expected to produce in the postseason.  Likewise, he's not a very likeable player, which makes it much easier for the fans to turn on him.  But he's also 37 years old.  Maybe it's possible that the A-Rod who hit 30 home runs and had 120 RBIs a year is the A-Rod of the past.  But you know what?  He's still a very productive player.  One that shouldn't be relegated to a $30 million-a-year cheerleader.

And you know something else?  He's got five years left on his contract.  Are we going to go through this every October until 2017 (when A-Rod will be 42)?  This same A-Rod drama every October has worn thin. Yankees fans are as sick of it as the organization has to be.  He's either one of your key guys or he's not.  Make a decision one way or the other!  As I see it, there are only two possible solutions to this "problem": get rid of him or support him. 

Option A is getting rid of him.  If it were up to Donald Trump, A-Rod's contract would be terminated.  That, of course, is not allowed under the CBA.  This is the NFL.  There's no salary cap, so they can't release him to create cap space.  And since he's under contract until 2017, letting him walk as a free agent isn't possible either.  That means the only way the Yankees could part ways with Alex Rodriguez would be to trade him.  The Yankees seem to realize this, too.  They've already had informal discussions with the Marlins, which could certainly heat up during the offseason.  And if A-Rod does hit the trade market, I can see other teams getting involved, as well.

Trading him might not be as easy as it sounds, though.  For starters, as a 10-and-5 guy, he has the right to veto any trade.  That means that even if the Yankees have a deal completely worked out with somebody, the whole thing can fall apart if A-Rod doesn't want to play there.  Second, there are only a handful of teams that would even consider taking on such a massive salary.  One of those teams (Boston) would be completely uninterested, another (the Angels) just signed a ridiculous long-term contract with a superstar, and a third (the Dodgers) picked up a third baseman at this year's trade deadline, so they're all probably out.  As a result, any trade involving A-Rod would likely involve the Yankees eating a huge chunk of his salary.

That's why I advocate trying to find some way to make peace and bringing A-Rod back next season.  Let's not forget that for 162 games during six months, he's one of the most important players on the team.  They don't get to the postseason without him.  And you know that the Yankees and their fans can't envision him getting his 3,000th hit or (possibly) hitting his 763rd home run in a different uniform.  Well, you can't have it both ways.  Either you want him around or you don't.

What's more, who are you going to get to replace him?  There aren't many active future Hall of Fame third basemen.  Especially ones that will be available via trade/free agency this offseason. I'm not saying his performance in the postseason justifies his salary, but the Yankees gave him that contract so they at least have to share in the blame.  What I am saying is that he shouldn't be held to a different standard simply because he's making more money than everybody else.  Again, he's not the only player on the team that's not hitting.  And this constant back-and-forth with pinch hitting for him or benching him isn't helping at all.  It's making matters worse and becoming a distraction more than anything else.

The Yankees have to make a decision during the offseason.  They have to decide if they want Alex Rodriguez around for the long-haul or if they don't.  It's not going to be easy, but, for the sake of all involved, it's something they need to do.  Because it's not fair to anyone for this same saga to play out every October.

Some Advantage

The New York Yankees finished with the best record in the American League this season, thus earning home field advantage for the first two rounds of the postseason.  Although, you could forgive the Yankees for not really considering it much of an "advantage" at all.  Because of Bud Selig's insistance to add the wild card games starting this year, the entire postseason schedule got screwed up.  And the Yankees were the team that felt the effects of that new schedule the most.

Now, the purpose of this post is not to do some Yankee-fan bitching.  I'm sure it'll probably get taken that way, but that's not my intent.  There are plenty of reasons why the Yankees lost the first two games of the ALCS that have very little to do with the postseason schedule.  (Those reasons are named Robinson Cano, Curtis Granderson, Nick Swisher and Alex Rodriguez.)  However, the way this year's postseason schedule was constructed had the opposite effect of what was intended.  There was no advantage in earning the No. 1 seed.  In fact, it might've been a disadvantage.

All of this can be blamed on the Commissioner's Office.  This season's postseason schedule was already set when Bud decided to add the extra playoff team this year instead of waiting until next year like he should've.  Since Selig wanted wild card games this season, they had to cram them into the existing schedule while keeping the start dates for the ALCS, NLCS and World Series the same (which they had to, since the TV schedule was already set with FOX and TBS).  As a result, they had to get a little creative.  They had to eliminate the off day in the Division Series and go from the 2-2-1 format to the 2-3 format that everybody hates.  But the worst flaw in this schedule was that the Yankees-Orioles Division Series ended on Friday and the ALCS started on Saturday.

It's, of course, not Major League Baseball's fault that the Yankees-Orioles series went five games.  And if it hadn't, they wouldn't have had this problem.  But even knowing that it was a possibility should've sent up enough red flags to make it not happen.  Anyway, here's the situation.  The Tigers wrapped up their ALDS in Oakland on Thursday night.  Detroit then flew home and waited to find out who (and where) they would play.  The next day!  They at least got a day off, though.  The top-seeded Yankees, who just finished an intense five-game series, didn't have to go anywhere, but they did have to play the day after that series-clinching win.  Had the Orioles won Game 5, they would've had to travel to Detroit immediately following the game.  (Perhaps the best thing about Oakland failing to advance is that you didn't have a team flying cross-country in the middle of the night and playing that night.)

Let's not even get into the fact that the team with the best record started the playoffs with two road games.  Let's focus on this: The Yankees ended up with a five-game homestand.  That's obviously not unheard-of.  During the regular season.  When teams are usually home for a week at a time.  But a five-game homestand in the playoffs?  On five consecutive days?  Playoff baseball's a lot different than regular season baseball.  For starters, the games are significatly more pressure-packed.  Second, you're not giving any of your regulars an off day in a playoff series like you would for a meaningless day game after a night game in June against Kansas City.  Not to mention the fact that you need an off day just to recharge the batteries after a playoff series.  Most importantly, though, you're only using four starting pitchers in the postseason.

Because they didn't have an off day, the Yankees were put into a situation where one of their starters had to start on three-days' rest.  Hiroki Kuroda started Game 3 against the Orioles on Wednesday, then Game 2 against the Tigers on Sunday.  Since the Tigers also went five in their Division Series, they weren't able to use Justin Verlander until tomorrow's Game 3.  The Yankees will counter with CC Sabathia, who was brilliant in Game 5 against Baltimore on Friday.  Sabathia will be pitching on three-days' rest against a fully-rested Verlander.  The original plan was to have CC go in Game 4 on normal rest, then pitch Game 7 against Verlander on three-days' rest, while Verlander would again be fully rested.  Remind me again: which team is the one that had the supposed "advantage" in this series?

The National League teams got a day off, but that didn't mean things were perfect there.  After finishing their Division Series, the Giants had to hang out in Cincinnati because they didn't know where they were going to play either.  It would've been stupid for San Francisco to fly home, only to have to come all the way back to the East Coast to start the NLCS in Washington.  Instead, they found out at midnight Friday/Saturday that they were, in fact, headed home to start the NLCS.  The Giants probably got to San Francisco only a few hours before the Cardinals did, despite finishing their Division Series more than 30 hours earlier.

This is a situation that Baseball easily could've avoided.  There was absolutely no need to start the new playoff format this season and create all of these headaches as a result.  They might've dismissed the "what-ifs" as hypotheticals, but they shouldn't have been simply ignored.  Especially since those hypotheticals became reality.  (The fact that the wild card games themselves are completely unnecessary is irrelevant in this argument.)

The good news is that it'll be fixed next season, when the schedule goes back to the way it should be.  Opening Day will be on a Monday (like it should) and the season will end on a Sunday (like it should).  The wild card games will be on Tuesday (NL) and Wednesday (AL), with the Division Series, which go back to the 2-2-1 format, to start on either Thursday and Friday or Friday and Saturday, allowing both LCSes to open on the weekend and the World Series on a Wednesday.

But in my opinion, next season is one year too late.  The 2012 Postseason has been amazing so far.  I can't help but wonder, though, how much better it would've been had the schedule not been so flawed.

NFL Week 6 Picks

I've been a little obsessed with baseball lately.  This shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody who knows that I'm a baseball guy.  But it doesn't change the fact that I'm unhappy the Giants and Yankees games are on at the same time on Sunday.  Nor does it mean I'm going to take a week off from making my NFL picks.

I'm already 0-1 this week after missing with Pittsburgh in the Thursday night game.  Since the Yankees don't know what a nine-inning game is, I saw a grand total of about five minutes of that football game.  However, that was more than enough, since the final 35 seconds were included in that five minutes.  Anyway, 96 percent of Yahoo! users picked the Steelers in that game, so I'm not overly upset about the loss.  I've still got 13 games ahead of me.

Raiders (1-3) at Falcons (5-0): Atlanta-How confident am I that Atlanta will win this game?  I made it my survival pool pick this week.  Not only are the Falcons the best team in football, the Raiders are bad.  And they don't exactly agree with games on the East Coast.  Especially 1:00 games.

Bengals (3-2) at Browns (0-5): Cincinnati-The Ohio teams are the first division rivals to complete their season series this year.  The Bengals won 34-27 in Cleveland in Week 2, which got them going on that three-game winning streak before that loss to Miami last week.  As for the Browns, they were 0-4, but still somewhat competitive until last week, when the Giants spotted them 14 points before outscoring them 41-13 the rest of the way.  I'm not sure why Scott Fujita is appealing his Bountygate suspension again.  He should be thanking the NFL for not having to play in a Cleveland Browns game.

Rams (3-2) at Dolphins (2-3): St. Louis-Suddenly this game went from completely unappealing to one of this week's must-sees.  The Rams were so impressive last Thursday night against Arizona, and they enter the matchup on a two-game winning streak.  The Dolphins I knew were going to turn a corner sooner or later.  Last week's win in Cincinnati might've been that game.  This game is important.  For the winner, it could set the path that leads to a magical playoff run.  I think the Rams are more likely to win, but not by much.

Colts (2-2) at Jets (2-3): Jets-Talk about a team that turned a corner last week, how about the Indianapolis Andrew Lucks?  That was some win over the Packers!  (Even though I'm not a Colts fan anymore, I couldn't help but admire that effort.)  The Jets are a dysfunctional mess that were actually more competitive agaisnt Houston than I thought they'd be.  This game borders on irrelevant.  Neither team is going anywhere.  I'll go with the Jets simply because they're at home.

Lions (1-3) at Eagles (3-2): Philadelphia-These teams are certainly headed in different directions, aren't they?  After last season's playoff run, everybody thought the Lions were poised to build on that success, yet here they sit 1-3 coming off their bye.  Yes, the Eagles lost on a last-second field goal in Pittsburgh last week.  Sometimes a team can show you more in defeat than they can in victory.  I think that was the case with the Eagles last week.  Philadelphia might be the third-best team in the NFC behind Atlanta and Chicago.  The Lions need to figure things out soon to avoid having the same type of year the Saints are going to have.

Chiefs (1-4) at Buccaneers (1-3): Tampa Bay-The Bucs are doing what they did last year.  After winning their opener, they've lost three straight to fall to 1-4.  The Chiefs' only win came courtesy of the sideshow act known as the New Orleans Saints.  Kansas City isn't that good, but you can't help but be impressed by their effort against Baltimore last week.  Sure they didn't score a touchdown, but the Ravens didn't either.  Still, without Matt Cassel playing, I've gotta go with the home team in this one.

Cowboys (2-2) at Ravens (4-1): Baltimore-Our friends at FOX have quite the little tripleheader.  It's this one, followed by Giants-49ers, then the Giants and San Francisco are combined into one for the NLCS opener, which is conveniently also being played in the City by the Bay.  But anyway, back to Cowboys-Ravens.  The mark of a good team is its ability to win when it doesn't play well.  That's what the Ravens did last week in Kansas City.  Dallas still confuses me.  We haven't seen them since Tony Romo was throwing passes to the Chicago Bears defense on Monday night two weeks ago.  More importantly, though, I don't think the Ravens have two bad games in a row.  Baltimore should win.

Bills (2-3) at Cardinals (4-1): Arizona-Did the Bills stay out west for a week, or did they come home after that shellacking in San Francisco (which came one week after a shellacking against New England).  So far this season, the Bills have either won or been blown out.  Speaking of being blown out, the Cardinals' 17-3 loss to the Rams makes that game look closer than it was.  Arizona was thoroughly dominated.  Regardless, I don't like the Bills' momentum.  The Cardianls also have that home winning streak to protect.

Patriots (3-2) at Seahawks ("3-2"): New England-The Patriots have the Jets next week, so this game has "trap game" written all over it, but I'm not sure Bradicheck actually thinks that way.  So far this season, the Seahawks have gone win, loss, "win," loss, win.  That long trip to Seattle has to be daunting, but I think New England continues that alternating trend.

Giants (3-2) at 49ers (4-1): San Francisco-I really wish this game wasn't on against the Yankee game.  Last week, when the Giants played Cleveland, I didn't really care, so I just stayed with the baseball game for the most part.  This game is much different, though.  It's going to have a bearing on the playoff race.  Oh yeah, and it just happens to be a rematch of last year's NFC Championship Game, too.  The 49ers have responded well to their loss to the Vikings, outscoring the Jets and Bills a combined 79-3 in their last two games.  This one will be significantly closer.  However, San Francisco remembers the NFC Championship Game and wants revenge.  It might be a long day for Eli.

Vikings (4-1) at Redskins (2-3): Minnesota-Have we actually reached the point where Minnesota could reasonably be favored in every game?  The Redskins are technically favored on paper, but I'd be surprised if the Vikings didn't win.  Minnesota's got a better team.  Washington's definitely getting there, though, and they maybe should've beaten the Falcons last week.  This should be a pretty good matchup.

Packers ("2-3") at Texans (5-0): Houston-The Packers could reasonably be 4-1 right now.  Instead, they're "2-3" and in danger of watching the season slip away (especially since Minnesota seems to be the real deal).  Things don't get any easier this week, as they visit undefeated Houston on Sunday night.  The Texans have been impressive all season.  There's no other way to describe it.  Like I said, Green Bay could really be in trouble.  Although, we saw the Saints with a potentially season-saving win (it wasn't) on Sunday night last week.  In one of the toughest calls of the week, I'm going with the Texans.

Broncos (2-3) at Chargers (3-2): Denver-Peyton's sixth national game in as many weeks as a Bronco is a battle for first place in the AFC West.  The Chargers had a chance to grab a firm hold on this division last week, but they let a lead slip away in New Orleans.  As a result, the Broncos, whose 2-3 record is much worse on paper than it is in reality, have a chance to even up the division standings with a win on Monday night.  This is also Peyton's first division game as a member of the AFC West, which means the Chargers are the first AFC West team that gets to feel what things were like for the Titans, Texans and Jaguars over the past decade.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 10-4
Season: 54-24

LCS Previews

After one of the craziest weeks of Division Series play I've ever seen, we've finally arrived at the AL and NLCS.  All five Division Series went the distance for the first time ever, and each one played out in a strange way. 

The Reds won the first two games of their series in San Francisco, and it looked certain that Cincinnati would advance.  All they had to do was win a home game.  But they couldn't do it.  The Giants won all three games in Cincinnati to win the series.  That's gotta be the first Division Series in history where the home team failed to win a game, and I'm sure the Reds are probably the only team ever to use five different starting pitchers in a five-game postseason series.  Those pesky St. Louis Cardinals have become that team nobody wants to face in the postseason.  The fifth-best team in the National League, they only got into the playoffs because of the stupid second wild card, then beat the Braves on the road.  St. Louis bludgeoned Washington pitching in Games 2 and 3 of the Division Series until Jayson Werth tied the series.  Then Washington took a 6-0 lead in Game 5, and it looked like the Nationals were going to advance until the top of the ninth, when St. Louis put up a four-spot to move on.  This team won't go away.

Over in the American League, the Tigers certainly seemed to have the upper-hand on the A's until Oakland's ridiculous walk-off magic continued in Game 4.  That almost led you to believe the A's, playing at home, had some hope in Game 5.  But fortunately for Detroit, this guy named Verlander pitched Game 5.  Then there was that other little team that could--the Baltimore Orioles.  In a series where nobody on either team hit (not just A-Rod), the Yankees couldn't shake the Orioles, just like they couldn't shake them the entire month of September.  After two extra-inning games, a much-publicized benching, and late-game heroics from the unlikeliest of October heroes, the Yankees called on their ace to finally vanquish that scrappy bunch of birds.  And CC delivered a gem.

Which brings us to a pair of LCS matchups where three of the four participants just happen to be the last three teams to win the World Series.  I was an out away from going four-for-four in my Division Series picks, although I'm quickly learning that picking against St. Louis isn't necessarily the smartest of ideas.

ALCS: Yankees vs. Tigers
Heading into the playoffs, it certainly looked like the ALCS matchup, and it's the series most people wanted to see.  The Tigers are built for October, which makes them a dangerous out no matter who they're playing.  Had the Yankees finished off the Orioles in four, I would've said that Detroit was going to be at an incredible disadvantage by not having Verlander available until Game 3, but the Yankees had to use CC in Game 5 against Baltimore, so he can't start until Game 3, either, rendering that advantage moot.  It also would've led me to say that if the Yankees were going to win this series, they'd have to do it in six and avoid Verlander in Game 7.  But with dueling aces in a winner-take-all game, that's no longer a consideration either.  (Although, we saw what happened with that plan when these two met in the Division Series last season.)

So, how do I see this series playing out?  Well, if the Yankees are going to have any shot, they need to actually start hitting.  And I'm not just talking about A-Rod.  It really bothers me that he was singled-out when Cano, Swisher and Granderson equally sucked for the entire Orioles series.  (For the record, yes, A-Rod will play in Game 1.  You're not going to turn a $30 million-a-year guy into a bench player.)  They survived Baltimore because their pitching was lights out (or the Orioles offense was equally inept).  The Yankees won't win this series if Derek Jeter, Mark Teixeira, Raul Ibanez and Ichiro are the only guys who hit. 

The Tigers offense, meanwhile, consists of much more than just two guys (both of whom happen to be really good).  That lineup is obviously built around Cabrera and Fielder, but it also appears to be slump-proof.  Yankee pitching isn't going to shut down Detroit the way it shut down Baltimore.

I still think it most likely comes down to pitching, though.  The Tigers beat the Yankees last year because they got a great start from Doug Fister in Game 5.  Well, guess who's starting Game 1 for Detroit.  (Although, he's taking on Andy Pettitte.)  That lack of an off day for the Yankees might give the Tigers a slight upper hand.  After Fister, they'll have the choice of Max Scherzer (who was great in Game 4 against Oakland) or Anibal Sanchez in Game 2, then Verlander in Game 3.  But behind Pettitte, both Hiroki Kuroda and CC will have to go on short rest for the Yankees, although I like Phil Hughes in the big ballpark in Game 4.  The bullpens are virtually even.  I give the advantage to whichever team can get to the other one's starter first.  Tigers in six.

NLCS: Giants vs. Cardinals
The only team that somewhat benefitted pitching-wise from going to a Game 5 was the Cardinals.  That's because they weren't able to set up their rotation for the Division Series and Chris Carpenter started Game 3.  Well, Carpenter will be available for Game 1 of the NLCS on regular rest, while San Francisco will have to go with either Madison Bumgarner or Ryan Vogelsong.  The Giants can't use Matt Cain, who wasn't that good against Cincinnati, until Game 3 (although, like Sabathia and Verlander, that means he'll be on track to start Game 7, too, which isn't the worst thing for San Francisco).

St. Louis once again is relying on a bunch of no-name guys. Daniel DeScalso? Pete Kozma? But the heart of that order with Carlos Beltran, Matt Holliday, Yadier Molina and David Freese is very scary. These never-say-die Cardinals lost Albert (and Lance Berkman and Rafael Furcal) and got back to the NLCS. Who saw that coming?

Again, I'm finally learning better than going against St. Louis, but the Giants have the clear advantage on paper.  San Francisco's lineup is much stronger top-to-bottom, even without Melky Cabrera (and I applaud their decision not to activate him for the NLCS, even though his suspension is over).  Buster Posey's an MVP candidate, the Panda is nothing like the guy who got benched during the World Series run two years ago, and Crawford in the eight-hole has really solidified the bottom of the lineup the same way Pagan and Scutaro have at the top.

I really like San Francisco, though.  Just think about it, the Giants' pitching is so strong that Tim Lincecum was in the bullpen for the Division Series.  And since the Cardinals lost Jaime Garcia in Game 2 of the Washington series, they're going to have to use Lance Lynn as a starter, which is a blow to both their rotation and their bullpen.  The San Francisco lineup, rotation and bullpen are all stronger.  And let's not forget, the Giants are just as battle-tested.  They knocked off the Phillies in the NLCS en route to the title two years ago.  The Giants used a little October magic of their own against the Reds.  They might be the only team capable of holding off St. Louis' crazy postseason karma.  Giants in seven.  (My World Series pick two weeks before the playoffs started, and again at the beginning of the Division Series was Giants-Tigers.  Why change now?)

It's All In the Logo

In the same year the cartoon bird made its return to the Baltimore Orioles' hats, the Orioles returned to the playoffs for the first time in 15 years.  It's probably mere coincidence, but, through my keen powers of observation, I've noticed that the Orioles aren't the only team that's changed had a sudden change of fortune on the field in the same season they've made a logo change in recent years.  A logo change, obviously, isn't a sure-fire road to success for everybody, just ask the Blue Jays and Marlins, the two teams that went through a complete makeover this year, only to end up in last place.  But for the most part, a logo change has been that thing to bring a team that's on the verge of being good over the top.

Baseball
1987 Twins: These sudden reversals can be traced all the way back to the 1987 Twins, who won the World Series the year after they went from those two guys shaking hands to the "Twins" script on top of a baseball and the hats with an "M" on them.  That logo has since been modified, but Minnesota won the World Series again in 1991.

2002 Angels: 2002 was the year in which the Angles decided to start doing their all-red thing (the rationale being that the Dodgers are blue, so the Angels should wear red).  And they celebrated their first year in red by winning their first World Series.  They've since changed their name from "Anaheim Angels" to "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim," but the red uniforms have remained.

2007 Diamondbacks: I'm still not entirely sure why the Diamondbacks changed their uniforms in 2007.  They went from the only team with that unique purple, black, gold, teal color scheme to a red/black uniform that was basically exactly the same as Houston's now-retired gettup.  That's all they changed.  Same logo, different colors.  Regardless, the Diamondbacks finished with the best record in the National League and lost the NLCS in 2007.

2008 Rays: I'm not sure if it was the uniform/logo change or dropping the "Devils," but 2008 marked the year the Rays became an acutal Major League team.  Out of nowhere, they went from a laughingstock to the World Series that season, and they've been good ever since.  Again, not sure there's a correlation, but the 2008 season was a turning point for this franchise in more ways than one.

Football
1997-98 Broncos: The classic case of a logo change breeding success, the Broncos got rid of the beloved D with a horse inside (and the awesome orange jerseys) and replaced it with the horse head helmets with the stripes that I still don't quite understand.  As upset as people might've been with the new uniforms, they won the Super Bowl in the first two seasons they wore them, which were also the final two seasons of John Elway's career.  This year, to celebrate Peyton's arrival, they went one better and brought back the orange jerseys.

1997 Buccaneers: What is it about teams from Tampa Bay?  The Bucs ditched the creamsicle pirates and introduced us to pewter for the 1997 season.  And with that, they went from one of the worst teams in the NFL to one of the best, making the playoffs for the first time in forever and winning the Super Bowl a few seasons later.

1998 Jets: Bill Parcells brought "Flying Elvis" to New England when he became coach of the Patriots, and one of his first orders of business when he took over the Jets was to bring back the old logo.  It worked.  They went to the AFC Championship Game that season.

1999 Titans: The Oilers left Houston in 1996, but weren't really home in Tennessee until 1999.  That's when LP Field opened and they established their new identity, complete with a total rebranding.  The newly rechristened Tennessee "Titans" nearly went all the way, losing one of the greatest Super Bowls ever to the Rams.

2000 Giants: Two years after the Jets brought back their old logo, the Giants did the same thing.  Except they didn't stop at just getting to the NFC Championship Game.  They had the best record in the NFC and went to the Super Bowl (a game that us Giants fans prefer not to talk about).  Their two most recent trips to the Super Bowl have gone much better.

Hockey
1995-96 Avalanche: The artists formerly known as the Quebec Nordiques brought NHL hockey back to the Rockies in 1995-96.  Obviously, a French Canadian nickname would've made absolutely no sense in Denver, so they went with the incredibly fitting "Avalanche."  And it took them a grand total of eight months to bring a Stanley Cup to the long-suffering fans of Colorado.

2006-07 Ducks: The Ducks were no longer "Mighty" after the 2005-06 season.  Along with the name change came new colors and a new logo, as they went from the awesome duck-billed goalie mask to what's quite possibly the most boring logo in all of sports.  It worked, though.  Just like the Avalanche, they celebrated by lifting the Cup.

2006-07 Sabres: Ah, the buffaslug.  The year I left Buffalo after six years of residency was also the year the Sabres went back to their original blue and gold color scheme with that ridiculous logo that was rightfully met with near universal disdain.  The Sabres had success on the ice in 2006-07, reaching the conference finals, but the poor buffaslg never caught on.  It only lasted four seasons.

2011-12 Kings: The most recent example of new logo=newfound success is the reigning Stanley Cup champions.  The current Kings logo is only a slight modification of the shoulder logo on their previous jerseys, but they ditched the purple and made it the primary logo, so it counts.  And following in recent tradition, they won their first Stanley Cup the season they made the change.

NFL Week 5 Picks

13-2.  That's more like it.  Last week more than made up for my dismal performance in Week 3.  And just when it looks like I've gotten back on track, I go and take the Cardinals on Thursday night, only to see them get thoroughly spanked around by the Rams.  OK, so I'm 0-1 for this week already.  No big deal.  Although some of the other matchups are kinda scary.

Dolphins (1-3) at Bengals (3-1): Cincinnati-The Cardinals almost lost their undefeated record last week against the Dolphins.  It took a late Kevin Kolb miracle and an overtime field goal for Arizona to pull it out.  Despite their 1-3 record, Miami is encouraging.  I think this team's going to be pretty good.  I've really been impressed with the Bengals, though.  They've won three straight since getting slaughtered by the Ravens on the opening Monday night.  Make it four.

Packers ("2-2") at Colts (1-2): Green Bay-A few years ago, there's no question that this game would've been a primetime matchup instead of the early FOX regional game it is.  Maybe the Packers aren't as good as we all thought.  Sure they technically should be 3-1, but they were lucky to escape against the Saints last week.  The Andrew Lucks are well-rested after getting an early bye last week, so Green Bay's going to have its hands full again.  I think the Packers pull out another close one, though.  (If you're one of those people who picks using the spread, you might want to take Indy.)

Ravens (3-1) at Chiefs (1-3): Baltimore-It's going to be quite a day in Baltimore on Sunday.  First the Ravens play at 1, then the Orioles host the Yankees in the ALDS at 6.  Out of those two, the more likely to win is the football team.  The Ravens survived their incredibly short week (why did they play on Thursday after a Sunday night game?), and now they'll play a Kansas City team that they should beat anyway with plenty of rest.  This one could get ugly.

Browns (0-4) at Giants (2-2): Giants-Wait, the Giants are playing on a Sunday afternoon?  What's going on here?  It's kind of ridiculous to think that this is just their second Sunday afternoon game of the season.  Perhaps the best news of all is that it's not a division game on NBC.  The Giants are 0-2 in those this season.  They won't overlook a Browns team that gave the Ravens a game in Baltimore, but they should come away with the victory.

Eagles (3-1) at Steelers (1-2): Pittsburgh-Fun fact about this matchup: with both rosters depleted because of World War II, these two teams actually joined forces for a year as the "Pennsylvania Steagles" in 1944.  The 2012 version of Eagles-Steelers is up there with Broncos-Patriots as one of the games of the week.  The Steelers are coming off an early bye that, frankly, they needed.  That defense is really banged up, which might help explain the loss to the Raiders.  Things don't get any easier with the Eagles coming to town, but a rested Pittsburgh team that's desperate for a win is dangerous.  They also need a win to keep pace with the Ravens and Bengals in the AFC North.  That's why I'm taking the Steelers.

Falcons (4-0) at Redskins (2-2): Atlanta-With the Cardinals' loss, the Falcons are now the only undefeated team in the NFC.  That Arizona-St. Louis game should be a wake-up call to Atlanta, since they're also playing a road game against an underrated, improving team.  As a result, the Falcons aren't going to take the Redskins for granted.  I'm curious as to why they scheduled the Nationals-Cardinals game for the same time as this one, but that's a question for MLB, not the NFL.  It doesn't really impact my life, but I do feel kind of torn for Washington fans.

Seahawks ("2-2") at Panthers (1-3): Seattle-For some reason, I think Seattle is going to win, even though everything seems to point in Carolina's favor.  The Panthers almost (and probably should've) beaten the Falcons last week, while the Seahawks became the first of the Rams' successive division victims.  And Seattle has to fly cross-country the week after traveling to St. Louis.  Again, everything points to a Panthers win.  Yet I'm taking the Seahawks anyway.

Bears (3-1) at Jaguars (1-3): Chicago-I saw today that Jacksonville has switched its primary home uniform from teal jersey and white pants to all black.  I'm not really sure why, seeing as they play in Florida and they suck (which means they never get a night game), but I found it interesting nonetheless.  All of that talk about Jacksonville was just stalling before I officially say that the Bears will slaughter them.

Titans (1-3) at Vikings (3-1): Minnesota-Alright, I give.  Minnesota's good.  The Vikings have already equaled last season's win total and are tied with the Bears for first place.  More impressively, they've beaten two playoff teams in the last two weeks, including a win in Detroit last week.  I think this one will be close, but I do see the Vikings pulling it out to move to 4-1.

Broncos (2-2) at Patriots (2-2): New England-Our Manning vs. Brady matchup comes early this year with a couple new wrinkles--it's not on Sunday night and Peyton, of course, doesn't have a horseshoe on his helmet.  Denver seems to draw a tough matchup every week, and this week is no exception.  The Patriots didn't wake up until the second half last week against the Bills...and promptly scored 30 points in the fourth quarter.  That moved New England into a tie for first, which puts them in a little better position than Denver right now.  Seeing as the Patriots' only previous home game this season was that shocking loss to Arizona in Week 2, I'm hesitant to pick Denver.  Although, if anybody can get into the Patriots' heads, it's Peyton Manning.

Bills (2-2) at 49ers (3-1): San Francisco-As I predicted, the loss to Minnesota was just an abberation.  And the 49ers took out their frustrations on the Jets.  The Bills, meanwhile, looked like they were going to drop New England to 1-3 until the Patriots finally showed up in the fourth quarter.  This is the first of three straight home games for the 49ers, who can move into a tie for first win a win.  Look for that to happen.

Chargers (3-1) at Saints (0-4): San Diego-I'm sure the NFL and NBC thought this was going to be a good, competitive game between two good teams when they set it as this week's Sunday night game.  As it turns out, if not for Drew Brees, it might've been a candidate to get flexed out if it were later in the season.  Brees is certain to make history and break Johnny Unitas's record for consecutive games with a touchdown pass, and the fact that it'll come against his former team definitely adds to the story, but it doesn't change the fact that the Saints are a mess.  I see New Orleans sitting at 0-5 during its bye next week.

Texans (4-0) at Jets (2-2): Houston-The good news for the Jets is that things probably can't get any worse (at least on the field) than they were in last week's shellacking by San Francisco.  Although a dysfunctional team that's desperate for headlines made plenty during the week, especially now that Santonio Holmes is out for the season.  They're not going to beat Houston.  The only question is how long will it take for everybody who starts off watching the football game to switch to Yankees-Orioles?

Last Week: 13-2
This Week: 0-1
Season: 44-20

MLB Playoff Preview

Well, Buck and his wild card games sure screwed up the playoff schedule, didn't he?  I've already been over this, so I'm not going to go into it again, but consider...as a "reward" for the No. 1 seed in the AL, the Yankees will potentially have to fly to Texas and play a Rangers team that's been sitting there waiting for them, don't play a home game until Wednesday and could end up playing only one home game in the entire postseason (while wild card Texas theoretically gets to play at least three).  Or, if the Division Series goes five, they'll end up playing a home game on five consecutive days.  IN THE POSTSEASON!

Anyway, now that I've gotten that off my chest, that was a crazy, if not somewhat anticlimactic, conculsion to the regular season.  We were talking about the Rangers and Yankees duking it out for AL home field all season.  Who would've thought that Texas would end up stuck in the wild card game?  And who saw this Oakland thing coming?!  As great a story as the Orioles are, I'd say they're only the second-most unexpected playoff team this season.  We all thought an AL West team from California would be in the playoffs...the one a little further south that signed this guy named Albert in the off-season and has this other guy named Trout.

Over in the Senior Circuit, the biggest surprise has to be the Nationals.  Coming into the season, I think most people were in aggreement that Washington was going to be much improved.  But the best-case scenario expectations were that they'd contend for a wild card.  They were supposed to be a year or two away.  Instead, the Nats had the best record in baseball, won their first division title since 1981 (which doesn't really count because of the strike), and brought postseason baseball back to the nation's capital for the first time since 1933.  Teddy Roosevelt even won the President's Race!

The wild card games obviously limit my ability to handicap the Division Series matchups.  But for the sake of breaking down all four series, I'm going to assume Atlanta and Texas win those games.  It's unfair that the Braves ended up in this situation.  They're much better than the Cardinals, and have been the fourth-best team in the National League all season.  This is their second chance after the collapse of last year.  Chipper ain't going out with a loss in a wild card game.  The final home game of his career will be Game 2 against Washington on Monday.

As it turns out, there would've been a wild card game in the American League this year anyway.  Nobody's talking about the Rangers' late-season collapse, but if they don't beat Baltimore, theirs will be equally historic.  They had a 13-game lead in late July and led the division by two games with three to play!  The Orioles are a great story, but a battle-tested, pissed off Rangers team isn't a good matchup for Baltimore.  I just can't see Texas completely choking away its season.  Buck's former team beats Buck's current team to set up a matchup with the Yankees.  And with that, it's on to my Division Series previews...

Yankees vs. Rangers: These two were battling for the AL's best record for the last two months of the season, so I bet nobody saw this as a potential Division Series.  Yet here we are.  They both turned a massive division lead into a tight pennant race.  But, unlike the Rangers, the Yankees managed to hold off Baltimore and win their division.  That's why I like the Yankees in this series.  They played some of their best baseball of the season over the final week and a half, while it's almost too generous to say Texas "limps" into the postseason.  There are two other factors that swing the pendulum in the Yankees' favor.  The first is starting pitching.  Dempster pitched on Wednesday and Darvish is pitching the wild card game, which means the Rangers probably can't use either until Game 3 at the earliest.  The Yankees, meanwhile, will have Sabathia and Pettitte (in either order) in Games 1 and 2, then Kuroda in Game 3 at the Stadium.  This is also the first time in a long time that the Yankees' entire starting lineup is healthy.  It'll be a great matchup between the teams that have combined for the last three American League pennants, but I think the extra game takes its toll on the Rangers against the rested Yankees.  Yankees in four.

Athletics vs. Tigers: I still can't believe the Oakland A's are in the playoffs.  The sheer fact that they seem incapable of losing makes them a serious threat to make a deep run.  They remind me of the 2007 Rockies and 2008 Rays.  But I think Oakland's luck runs out against Detroit.  Sure, the Tigers only had 88 wins, tied for the fewest among all playoff teams, but don't let their record fool you.  Detroit is the scariest team in the entire American League field.  For Oakland to win this series, they're going to have to find a way to beat either Justin Verlander or Max Scherzer.  And if the Doug Fister of the 2011 playoffs shows up, that gives Detroit three powerful strikeout machines.  And I'm not sure if you heard, but the Tigers also have this Cabrera guy who had a pretty good season.  Throw in Prince to bat behind Miggy and you've got a lineup that's better than Detroit's lineup last season.  It's remarkable what all of those rookie pitchers for the A's have done, but this is their first go-round with postseason baseball.  Sure, they handled themselves beautifully in the playoff-like atmosphere of that Texas series, but the Tigers' offense is way too powerful.  Oakland doesn't lose at home, though, so if the A's can steal one of the games in Detroit, I like their chances a lot better.  This team has surprised me all season, though.  I don't think I can name more than three players on the A's.  Records aside, the Tigers are a better team.  Tigers in four.

Nationals vs. Braves: This one is definitely interesting.  These two division rivals know each other exceptionally well, and, on paper, they're pretty evenly matched.  I don't think anybody has any idea what Washington's going to do with Stephen Strasburg, but we do know that they'll get two starts from Gio Gonzalez if the series goes the distance.  Atlanta won't have that luxury, since Kris Medlen is starting the wild card game, although I'd suspect the Braves will go with Tim Hudson in Game 1 if they beat the Cardinals.  In my heart, I'd love to say the Braves are going to win this series and Chipper's career gets to continue for a few more days.  With that bullpen, it wouldn't be a total shock to see that.  But in my head, I've got to go with the Nationals.  They've gotten it done all season long with an underrated lineup and that deep pitching staff.  Even without Strasburg, they're going to throw Gio out there twice, plus Jordan Zimmermann and Edwin Jackson, who won a ring last year with the Cardinals.  I really do see this series as a toss-up.  It's really tough for me to give the advantage to one team over the other.  But since Washington will get the opportunity to throw its Cy Young candidate out there twice, and the D.C. fans will bask in the thrill of their first postseason in 80 years.  That's going to make the difference.  Nationals in five.

Reds vs. Giants: Oh boy, is this a yummy matchup!  Easily the best of the Division Series.  Cincinnati's 2012 playoff experience should end up being better than their trip to the postseason two years ago, where they were no-hit by Roy Halladay in Game 1 and never stood a chance against the Phillies.  Things should be different this year, mainly because Cincinnati's pitching is much better now.  But if you really like good pitching, the San Francisco Giants are the team for you.  The Giants' rotation is going to be Matt Cain, Madison Bumgarner, Tim Lincecum and Ryan Vogelsong.  Cincinnati will counter with Johnny Cueto, Bronson Arroyo, Mat Latos and Homer Bailey, so I'm not sure either team does much hitting in this series.  How long the starters stay in the game could come into play.  The Giants' starters are better, while Cincinnati has the far superior bullpen.  I think the key guys in this series, though, will be the guys with the bats.  The Reds have one of the most powerful lineups in baseball, and the Giants pitchers will almost have to shut them down the way the Phillies did in 2010.  San Francisco, of course, won the World Series that season, and the Giants are a better team this year.  San Francisco is much more complete offensively.  The Giants are scary, but they'll need to get by the Reds first.  I see this series going five.  I hope it does.  Because it's going to be some entertaining baseball.  Giants in five.

NHL Logic: Shutting Down For a Lockout, But Not the Olympics

As NHL Lockout 2.0 drags on into its third week, it appears inevitable that the start of the regular season will at the very least be delayed.  The NHL is going to voluntarily lose games because of a lockout (which, this time was avoidable) once again.  Yet Gary Bettman ("Mr. Lockout" himself) won't commit to sending NHL players to the 2014 Olympics because he doesn't want to "shut the league down for two weeks."  But shutting it down for an indeterminate amount of time to fight over money is evidently completely OK.  That makes complete sense!

Where do I begin with how stupid Mr. Lockout coming out and saying that is?  For starters, it completely contradicts the current actions of the NHL owners.  You don't want to shut down the league?  I kinda get that.  Except that's exactly what you're doing right now!  It also makes him look like the two-faced hypocrite he is.  However, seeing as the only way Mr. Lockout knows how to "negotiate" is by not letting the players play, he's probably fine with that.  (Or just completely oblivious.)

For his part, the head of the IIHF has said that he expects to see the NHL players in Sochi, and they've arranged the schedule as such.  They're not starting the men's hockey tournament until Wednesday, the fifth day of the Olympics, which would give the players plenty of time to get to Russia after their weekend NHL games.  Furthermore, the players want to go to Sochi and represent their countries.  The only people who don't want this, not surprisingly, are the owners.  But why would Mr. Lockout and the owners take what the fans want into account?

The owners' argument is that they don't want to condense the schedule (which, again, is the best-case-scenario for what's going to happen this year) and give up the revenue from lost games (which, again, they're voluntarily doing right now) for an Olympics on the other side of the world.  For their part, they don't think the fan interest will be there, especially since the time difference between New York and Sochi is eight hours.  That means games being played in the early morning and afternoon instead of primetime in North America.  (I can guarantee that, no matter what time the games are, Olympic hockey ratings will likely be on par with, if not better than, the ratings for a regular season NHL game.)

To me, that's a weak argument.  I have no doubt that NBC Sports Network, which is the NHL's TV partner already, will be the "hockey channel" (probably exclusively) during the 2014 Olympics.  I guarantee that they'll show every men's game live (NBCSN's live coverage started at 4 a.m. Eastern in London), while also replaying the U.S. or Canada in primetime.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if NBC applies pressure to the NHL to send the players to the Olympics.  They want Doc Emrick and Eddie Olczyk in Sochi.  Just like they don't want to have to split their hockey production teams between Russia and whatever NHL city they're doing a game from that week.  Or having to broadcast NHL games on NBCSN at the same time as their Olympic coverage on NBC.

Something else that the NHL owners need to consider is how much the players want to go.  Alexander Ovechkin has said that he's going no matter what.  Other Russian NHLers are likely to join him, owners' wishes be damned.  Playing for an Olympic gold in their home country means that much to these guys.  The owners have to take that into consideration.  Why stubbornly insist on playing NHL games without the top players?  The quality of those games would obviously be substandard, which wouldn't be fair to either the players or the fans.

Likewise, every other top professional hockey league in the world will be sending its players to Sochi.  The KHL, obviously, will take a break during the 2014 Games.  But the NHL is the world's best hockey league.  Something would be missing if NHL players weren't in the tournament.  The quality would certainly suffer, and some teams (namely, Canada and the U.S.) would have no chance of winning.  Talk about a tournament nobody in North America would be interested in!

Furthermore, now that the World Cup of Hockey is dead, the Olympics is the one real opportunity NHL players have to represent their national teams.  The World Championships are held during the Stanley Cup Playoffs, so only guys on teams that are already out of it are able to play, which obviously limits the talent pool.  Besides, the Olympics are the biggest sporting event in the world, and the NHL players are by far the biggest names at the Winter Games.  The Olympics are a chance for the NHL to showcase its incredible international talent for the world to see.  You would think that's something the owners would want to take advantage of.

Ultimately, I do think we'll see NHL players in Sochi.  And Pyeongchang.  And 2022.  And beyond.  The players want it, the fans want it, and, in the grand scheme of things, it's for the good of the game.  Even Mr. Lockout and the owners have to realize that the pros far outweigh the cons.  After depriving fans of hockey yet again, not going would do even more damage to the game than Lockout 2.0 will.