Earlier this week, I read an article in ESPN The Magazine that was 100 percent dead-on. The article basically said that the Bears, among other teams, are screwed if their starting quarterback gets hurt. After seeing how bad the Bears were in the one game they played without Jay Cutler, I couldn't agree more with the assertion that some teams might only be able to go as far as their backup quarterback will take them. And in some cases, that's not very far.
As a means of illustrating the importance of a good backup, let's look at two AFC South teams that had very different seasons in 2011: the Houston Texans and the Indianapolis Colts. The Texans lost starter Matt Schaub for the season after Week 10, so they turned to Matt Leinart. Leinart then proceeded to break his collarbone in the first half of his first start, making rookie T.J. Yates, the third-string quarterback at the beginning of the season, the Texans' starter. Yates won his first two starts and the Texans won the division for the first time in franchise history. They then beat Cincinnati in the first playoff game in franchise history before losing to Baltimore. If the Texans hadn't had a quality backup in Yates, they wouldn't have been able to weather the loss of Matt Schaub.
Now let's compare the 2011 Texans to the 2011 Colts. Peyton Manning never missed a start during his first 13 years in the NFL. In fact, he barely missed any plays. As a result, the Colts never felt the need to have a quality backup. Well, the flaws in that strategy were exposed very clearly when Peyton missed the entire 2011 season after neck surgery. The Colts couldn't find a quarterback all season, started the year 0-13, and ended up with the worst record in the NFL. I still don't understand the logic in getting rid of the guy whose absence was the reason they sucked, but they turned that No. 1 pick into Andrew Luck, which is probably the only reason they found Peyton expendable. Anyway, they still haven't quite figured out the backup situation, although they have upgraded a little in that regard. Their current backup is Curtis Painter, who they got from the Jets in that indirect three-way "trade" that involved the Broncos, Peyton and the most-publicized backup QB in NFL history.
Speaking of Mr. Tebow, he isn't the only backup on a disappointing team whose fans would prefer to see over the starter. The fact that Tebow sucks more than Mark Sanchez evidently doesn't matter to Jets fans. And frankly, whether it's Sanchez or Tebow, and whether it's Michael Vick or Nick Foles in Philadelphia, makes no difference on a team that's going nowhere.
The Steelers, on the other hand, who's playing quarterback for them definitely matters. Early in the season, Pittsburgh looked like it might be the one elite team best-equipped to weather an injury to its starter. They have a pair of former starters, Byron Leftwich and Charlie Batch, backing up Ben Roethlisberger. So when Roethlisberger went down, it looked like the Steelers would be OK with Leftwich playing quarterback for a couple weeks. Then Leftwich got hurt after one game (just like the 2011 Texans), moving Batch into the starting role. But, as it turns out, the 2012 version of Charlie Batch is not the same Charlie Batch that was the Lions' starter 10 years ago. The Steelers lost to the Browns last week and are in danger of missing the playoffs if Roethlisberger can't come back quickly.
Then there's San Francisco, the team that at one time had the greatest backup QB in NFL history (Steve Young). After starter Alex Smith suffered a concussion in that Monday night walloping of the Bears two weeks ago, Colin Kaepernick came in and continued the demolition of the Chicago defense. Kaepernick then got the start last week in New Orleans, and the 49ers won again. Smith's healthy, but Kaepernick will start again this week in St. Louis. The 49ers have a quarterback controversy on their hands (in a good way, unlike the Jets). If one goes down, Jim Harbaugh will be more than comfortable with the other. That's why the 49ers have to feel very confident in their chances to get back to New Orleans in February.
Kaepernick/Smith, Yates and Leftwich are the cream of the crop among the NFL's backup quarterbacks. Another playoff contender that seems to be in decent position backup-wise is Seattle. The Seahawks signed Matt Flynn, Aaron Rodgers' backup in Green Bay last season, with every intention of making him their starter. Flynn lost-out to Russell Wilson in camp, but should Wilson go down, the Seahawks will still be in good hands with him running the offense.
Eli Manning's just as durable as his brother. In fact, Manning still has the longest streak of consecutive QB starts in the NFL. It's just a different one now. But if the Giants do lose Eli for any period of time, they've got an experienced backup in former No. 1 overall pick David Carr. The Vikings' Joe Webb is also a serviceable backup who's capable of winning a game or two. Tampa Bay's backup is Dan Orlovsky, the only quarterback to win a game as the Colts' starter last year. Let's also not forget that this is a franchise that won a Super Bowl with Brad Johnson at quarterback.
And the Bears have Jason Campbell. Now, I know it sounds silly to say this after how incredibly clueless that offense became without Cutler, but if the Bears had to turn to Jason Campbell for an extended period and adjusted their offense accordingly, I do think they would actually do fine. That team is so good, they would just need him to not screw up too badly.
There are a few contenders that would be lost without their starters, though. One is the Broncos. They evidently didn't learn anything from the 2011 Colts, because they've got some dude named Brock Osweiler backing up Peyton. That's basically the same as keeping Tebow. If Baltimore loses proven commodity Joe Flacco, it's up to Tyrod Taylor. I only know that because I looked it up. In other words, if Flacco goes down, so do the Ravens. Same with the Falcons if they lose Matt Ryan. Their backup is Luke McCown, who couldn't keep the starting job in either Cleveland or Jacksonville. And the Packers went from having one of the best backups in the league to Graham Harrell. I didn't know who Graham Harrell was without looking it up, either.
So, while all potential playoff teams would much prefer a healthy starter and no need for a backup quarterback at all, some are in better positions than others if that situation arises. And if forced to make a Super Bowl pick based on who has the best backup quarterback, I'd go with the Texans and 49ers.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
He Should Be In the Hall
Today we lost one of the most influential men in the history of professional sports. Marvin Miller, the longtime head of the MLBPA, passed away at the age of 95. Miller's impact on baseball, and professional sports as a whole, is immeasurable. He's one of the the most important figures in the game's history. And that's why the fact that he still isn't in the Baseball Hall of Fame, despite the fact he lived until he was 95, is a complete travesty.
When Marvin Miller was hired to be the head of Major League Baseball's player's union in 1966, the owners held all the cards. The minimum salary was $6,000, and players were bound to their teams under the antiquated "reserve clause." Players had to take second jobs in the offseason to make ends meet. The player's union was a "union" in name alone. It had no power whatsoever. That all changed under Marvin Miller. It's because of him that professional athletes are multimillionaires today. Because of him, the owners got richer, too.
He famously challenged the reserve clause, taking the Curt Flood case all the way to the Supreme Court. Flood lost, but, a few years later, Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally didn't. Free agency had arrived. Suddenly, the players had a say in where they would play and for how long. The owners thought it would "kill" the sport. They were wrong. Free agency made the game so much better. And as we all know, it's impossible to envison the modern-day game without free agency.
Major League Baseball also became the first professional sport to have a collective bargaining agreement in 1968, permanently giving the players a voice in the way the game was run. It's also because of him that the system of salary arbitration came into place, and when he retired in 1982, the minimum salary had risen more than 400 percent to $33,500. In 2012, the minimum salary was $480,000.
Of course, "strike" took on a very different meaning under Marvin Miller, as well. Major League Baseball had its first work stoppage when the players walked off the job for two weeks in 1972. There was another walkout during Spring Training in 1976, then the infamous seven-week midseason strike that resulted in the 1981 season being divided into two halves. All of that was nothing, though, compared to the 1994-95 strike under Miller's successor Donald Fehr (the same man currently embroiled in the NHL's latest lockout) that wiped out the World Series. But it should also be noted that baseball is going on 20 consecutive years of labor peace since.
The game is bigger and better now than ever before. The average salary is more than $3 million. MLB's revenue was more than $7.5 billion this year. Attendance continues to go up. And let's not forget the new eight-year $7 billion TV deal with FOX, TBS and ESPN that'll give each team more than $25 million a season. None of this immense growth would've been possible without Marvin Miller.
As fans, we owe a tremendous debt of thanks to Marvin Miller. Because of him, the game we love was forever changed for the better. Pioneer. Visionary. One-of-a-kind. Legend. Choose whatever term you like. They all apply. Marvin Miller forever changed baseball, and the game would be nowhere near as prosperous as it is today if not for his influence. It could even be said that Marvin Miller is perhaps the third-most important figure in the history of Major League Baseball, ranking only behind Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson.
Because of everything he did on behalf of the players, there was tremendous resentment towards Marvin Miller among the owners. Unfortunately, that's probably why he still hasn't taken his rightful place in the Hall of Fame. Which is a shame. Marvin Miller shaped baseball history more than any of the executives who do have plaques in Cooperstown. Above all else, the Hall of Fame is a museum. Its purpose is to celebrate the game's history. And Marvin Miller's place in baseball history is undeniable. If there isn't a place for him in the Hall of Fame, why does the Hall of Fame even exist at all?
Marvin Miller came up one vote short of election in 2010. He's eligible again next December. Hopefully, in December 2013, we'll finally see this wrong made right and Miller will take his rightful place in Cooperstown. Unfortunately, he won't be able to make what likely would've been a memorable induction speech. I guess one of the thousands of players Miller helped over the years will have to make that speech for him. And perhaps that would be the most fitting tribute of all.
When Marvin Miller was hired to be the head of Major League Baseball's player's union in 1966, the owners held all the cards. The minimum salary was $6,000, and players were bound to their teams under the antiquated "reserve clause." Players had to take second jobs in the offseason to make ends meet. The player's union was a "union" in name alone. It had no power whatsoever. That all changed under Marvin Miller. It's because of him that professional athletes are multimillionaires today. Because of him, the owners got richer, too.
He famously challenged the reserve clause, taking the Curt Flood case all the way to the Supreme Court. Flood lost, but, a few years later, Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally didn't. Free agency had arrived. Suddenly, the players had a say in where they would play and for how long. The owners thought it would "kill" the sport. They were wrong. Free agency made the game so much better. And as we all know, it's impossible to envison the modern-day game without free agency.
Major League Baseball also became the first professional sport to have a collective bargaining agreement in 1968, permanently giving the players a voice in the way the game was run. It's also because of him that the system of salary arbitration came into place, and when he retired in 1982, the minimum salary had risen more than 400 percent to $33,500. In 2012, the minimum salary was $480,000.
Of course, "strike" took on a very different meaning under Marvin Miller, as well. Major League Baseball had its first work stoppage when the players walked off the job for two weeks in 1972. There was another walkout during Spring Training in 1976, then the infamous seven-week midseason strike that resulted in the 1981 season being divided into two halves. All of that was nothing, though, compared to the 1994-95 strike under Miller's successor Donald Fehr (the same man currently embroiled in the NHL's latest lockout) that wiped out the World Series. But it should also be noted that baseball is going on 20 consecutive years of labor peace since.
The game is bigger and better now than ever before. The average salary is more than $3 million. MLB's revenue was more than $7.5 billion this year. Attendance continues to go up. And let's not forget the new eight-year $7 billion TV deal with FOX, TBS and ESPN that'll give each team more than $25 million a season. None of this immense growth would've been possible without Marvin Miller.
As fans, we owe a tremendous debt of thanks to Marvin Miller. Because of him, the game we love was forever changed for the better. Pioneer. Visionary. One-of-a-kind. Legend. Choose whatever term you like. They all apply. Marvin Miller forever changed baseball, and the game would be nowhere near as prosperous as it is today if not for his influence. It could even be said that Marvin Miller is perhaps the third-most important figure in the history of Major League Baseball, ranking only behind Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson.
Because of everything he did on behalf of the players, there was tremendous resentment towards Marvin Miller among the owners. Unfortunately, that's probably why he still hasn't taken his rightful place in the Hall of Fame. Which is a shame. Marvin Miller shaped baseball history more than any of the executives who do have plaques in Cooperstown. Above all else, the Hall of Fame is a museum. Its purpose is to celebrate the game's history. And Marvin Miller's place in baseball history is undeniable. If there isn't a place for him in the Hall of Fame, why does the Hall of Fame even exist at all?
Marvin Miller came up one vote short of election in 2010. He's eligible again next December. Hopefully, in December 2013, we'll finally see this wrong made right and Miller will take his rightful place in Cooperstown. Unfortunately, he won't be able to make what likely would've been a memorable induction speech. I guess one of the thousands of players Miller helped over the years will have to make that speech for him. And perhaps that would be the most fitting tribute of all.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Two Years or Four Years?
The Baseball Hall of Fame ballot was mailed out today, and this year's vote is going to be one of the most interesting in recent memory. That's because Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are eligible for the first time. The Steroid Era players are going to complicate the vote and probably lead to a very crowded ballot for years to come.
But, believe it or not, today's blog isn't about the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot. I'll share my thoughts on that as we get closer to the actual election. I am going to take the performance-enhancing drug topic, though. More specifically, the World Anti-Doping Agency's pending change in legislation that will double the length of the suspension for an athlete's first doping offense from two years to four.
The whole idea behind this new policy, which will be up for formal approval next year and go into effect in 2015, is to guarantee that any athlete guilty of a serious doping offense would automatically be forced to miss the next Olympics. There's enough support for this new policy that it's likely to pass with flying colors, but I'm still not quite sure how I feel about four-year suspensions for first-time offenders. No two doping offenses are the same, and if they're going to start enforcing four-year bans, they'll really need to consider penalties on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, a four-year ban is appropriate. But in other circumstances, I think a four-year suspension for a first offense might be too steep.
Support for this new WADA code grew during the lead-up to the London Games, where there were a few high-profile cases of athletes having doping bans that would've kept them out of the Olympics overturned. The first was American sprinter LaShawn Merritt, who successfully challenged the IOC's "Osaka Rule." The Osaka Rule said that any athlete who received a suspension of six months or longer for a doping violation would be automatically ineligible for the next Olympics, no matter when the suspension was served. Merritt argued that the Olympic ban was a second sanction for the same offense, which went directly against WADA code. And the Court of Arbitration for Sport agreed. That paved the way for Dwain Chambers to challenge the British Olympic Association's automatic lifetime Olympic ban for any doping offenders. He, too, had his ban overturned by the CAS because double jeopardy also applied in that case.
I agreed with the CAS about both Merritt and Chambers. Especially since Merritt had his initial two-year ban reduced to 21 months, which allowed him to run at the 2011 World Championships and win a silver medal in the 400 meters. Chambers served his suspension from 2003-05, forcing him to miss the Athens Olympics, and he missed the Beijing Games, too, because of the lifetime Olympic ban. Under that ban, Chambers wasn't allowed to represent Great Britain in any international competition from 2006 until the London Olympics. Now, the Chambers case is much different because he was knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs, but regardless, he served his penalty. If he was allowed to compete in all other competitions with no restrictions, he shouldn't have been excluded from attempting to make the Olympic team (which he eventually did).
Compare those cases to Justin Gatlin. The 2004 Olympic champion in the 100 meters, Gatlin had a second positive test in 2006. A second positive usually carries an automatic lifetime ban with it, but Gatlin was given a ban of only eight years because of questionable circumstances regarding his first positive. That suspension was eventually reduced to four years, and Gatlin returned to competiton in 2010. Yet, when Gatlin returned, there was no hoopla surrounding him. He was welcomed back as if nothing had happened. In fact, it was seen as a remarkable story of redemption when Gatlin made the Olympic team this summer. And he put an exclamation point on the story by winning the bronze behind Bolt and Blake in London.
The reason I bring up Merritt, Chambers and Gatlin is to illustrate my point that every doing case is different. And that's why I'm not sure an automatic four-year ban is necessarily the answer for everybody. They need to also have shorter bans for violations that aren't deemed as serious. Or at least the option to issue shorter suspensions.
Although, this is a tricky subject. Because I completely see the reasoning behind the new policy, as well. And I don't necessarily disagree with it, either. Many in the Olympic Movement and the different international sporting federations feel that two years is not enough of a deterrent. Forcing an athlete to miss an Olympics would get the point across in a very emphatic way. And it would further prove that performance-enhancing drugs have no place in the Olympics. Likewise, the potential lost income from not getting the endorsements and other spoils of Olympic success could be immense. That's the point. That's where I support the new code.
WADA and the international sport federations are confident that the new code will stand up to any potential legal challenges. They're being smart and careful about it. A four-year ban doesn't break any national laws, so worldwide enforcement won't be a problem. Likewise, it would serve the same purpose as the IOC and BOA policies that were thrown out this year (although, it should be noted, Chambers still would've been eligible for the London Olympics under the new policy).
Ultimately, this new policy is going to pass. There's too much support for it not to. And, regardless, I'm sure it's something we'll all get used to. And, who knows? Maybe it'll serve its intended purpose. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever be able to keep drugs completely out of the Olympics. So keeping the drug cheats out might be the way to clean them up. Even if all doping cases are not created equal.
But, believe it or not, today's blog isn't about the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot. I'll share my thoughts on that as we get closer to the actual election. I am going to take the performance-enhancing drug topic, though. More specifically, the World Anti-Doping Agency's pending change in legislation that will double the length of the suspension for an athlete's first doping offense from two years to four.
The whole idea behind this new policy, which will be up for formal approval next year and go into effect in 2015, is to guarantee that any athlete guilty of a serious doping offense would automatically be forced to miss the next Olympics. There's enough support for this new policy that it's likely to pass with flying colors, but I'm still not quite sure how I feel about four-year suspensions for first-time offenders. No two doping offenses are the same, and if they're going to start enforcing four-year bans, they'll really need to consider penalties on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, a four-year ban is appropriate. But in other circumstances, I think a four-year suspension for a first offense might be too steep.
Support for this new WADA code grew during the lead-up to the London Games, where there were a few high-profile cases of athletes having doping bans that would've kept them out of the Olympics overturned. The first was American sprinter LaShawn Merritt, who successfully challenged the IOC's "Osaka Rule." The Osaka Rule said that any athlete who received a suspension of six months or longer for a doping violation would be automatically ineligible for the next Olympics, no matter when the suspension was served. Merritt argued that the Olympic ban was a second sanction for the same offense, which went directly against WADA code. And the Court of Arbitration for Sport agreed. That paved the way for Dwain Chambers to challenge the British Olympic Association's automatic lifetime Olympic ban for any doping offenders. He, too, had his ban overturned by the CAS because double jeopardy also applied in that case.
I agreed with the CAS about both Merritt and Chambers. Especially since Merritt had his initial two-year ban reduced to 21 months, which allowed him to run at the 2011 World Championships and win a silver medal in the 400 meters. Chambers served his suspension from 2003-05, forcing him to miss the Athens Olympics, and he missed the Beijing Games, too, because of the lifetime Olympic ban. Under that ban, Chambers wasn't allowed to represent Great Britain in any international competition from 2006 until the London Olympics. Now, the Chambers case is much different because he was knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs, but regardless, he served his penalty. If he was allowed to compete in all other competitions with no restrictions, he shouldn't have been excluded from attempting to make the Olympic team (which he eventually did).
Compare those cases to Justin Gatlin. The 2004 Olympic champion in the 100 meters, Gatlin had a second positive test in 2006. A second positive usually carries an automatic lifetime ban with it, but Gatlin was given a ban of only eight years because of questionable circumstances regarding his first positive. That suspension was eventually reduced to four years, and Gatlin returned to competiton in 2010. Yet, when Gatlin returned, there was no hoopla surrounding him. He was welcomed back as if nothing had happened. In fact, it was seen as a remarkable story of redemption when Gatlin made the Olympic team this summer. And he put an exclamation point on the story by winning the bronze behind Bolt and Blake in London.
The reason I bring up Merritt, Chambers and Gatlin is to illustrate my point that every doing case is different. And that's why I'm not sure an automatic four-year ban is necessarily the answer for everybody. They need to also have shorter bans for violations that aren't deemed as serious. Or at least the option to issue shorter suspensions.
Although, this is a tricky subject. Because I completely see the reasoning behind the new policy, as well. And I don't necessarily disagree with it, either. Many in the Olympic Movement and the different international sporting federations feel that two years is not enough of a deterrent. Forcing an athlete to miss an Olympics would get the point across in a very emphatic way. And it would further prove that performance-enhancing drugs have no place in the Olympics. Likewise, the potential lost income from not getting the endorsements and other spoils of Olympic success could be immense. That's the point. That's where I support the new code.
WADA and the international sport federations are confident that the new code will stand up to any potential legal challenges. They're being smart and careful about it. A four-year ban doesn't break any national laws, so worldwide enforcement won't be a problem. Likewise, it would serve the same purpose as the IOC and BOA policies that were thrown out this year (although, it should be noted, Chambers still would've been eligible for the London Olympics under the new policy).
Ultimately, this new policy is going to pass. There's too much support for it not to. And, regardless, I'm sure it's something we'll all get used to. And, who knows? Maybe it'll serve its intended purpose. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever be able to keep drugs completely out of the Olympics. So keeping the drug cheats out might be the way to clean them up. Even if all doping cases are not created equal.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Teams You Love to Hate
I saw somewhere earlier this week that, in general, casual fans have been more interested in college football this year than usual. Why? The reason is pretty clear. Notre Dame. Notre Dame's good for the first time in a long time and will be playing for its first "National Championship" since 1988, which means the Notre Dame fans and the Notre Dame haters are all coming out of the woodwork.
Notre Dame is the most polarizing team in college football. People either love Notre Dame or love to hate Notre Dame. There's no in-between. Notre Dame football is the New York Yankees. Or the Dallas Cowboys. Or the Los Angeles Lakers. Or Duke men's basketball. No matter what, these five teams will make headlines one way or another. Win or lose. But when they're good, there's no denying it's good for their sport. Because people are going to talk about them. They're either going to say how much they love them or how much they hate them.
But why do some people hate these five teams just as much as others love them? What do the Yankees, the Cowboys, the Lakers, Notre Dame football and Duke basketball have in common? For starters, they all have a long tradition of excellence. Back in the days before every game was on TV, there were only a few options. These are the teams that were always on, so it became very easy to develop a rooting interest.
At the same time, familiarity breeds contempt. It's understandable that some fans would grow tired of seeing the same teams win year after year after year. This can lead to resentment, especially when the "popular" teams are on instead of your favorite. (That's why Dallas gets so many Monday night games, folks.) And that makes it very easy to root against them. Rooting for the team that always wins can get boring after a while, too. That's one of the reasons why it's so fun to root for the underdog, especially when they're going against a powerhouse. How many Lehigh fans-for-a-day were there during the Mountain Hawks upset over Duke in last season's NCAA Tournament?
Likewise, every great team has star power. Some of the greatest players in the history of their respective sports have worn these five uniforms. Fans like watching stars. If your favorite player happened to play for the Cowboys, it's only natural that you'd become a Cowboys fan, as well. (Why do you think I became the world's newest Denver Broncos fan a few months ago?) And chances are, that loyalty carried over long after Mickey Mantle or Tony Dorsett or Kareem retired.
Fans come out to see the stars. (Why else do you think the Yankees and Lakers are always among the league leaders in road attendance?) And this abundance of stars works both for and against all five of these teams. On the one hand, it makes recruiting would-be freshmen or courting free agents a lot easier. But that also leads to increased expectations and extra scrutiny. Especially from the fans and the media. Sometimes these players themselves are unlikable (see: Rodriguez, Alex), so rooting against them becomes a sport in its own right. And, more often than not, these teams and their fans are viewed as elitists.
There's also the perception (whether it's accurate or not doesn't even really matter) that the deck is stacked in their favor. Every year you hear the griping about the Yankees "buying" their team, and more than a few people found it ultra-convenient that the Lakers found a way to get both Dwight Howard and Steve Nash during the offseason (that's why the Miami Heat have quickly become the second-most hated team in the NBA). Or that the Cowboys are either the late game, Sunday night gme or Monday night game seemingly every week, whether they're 10-2 or 3-9.
The favoritism calls are loudest when it comes to Notre Dame. There's a lot of bitterness in the college football community about how much power Notre Dame acually holds. And it's a lot. Any discussions regarding the BCS involve the six major conference commissioners and Notre Dame. Notre Dame's the only school with a guaranteed path into the BCS, and they get the same payout as the conference do. But most of the crying foul is about Notre Dame's independent status. Since the Irish have been able to avoid joining a conference, they get to negotiate their own TV contract (that's why all the home games are on NBC) and play whoever they want. Some say that's unfair. I say it's smart. More power to them.
Lastly, let's not forget about the rivalry element. In my opinion, this is the only valid reason to completely despise another team. I hate those people who don't like a team "just because" and can't tell you why. Just like I can't stand those people who think that disliking one team automatically makes them a fan of another (yes, I'm talking about the 2003-04 Red Sox bandwagon). But if you hate one team because they're your favorite team's rival, that's completely acceptable. I hate the Boston Red Sox. I hate the New York Islanders. Michigan fans hate Ohio State. Alabama fans hate Auburn. North Carolina fans hate Duke. I get that. Rivalries are part of what fuels sports. (And even with rivalries, the fans, for the most part, respect each other.)
It's impossible to pinpoint exactly why Notre Dame is so polarizing. It's probably a combination of everything. Same thing with the Yankees. And the Cowboys. And the Lakers. And Duke. Ultimately, the reason(s) doesn't matter. What matters is that Notre Dame football being relevant feels right. The sports world seems upside-down when one of these marquee teams is down. And I think we can all agree that, love them or hate them, Notre Dame has been down for entirely too long.
Notre Dame is the most polarizing team in college football. People either love Notre Dame or love to hate Notre Dame. There's no in-between. Notre Dame football is the New York Yankees. Or the Dallas Cowboys. Or the Los Angeles Lakers. Or Duke men's basketball. No matter what, these five teams will make headlines one way or another. Win or lose. But when they're good, there's no denying it's good for their sport. Because people are going to talk about them. They're either going to say how much they love them or how much they hate them.
But why do some people hate these five teams just as much as others love them? What do the Yankees, the Cowboys, the Lakers, Notre Dame football and Duke basketball have in common? For starters, they all have a long tradition of excellence. Back in the days before every game was on TV, there were only a few options. These are the teams that were always on, so it became very easy to develop a rooting interest.
At the same time, familiarity breeds contempt. It's understandable that some fans would grow tired of seeing the same teams win year after year after year. This can lead to resentment, especially when the "popular" teams are on instead of your favorite. (That's why Dallas gets so many Monday night games, folks.) And that makes it very easy to root against them. Rooting for the team that always wins can get boring after a while, too. That's one of the reasons why it's so fun to root for the underdog, especially when they're going against a powerhouse. How many Lehigh fans-for-a-day were there during the Mountain Hawks upset over Duke in last season's NCAA Tournament?
Likewise, every great team has star power. Some of the greatest players in the history of their respective sports have worn these five uniforms. Fans like watching stars. If your favorite player happened to play for the Cowboys, it's only natural that you'd become a Cowboys fan, as well. (Why do you think I became the world's newest Denver Broncos fan a few months ago?) And chances are, that loyalty carried over long after Mickey Mantle or Tony Dorsett or Kareem retired.
Fans come out to see the stars. (Why else do you think the Yankees and Lakers are always among the league leaders in road attendance?) And this abundance of stars works both for and against all five of these teams. On the one hand, it makes recruiting would-be freshmen or courting free agents a lot easier. But that also leads to increased expectations and extra scrutiny. Especially from the fans and the media. Sometimes these players themselves are unlikable (see: Rodriguez, Alex), so rooting against them becomes a sport in its own right. And, more often than not, these teams and their fans are viewed as elitists.
There's also the perception (whether it's accurate or not doesn't even really matter) that the deck is stacked in their favor. Every year you hear the griping about the Yankees "buying" their team, and more than a few people found it ultra-convenient that the Lakers found a way to get both Dwight Howard and Steve Nash during the offseason (that's why the Miami Heat have quickly become the second-most hated team in the NBA). Or that the Cowboys are either the late game, Sunday night gme or Monday night game seemingly every week, whether they're 10-2 or 3-9.
The favoritism calls are loudest when it comes to Notre Dame. There's a lot of bitterness in the college football community about how much power Notre Dame acually holds. And it's a lot. Any discussions regarding the BCS involve the six major conference commissioners and Notre Dame. Notre Dame's the only school with a guaranteed path into the BCS, and they get the same payout as the conference do. But most of the crying foul is about Notre Dame's independent status. Since the Irish have been able to avoid joining a conference, they get to negotiate their own TV contract (that's why all the home games are on NBC) and play whoever they want. Some say that's unfair. I say it's smart. More power to them.
Lastly, let's not forget about the rivalry element. In my opinion, this is the only valid reason to completely despise another team. I hate those people who don't like a team "just because" and can't tell you why. Just like I can't stand those people who think that disliking one team automatically makes them a fan of another (yes, I'm talking about the 2003-04 Red Sox bandwagon). But if you hate one team because they're your favorite team's rival, that's completely acceptable. I hate the Boston Red Sox. I hate the New York Islanders. Michigan fans hate Ohio State. Alabama fans hate Auburn. North Carolina fans hate Duke. I get that. Rivalries are part of what fuels sports. (And even with rivalries, the fans, for the most part, respect each other.)
It's impossible to pinpoint exactly why Notre Dame is so polarizing. It's probably a combination of everything. Same thing with the Yankees. And the Cowboys. And the Lakers. And Duke. Ultimately, the reason(s) doesn't matter. What matters is that Notre Dame football being relevant feels right. The sports world seems upside-down when one of these marquee teams is down. And I think we can all agree that, love them or hate them, Notre Dame has been down for entirely too long.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
NFL Week 12 Picks
I know what you're thinking. "Wait, doesn't he normally do the NFL picks on Saturdays?" Well, yes. But this week is different. It's Thanksgiving. Instead of one Thursday night game between two crappy teams on NFL Network, we've got a full slate of Thanksgiving action, including a Jets-Patriots matchup on NBC as the capper after the traditional Lions and Cowboys doubleheader. As a result, we give thanks for the NFL and Thanksgiving football with a week's worth of picks a few days early.
Texans (9-1) at Lions (4-6): Houston-Well, just like I thought, the Texans almost lost their proverbial "trap" game last week at home against Jacksonville. Fortunately, they showed up in the fourth quarter and pulled it out in overtime to avoid an embarrassing loss. Now they're on a short week for the first Thanksgiving game in franchise history. Their opponent is a Lions team that basically needs to run the table if they want to have any shot at returning to the playoffs, and they know it. Back a few years ago when the Thanksgiving game was the Lions' only national TV game all season, we could always count on that one being Detroit's best game of the year. I don't think that'll be any different this year. But the Texans will relish the national showcase and prove that last week was the fluke. They'll be the first team in the NFL to get to 10 wins.
Redskins (4-6) at Cowboys (5-5): Dallas-I hate it when Dallas plays a division game on Thanksgiving, mainly because it means either the Cowboys, Redskins or Eagles has to win. Dallas-Washington is the worst, since those are the two I hate the most. This one probably ended up on Thanksgiving because the Redskins are the Cowboys' archrival. It's not because of how good Washington is. And the schedule came out before they drafted RG3. Anyway, the Redskins slaughtered that sinking ship known as the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday, while the Cowboys needed overtime to beat a Browns team that looked better than it has all season. Griffin makes his national TV debut on Thanksgiving Day in Dallas, but he won't be receiving the turducken leg or Galloping Gobbler or whatever stupid award FOX gives out now. The Cowboys can move within a half-game of the Giants if they win, which I think they will.
Patriots (7-3) at Jets (4-6): New England-When they added the Thanksgiving night NBC game to the schedule this season, they picked Patroits-Jets to be the debut. They probably figured it would be a great matchup leading into the playoff stretch between the two teams most people figured would be fighting for the AFC East title. Instead, the Jets are a complete mess, although they did their three-game losing streak with a win over the Rams last week. That losing streak started with an overtime loss in a game they should've won in Foxboro. The Patriots have the Jets' number. Even without Gronkowski, I don't see that changing.
Vikings (6-4) at Bears (7-3): Chicago-The Vikings and Bears play twice in the next three weeks, and this matchup is huge for both teams. How badly do the Bears need Jay Cutler? They sure got slaughtered by the 49ers on Monday night, didn't they? Anyway, after losses to Houston and San Francisco, the Bears amazingly aren't in first place anymore. The Vikings, meanwhile, are in a three-way tie for the second wild card, but lost to both of the teams they're tied with (Seattle and Tampa Bay). So, basically, both teams need a win. Only one can get it. It'll be Chicago. There's no way that defense won't bounce back. And they'll take it out on Christian Ponder.
Raiders (3-7) at Bengals (5-5): Cincinnati-Cincinnati has won two straight to move to .500 on the season and get within one game of a playoff spot. Now that they're not playing teams that are crappier than them anymore, the Raiders have gone back to getting their asses kicked on a weekly basis. Cincinnati falls into the "good" category, not the "crappier than Oakland" category. That means the Bengals should win.
Steelers (6-4) at Browns (2-8): Pittsburgh-First Ben Roethlisberger goes down, then the Steelers lose Byron Leftwich after one game. Enter 36-year-old Charlie Batch, the former Lions starter from way back when. As a result, I've got Pittsburgh on upset alert this week against a game Browns team that looked phenomenal in its overtime loss in Dallas last week. I still think the Steelers win, but it'll be closer than you would've thought a couple weeks ago.
Bills (4-6) at Colts (6-4): Indianapolis-Thanks to that last place schedule and an overall pretty weak AFC, a playoff berth is Indy's for the taking. In three of their four losses this year, the Colts have gotten crushed, including last week's 59-24 thumping at the hands of the Patriots. The Bills only lost by seven in New England the week before, then went and beat the Dolphins last week on Thursday night. With the extra rest especially, I think Buffalo has a chance and keeps it close. But ultimately, Andrew will find a little more Luck and the Colts will pull out another one.
Broncos (7-3) at Chiefs (1-9): Denver-Denver hasn't officially clinched the AFC West yet, but we all know it's just a matter of time. We almost saw the one-win Jaguars beat the one-loss Texans last week, and the Chiefs have certainly played much better in their last two games, actually having the lead in both. But, who we kidding here? This will be a Denver rout.
Seahawks ("6-4") at Dolphins (4-6): Miami-No teams in the NFL are located farther apart geographically than these two. The Seahawks currently hold the second NFC wild card, while the Dolphins' chances to stay in the AFC mix really took a hit last week in Buffalo. Logic dictates a Seattle win, and the Seahawks are favored in this game. But with that travel and a 1:00 game, I just don't see it happening. The Dolphins in a minor upset.
Falcons (9-1) at Buccaneers (6-4): Atlanta-Tampa Bay's a very dangerous team right now, and Atlanta had better beware. The Bucs have won four straight and, after outscoring everybody for a couple weeks, dug deep and won one that it looked like they were almost certainly going to lose in overtime in Charlotte last week. If the Falcons were still undefeated, I would've earmarked this game as the first loss. But a week after losing to New Orleans, the Falcons also found a way to win last week at home against Arizona. It's possible there'll be three NFC South teams in the playoffs. That'll make these division games ultra-important. Atlanta can take a stranglehold with a win, though. The Falcons can stop worrying about the NFC South. They can start thinking about home field advantage throughout the playoffs.
Titans (4-6) at Jaguars (1-9): Tennessee-In their remaining six games, the Jaguars play the entire AFC East bookended by their two meetings with the Titans. Tennessee still has an outside playoff chance, which will all but go away with a loss to lowly Jacksonville. They had a really impressive showing in Miami heading into their bye week. Their trip to the other end of Florida should be no different.
Ravens (8-2) at Chargers (4-6): Baltimore-Ed Reed will play, which is the right call. That hit last week was illegal, but not dirty. There's a big difference. Yes, the Chargers always play better in the second half of the season. But I don't see that happening this year. This stretch that they're in the middle of is brutal. They lost in Tampa Bay, then lost in Denver. Well, it's another playoff contender this week in the AFC North-leading Ravens, whose 8-2 record is the third-best in the NFL. Another road win will defintely bolster Baltimore's postseason resume.
49ers (7-2-1) at Saints (5-5): San Francisco-It's not a stretch to call this one the game of the week, and it's a rematch of that great NFC Divisional Playoff game from last season. Jim Harbaugh has announced that Colin Kaepernick will get the start again this week. Good call. Kaepernick led that fourth-quarter comeback in the tie with St. Louis, then had that dominant performance against the Bears on Monday night. You've gotta give the 49ers credit for how they responded to the St. Louis game with what was by far their best effort of the season. The Saints have turned things around after their 0-4 start, winning five of their last six. If they beat the 49ers in the Superdome, those playoff thoughts might not be that far-fetched after all. San Francisco can stamp itself as a contender to return to New Orleans in early February if they win, though. The 49ers are a better team. Their defense will make the difference.
Rams (3-6-1) at Cardinals (4-6): Arizona-It's now six straight losses for the Cardinals since starting the season 4-0, although they came close to pulling one out last week in Atlanta. The Rams at home, you'd figure, are their best chance to snap the streak. It looked like St. Louis had turned a corner with the tie in San Francisco. Then they go and lose at home to the Jets. Last place in the NFC West is on the line here. The Cardinals win and maintain third place.
Packers ("7-3") at Giants (6-4): Giants-This is a close second behind 49ers-Saints in the "Game of the Week" sweepstakes. The Packers, believe it or not, have moved into first place and the No. 3 seed in the NFC thanks to their five straight wins and Chicago's back-to-back losses. The Giants are still in first place, too, but barely, and they could actually end up tied with the Cowboys if they lose and Dallas wins. We all know how historically bad the Giants have been in November under Tom Coughlin. And the Packers are right up their among the best teams in football right now. This should be a good one. All signs point to a Green Bay win, but I just have this feeling about the Giants. They've been embarrassed two weeks in a row. But they were also a team in desparate need of a bye, which they finally got last week. They've got something to prove, even if it's only to themselves. That's normally when the Giants play their best. Call me an optimistic fan, but I see the Giants winning for some reason. (Sidebar: you know they have to have scheduled the Thursday and Sunday night games both in New York on purpose. Have fun, NBC employees. No traveling on Thanskgiving Weekend!)
Panthers (2-8) at Eagles (3-7): Philadephia-Our annual football feast ends with a dud. A meaningless Monday night game between two teams going nowhere. You can't even get excited for Cam Newton vs. Michael Vick, seeing as Vick won't play. The Eagles are a sinking ship that's going down quickly. The Panthers are simply a mess, although they did look good (really good, in fact) in last week's game that they probably should've won against Tampa Bay. Let's say Philadelphia, if for no other reason than because the Eagles are at home.
Last Week: 10-4
Season: 109-50-1
BONUS GAME: 100th Grey Cup-Toronto Argonauts vs. Calgary Stampeders-Both of these teams won on the road last week to advance to the historic 100th Grey Cup. It's being played in Toronto, site of more Grey Cups than anywhere else, which gives the Argos a tremendous advantage. They're playing a home game in the Grey Cup for the first time since 1982. They've also looked better than Calgary in their two playoff games. I don't see how Toronto loses in front of those rabid home fans. Not with a championship on the line.
Texans (9-1) at Lions (4-6): Houston-Well, just like I thought, the Texans almost lost their proverbial "trap" game last week at home against Jacksonville. Fortunately, they showed up in the fourth quarter and pulled it out in overtime to avoid an embarrassing loss. Now they're on a short week for the first Thanksgiving game in franchise history. Their opponent is a Lions team that basically needs to run the table if they want to have any shot at returning to the playoffs, and they know it. Back a few years ago when the Thanksgiving game was the Lions' only national TV game all season, we could always count on that one being Detroit's best game of the year. I don't think that'll be any different this year. But the Texans will relish the national showcase and prove that last week was the fluke. They'll be the first team in the NFL to get to 10 wins.
Redskins (4-6) at Cowboys (5-5): Dallas-I hate it when Dallas plays a division game on Thanksgiving, mainly because it means either the Cowboys, Redskins or Eagles has to win. Dallas-Washington is the worst, since those are the two I hate the most. This one probably ended up on Thanksgiving because the Redskins are the Cowboys' archrival. It's not because of how good Washington is. And the schedule came out before they drafted RG3. Anyway, the Redskins slaughtered that sinking ship known as the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday, while the Cowboys needed overtime to beat a Browns team that looked better than it has all season. Griffin makes his national TV debut on Thanksgiving Day in Dallas, but he won't be receiving the turducken leg or Galloping Gobbler or whatever stupid award FOX gives out now. The Cowboys can move within a half-game of the Giants if they win, which I think they will.
Patriots (7-3) at Jets (4-6): New England-When they added the Thanksgiving night NBC game to the schedule this season, they picked Patroits-Jets to be the debut. They probably figured it would be a great matchup leading into the playoff stretch between the two teams most people figured would be fighting for the AFC East title. Instead, the Jets are a complete mess, although they did their three-game losing streak with a win over the Rams last week. That losing streak started with an overtime loss in a game they should've won in Foxboro. The Patriots have the Jets' number. Even without Gronkowski, I don't see that changing.
Vikings (6-4) at Bears (7-3): Chicago-The Vikings and Bears play twice in the next three weeks, and this matchup is huge for both teams. How badly do the Bears need Jay Cutler? They sure got slaughtered by the 49ers on Monday night, didn't they? Anyway, after losses to Houston and San Francisco, the Bears amazingly aren't in first place anymore. The Vikings, meanwhile, are in a three-way tie for the second wild card, but lost to both of the teams they're tied with (Seattle and Tampa Bay). So, basically, both teams need a win. Only one can get it. It'll be Chicago. There's no way that defense won't bounce back. And they'll take it out on Christian Ponder.
Raiders (3-7) at Bengals (5-5): Cincinnati-Cincinnati has won two straight to move to .500 on the season and get within one game of a playoff spot. Now that they're not playing teams that are crappier than them anymore, the Raiders have gone back to getting their asses kicked on a weekly basis. Cincinnati falls into the "good" category, not the "crappier than Oakland" category. That means the Bengals should win.
Steelers (6-4) at Browns (2-8): Pittsburgh-First Ben Roethlisberger goes down, then the Steelers lose Byron Leftwich after one game. Enter 36-year-old Charlie Batch, the former Lions starter from way back when. As a result, I've got Pittsburgh on upset alert this week against a game Browns team that looked phenomenal in its overtime loss in Dallas last week. I still think the Steelers win, but it'll be closer than you would've thought a couple weeks ago.
Bills (4-6) at Colts (6-4): Indianapolis-Thanks to that last place schedule and an overall pretty weak AFC, a playoff berth is Indy's for the taking. In three of their four losses this year, the Colts have gotten crushed, including last week's 59-24 thumping at the hands of the Patriots. The Bills only lost by seven in New England the week before, then went and beat the Dolphins last week on Thursday night. With the extra rest especially, I think Buffalo has a chance and keeps it close. But ultimately, Andrew will find a little more Luck and the Colts will pull out another one.
Broncos (7-3) at Chiefs (1-9): Denver-Denver hasn't officially clinched the AFC West yet, but we all know it's just a matter of time. We almost saw the one-win Jaguars beat the one-loss Texans last week, and the Chiefs have certainly played much better in their last two games, actually having the lead in both. But, who we kidding here? This will be a Denver rout.
Seahawks ("6-4") at Dolphins (4-6): Miami-No teams in the NFL are located farther apart geographically than these two. The Seahawks currently hold the second NFC wild card, while the Dolphins' chances to stay in the AFC mix really took a hit last week in Buffalo. Logic dictates a Seattle win, and the Seahawks are favored in this game. But with that travel and a 1:00 game, I just don't see it happening. The Dolphins in a minor upset.
Falcons (9-1) at Buccaneers (6-4): Atlanta-Tampa Bay's a very dangerous team right now, and Atlanta had better beware. The Bucs have won four straight and, after outscoring everybody for a couple weeks, dug deep and won one that it looked like they were almost certainly going to lose in overtime in Charlotte last week. If the Falcons were still undefeated, I would've earmarked this game as the first loss. But a week after losing to New Orleans, the Falcons also found a way to win last week at home against Arizona. It's possible there'll be three NFC South teams in the playoffs. That'll make these division games ultra-important. Atlanta can take a stranglehold with a win, though. The Falcons can stop worrying about the NFC South. They can start thinking about home field advantage throughout the playoffs.
Titans (4-6) at Jaguars (1-9): Tennessee-In their remaining six games, the Jaguars play the entire AFC East bookended by their two meetings with the Titans. Tennessee still has an outside playoff chance, which will all but go away with a loss to lowly Jacksonville. They had a really impressive showing in Miami heading into their bye week. Their trip to the other end of Florida should be no different.
Ravens (8-2) at Chargers (4-6): Baltimore-Ed Reed will play, which is the right call. That hit last week was illegal, but not dirty. There's a big difference. Yes, the Chargers always play better in the second half of the season. But I don't see that happening this year. This stretch that they're in the middle of is brutal. They lost in Tampa Bay, then lost in Denver. Well, it's another playoff contender this week in the AFC North-leading Ravens, whose 8-2 record is the third-best in the NFL. Another road win will defintely bolster Baltimore's postseason resume.
49ers (7-2-1) at Saints (5-5): San Francisco-It's not a stretch to call this one the game of the week, and it's a rematch of that great NFC Divisional Playoff game from last season. Jim Harbaugh has announced that Colin Kaepernick will get the start again this week. Good call. Kaepernick led that fourth-quarter comeback in the tie with St. Louis, then had that dominant performance against the Bears on Monday night. You've gotta give the 49ers credit for how they responded to the St. Louis game with what was by far their best effort of the season. The Saints have turned things around after their 0-4 start, winning five of their last six. If they beat the 49ers in the Superdome, those playoff thoughts might not be that far-fetched after all. San Francisco can stamp itself as a contender to return to New Orleans in early February if they win, though. The 49ers are a better team. Their defense will make the difference.
Rams (3-6-1) at Cardinals (4-6): Arizona-It's now six straight losses for the Cardinals since starting the season 4-0, although they came close to pulling one out last week in Atlanta. The Rams at home, you'd figure, are their best chance to snap the streak. It looked like St. Louis had turned a corner with the tie in San Francisco. Then they go and lose at home to the Jets. Last place in the NFC West is on the line here. The Cardinals win and maintain third place.
Packers ("7-3") at Giants (6-4): Giants-This is a close second behind 49ers-Saints in the "Game of the Week" sweepstakes. The Packers, believe it or not, have moved into first place and the No. 3 seed in the NFC thanks to their five straight wins and Chicago's back-to-back losses. The Giants are still in first place, too, but barely, and they could actually end up tied with the Cowboys if they lose and Dallas wins. We all know how historically bad the Giants have been in November under Tom Coughlin. And the Packers are right up their among the best teams in football right now. This should be a good one. All signs point to a Green Bay win, but I just have this feeling about the Giants. They've been embarrassed two weeks in a row. But they were also a team in desparate need of a bye, which they finally got last week. They've got something to prove, even if it's only to themselves. That's normally when the Giants play their best. Call me an optimistic fan, but I see the Giants winning for some reason. (Sidebar: you know they have to have scheduled the Thursday and Sunday night games both in New York on purpose. Have fun, NBC employees. No traveling on Thanskgiving Weekend!)
Panthers (2-8) at Eagles (3-7): Philadephia-Our annual football feast ends with a dud. A meaningless Monday night game between two teams going nowhere. You can't even get excited for Cam Newton vs. Michael Vick, seeing as Vick won't play. The Eagles are a sinking ship that's going down quickly. The Panthers are simply a mess, although they did look good (really good, in fact) in last week's game that they probably should've won against Tampa Bay. Let's say Philadelphia, if for no other reason than because the Eagles are at home.
Last Week: 10-4
Season: 109-50-1
BONUS GAME: 100th Grey Cup-Toronto Argonauts vs. Calgary Stampeders-Both of these teams won on the road last week to advance to the historic 100th Grey Cup. It's being played in Toronto, site of more Grey Cups than anywhere else, which gives the Argos a tremendous advantage. They're playing a home game in the Grey Cup for the first time since 1982. They've also looked better than Calgary in their two playoff games. I don't see how Toronto loses in front of those rabid home fans. Not with a championship on the line.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Here We Go Again
Amazingly, we managed to go a few weeks without any news on the conference realignment front. Some of us were actually stupid enough to think it might be over. Or at least cool down a little. Especially now that there's going to be a college football playoff. Silly us. Today the Big Ten, who started this mess in the first place, got in on the act, adding Maryland and Rutgers to become the Big 14. And so Round II (or is this III? Maybe IV?) begins.
Once all of the newly-announced moves go into effect (I can't even keep track of who's leaving what conference and join another when anymore), we'll have 15 teams in the ACC, 14 in the Big Ten, 14 in the SEC and 12 in the Pac-12, although you'd have to be a fool to think they won't look for two or four more (hello UNLV, how are you?). You know the Big 12's going to add at least two (think BYU) and get back to its name making sense. And God knows how many will be left in my poor Big East when this is all said and done.
Sadly, it looks like the four superconferences we were warned about are close to becoming a reality. The Big 12 might survive, if only because of its automatic tie-in to the bowls. But those four inevitable superconferences are coming. And they'll be the Big Ten, Pac-12, ACC and SEC. The Big East as we knew it is dead. And it breaks my heart to say it.
The Big East will still exist in some form. The name still holds some level of prestige in the college sports world. Especially among the non-BCS schools. And there are enough Big East schools that only play basketball (which is what started the entire problem in the first place) that will stay together. And that Big East Tournament in Madison Square Garden ain't going anywhere anytime soon, so you know there will be plenty of suitors. But the Big East has always been Syracuse and UConn and Georgetown. Forgive me for not getting excited about DePaul-SMU. Likewise, am I the only one who thinks that a Syracuse-Duke conference game or a Big Ten game between Rutgers and Nebraska will be weird? Just wait for that Maryland-Utah Rose Bowl.
You know it isn't done. The ACC was all set to be 14+Notre Dame with the addition of Pitt and Syracuse. Now they need to add somebody else. Probably UConn or Louisville. My guess is UConn. And since you know the SEC isn't going to just sit there and watch the ACC continue to grow, they'll probably be after Louisville. Do they then take a shot at one of the Big East Florida schools, too? South Florida perhaps? That would make the SEC the first 16-team superleague.
If the SEC is comfortable with its current 14, I can see Louisville staying in the Big East. They've quickly become one of the conference's cornerstone programs, and they're only going to move higher up the food chain with all of the Big East defections. Besides, Rick Pitino holds a tremendous amount of influence. It's because of him that the Big East "survived" the last round by bringing in Temple and Memphis. If Pitino wants to stay in the Big East and be the top dog, Louisville's administration will listen. Although, if they have the chance to join the SEC and be in the same league as Kentucky, does that trump Rick Pitino's preference?
The Big 12's stability doesn't seem to be as imminently threatened, but they're going to have to do something fast. Before deciding on just going from 10 to 12, the Pac-12 was talking to Texas and thinking about 16. Do they come knocking on the Longhorns' door again? Or does the Big 12 get aggressive and do what it should've done two years ago. Make a run at BYU. Offer them the same sweetheart deal you gave Texas that convinced them to stay. You can even let the Cougars pick the 12th team. Colorado State maybe?
And what about the Pac-12? You know Texas would be their obvious preference, but they won't just add one. Do they go for Oklahoma, which means Oklahoma State would get to come along for the ride? That's 15, so you need one more. Another Texas school? Baylor. This is all hypothetical (right now), of course, but if those dominoes start to fall, we're right back where we were two years ago. Except this time, Kansas and Kansas State get out while they still can, and that's how the Big "Ten" gets to 16.
Like I said before, the Big East, at least for the immediate future, looks like it's going to weather this latest round of defections. After all the dust settles, the Big East will once again reload, probably with teams from Conference USA, which is sadly becoming the Big East feeder system in the much same way the Big East is becoming a feeder system for the BCS conferences. (Should the Big 12 or Pac-12 look to expand, their obvious targets, outside of BYU, will come from the Mountain West.)
So who does the Big East add? East Carolina was actively lobbying for membership last summer. One year later, they might finally get their wish. Navy was going to be the Big East's 13th football team, so I say they only need to add one and have 12 in football. And the 16-team basketball league, while obviously not as strong, would still be among the nation's best. That's why the Big East will survive in some form. The basketball league is too good. And ssince ome of those schools don't have football, they don't care about football money. I also think it's very conceivable the Big East will give up on football altogether, which might actually bring some more stabililty.
(For the sake of clarity, here's what the Big East would look like with UConn gone and replaced by East Carolina:)
Basketball: Central Florida, Cincinnati, DePaul, East Carolina, Georgetown, Houston, Louisville, Marquette, Memphis, Providence, Seton Hall, South Florida, SMU, St. John's, Temple, Villanova
Football: Boise State, Central Florida, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Houston, Louisville, Memphis, Navy, San Diego State, South Florida, SMU, Temple
Whatever happens, it won't be the same. It won't be my father's Big East. The conference I fell in love with growing up. (I can still remember my first college basketball game, the 1990 Big East final between UConn and Syracuse when I was seven years old. I went with my dad.) Hell, it won't even be my Big East. But it'll still be the Big East, even if it is only in name.
Once all of the newly-announced moves go into effect (I can't even keep track of who's leaving what conference and join another when anymore), we'll have 15 teams in the ACC, 14 in the Big Ten, 14 in the SEC and 12 in the Pac-12, although you'd have to be a fool to think they won't look for two or four more (hello UNLV, how are you?). You know the Big 12's going to add at least two (think BYU) and get back to its name making sense. And God knows how many will be left in my poor Big East when this is all said and done.
Sadly, it looks like the four superconferences we were warned about are close to becoming a reality. The Big 12 might survive, if only because of its automatic tie-in to the bowls. But those four inevitable superconferences are coming. And they'll be the Big Ten, Pac-12, ACC and SEC. The Big East as we knew it is dead. And it breaks my heart to say it.
The Big East will still exist in some form. The name still holds some level of prestige in the college sports world. Especially among the non-BCS schools. And there are enough Big East schools that only play basketball (which is what started the entire problem in the first place) that will stay together. And that Big East Tournament in Madison Square Garden ain't going anywhere anytime soon, so you know there will be plenty of suitors. But the Big East has always been Syracuse and UConn and Georgetown. Forgive me for not getting excited about DePaul-SMU. Likewise, am I the only one who thinks that a Syracuse-Duke conference game or a Big Ten game between Rutgers and Nebraska will be weird? Just wait for that Maryland-Utah Rose Bowl.
You know it isn't done. The ACC was all set to be 14+Notre Dame with the addition of Pitt and Syracuse. Now they need to add somebody else. Probably UConn or Louisville. My guess is UConn. And since you know the SEC isn't going to just sit there and watch the ACC continue to grow, they'll probably be after Louisville. Do they then take a shot at one of the Big East Florida schools, too? South Florida perhaps? That would make the SEC the first 16-team superleague.
If the SEC is comfortable with its current 14, I can see Louisville staying in the Big East. They've quickly become one of the conference's cornerstone programs, and they're only going to move higher up the food chain with all of the Big East defections. Besides, Rick Pitino holds a tremendous amount of influence. It's because of him that the Big East "survived" the last round by bringing in Temple and Memphis. If Pitino wants to stay in the Big East and be the top dog, Louisville's administration will listen. Although, if they have the chance to join the SEC and be in the same league as Kentucky, does that trump Rick Pitino's preference?
The Big 12's stability doesn't seem to be as imminently threatened, but they're going to have to do something fast. Before deciding on just going from 10 to 12, the Pac-12 was talking to Texas and thinking about 16. Do they come knocking on the Longhorns' door again? Or does the Big 12 get aggressive and do what it should've done two years ago. Make a run at BYU. Offer them the same sweetheart deal you gave Texas that convinced them to stay. You can even let the Cougars pick the 12th team. Colorado State maybe?
And what about the Pac-12? You know Texas would be their obvious preference, but they won't just add one. Do they go for Oklahoma, which means Oklahoma State would get to come along for the ride? That's 15, so you need one more. Another Texas school? Baylor. This is all hypothetical (right now), of course, but if those dominoes start to fall, we're right back where we were two years ago. Except this time, Kansas and Kansas State get out while they still can, and that's how the Big "Ten" gets to 16.
Like I said before, the Big East, at least for the immediate future, looks like it's going to weather this latest round of defections. After all the dust settles, the Big East will once again reload, probably with teams from Conference USA, which is sadly becoming the Big East feeder system in the much same way the Big East is becoming a feeder system for the BCS conferences. (Should the Big 12 or Pac-12 look to expand, their obvious targets, outside of BYU, will come from the Mountain West.)
So who does the Big East add? East Carolina was actively lobbying for membership last summer. One year later, they might finally get their wish. Navy was going to be the Big East's 13th football team, so I say they only need to add one and have 12 in football. And the 16-team basketball league, while obviously not as strong, would still be among the nation's best. That's why the Big East will survive in some form. The basketball league is too good. And ssince ome of those schools don't have football, they don't care about football money. I also think it's very conceivable the Big East will give up on football altogether, which might actually bring some more stabililty.
(For the sake of clarity, here's what the Big East would look like with UConn gone and replaced by East Carolina:)
Basketball: Central Florida, Cincinnati, DePaul, East Carolina, Georgetown, Houston, Louisville, Marquette, Memphis, Providence, Seton Hall, South Florida, SMU, St. John's, Temple, Villanova
Football: Boise State, Central Florida, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Houston, Louisville, Memphis, Navy, San Diego State, South Florida, SMU, Temple
Whatever happens, it won't be the same. It won't be my father's Big East. The conference I fell in love with growing up. (I can still remember my first college basketball game, the 1990 Big East final between UConn and Syracuse when I was seven years old. I went with my dad.) Hell, it won't even be my Big East. But it'll still be the Big East, even if it is only in name.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
NFL Week 11 Picks
No more byes after this week! Of course, that matters more for fantasy football than actual football, but it really has to suck for those teams that get stuck with these late byes. Take the Giants for example. Can you tell me that playing 10 weeks in a row wasn't at least part of the reason they got their butts kicked last week? They definitely needed a break.
Anyway, last week was interesting in the situations that it created for a lot of teams going into this week's games. There are going to be a bunch of backup quarterbacks getting the nod for good teams this week, most notably Jason Campbell for the Bears and Byron Leftwich for the Steelers. How long will Cuter and Big Ben be out? And how big of an impact will it have on the playoff races?
Cardinals (4-5) at Falcons (8-1): Atlanta-Remember when Arizona was 4-0? Yeah, I don't either. In the words of immortal ex-Cardinals coach Dennis Green, "They are who we THOUGHT they were." And I don't want to brag, but who called last week being the game when the Falcons finally lost? Maybe Roddy White should've gone easy on that 16-0 talk. As it turns out, though, the loss didn't hurt Atlanta at all, since none of the other first-place teams won last week, either. And they've still got a three-game lead in the NFC South. The Cardinals already have a win over the Patriots in New England, but that came back when people still thought they were actually good. They won't win in Atlanta.
Browns (2-7) at Cowboys (4-5): Dallas-So, Dallas goes and wins in Philly to keep its playoff chances alive, then gets a three-game homestand that starts with Cleveland and Washington. Suddenly, things aren't as bleak for America's Team as they once looked. In fact, they can move within one game of the Giants if they beat the Browns. If they don't, they don't deserve to be in the playoff hunt.
Packers ("6-3") at Lions (4-5): Green Bay-Since it's the Lions' CBS year, the Thanksgiving matchup with the Packers will be played a few days early. Green Bay was rolling before its bye, winning four straight. They can't afford a loss, especially with the 6-4 Seahawks and Vikings both off this week. The last thing the Packers want is end up in a tiebreaker. Especially with Seattle. You all remember what happened when those two played each other, right? Anyway, the Lions will be all-but-officially knocked out with a loss this week. Sadly, I don't see Detroit returning to the playoffs. 'Cause they ain't winning this one.
Bengals (4-5) at Chiefs (1-8): Cincinnati-Just when we were getting on the NFL for making us watch the Chiefs on a Monday night, they go finally lead a game and take the Steelers to overtime in Pittsburgh. (By the way, best ending of a game ever! Let's kick a field goal on first down and get the hell out of here!) With that win over the Giants, the Bengals are back in the AFC playoff mix. They should get back to .500 with a win over the worst team in the league.
Jets (3-6) at Rams (3-5-1): St. Louis-Does anybody care? Well, yes, the media cares. Because the media is obsessed with Tim Tebow. Woody Johnson still claims that he got Tebow for more than just attention, but I think he's probably utilizing the philosophy that if he keeps saying it, people might actually start to believe it. The Rams are less dysfunctional and participated in the NFL's quadrennial tie last week, while the Jets were getting spanked all over Seattle. Another NFC West road game will probably go just as well.
Eagles (3-6) at Redskins (3-6): Philadelphia-It's not officially official yet, but Andy Reid is coaching his final seven games with the Eagles. I actually think not having Michael Vick this week could help. They needed a change, and maybe Nick Foles does give them a better chance to win. I also think it helps that they're playing the Redskins. Washington might get caught looking ahead to its Thanksgiving game in Dallas. Even though I probably shouldn't, I'm going with the Eagles. I just can't see them in last place.
Buccaneers (5-4) at Panthers (2-7): Tampa Bay-The Bucs have quietly put a very solid season together, and they're only a half-game out of a playoff spot right now. With a win, they'll move into a tie with the Vikings and Seahawks for the second wild card spot, and let's not forget this all started with that Thursday-night win in Minnesota. It was 16-10 when these two met in Tampa in Week 1, but the Bucs are a better team now than they were then. They'll win by more than six points this time.
Jaguars (1-8) at Texans (8-1): Houston-So, how big of a statement did the Texans make in Chicago last week? I can definitely see Houston in the Super Bowl. A home game against the last-place Jaguars should be a walk in the park. Although, we have seen the better team lose games like this before. As long as they don't look ahead to their Thanksgiving debut in Detroit, they should be fine. Even if they do, they'll still probably win.
Saints (4-5) at Raiders (3-6): New Orleans-The Saints might not be dead just yet. They've certainly worked their way back into the discussion if nothing else. And it's safe to say that they played their best game of the season by far in knocking off the Falcons. Thanks to playing the two worst teams in the NFL back-to-back, the Raiders had a two-game winning streak going. Then they played a couple of actual NFL teams and gave up a combined 97 points in their last two losses. Expect them to give up a few more this week.
Chargers (4-5) at Broncos (6-3): Denver-Denver can't officially clinch the AFC West this week, but if San Diego wants to have any hope of winning the division, this is a must-win game. Remember, it was against the Chargers that the Broncos went on that crazy comeback to win 35-24 after trailing 24-0. The Chargers are in the middle of a rough stretch where they go Bucs, Broncos, Ravens, Bengals, Steelers. Their playoff chances might already be shot. Denver, meanwhile, has an incredibly easy remaining schedule. This one will be somewhat close, but the Broncos will win.
Colts (6-3) at Patriots (6-3): New England-Remember when this game was the one everybody circled on the NFL calendar? Not so much anymore. Although, the NFL has determined that enough people care to move this game from 1:00 to the national doubleheader game at 4:30. Both teams are currently in playoff position and will retain their spots no matter what happens this week. I just can't get excited for a Colts-Patriots game that doesn't involve both Manning and Brady, though. Brady vs. Luck just doesn't have the same cachet. When it was Peyton vs. Brady, it was usually pretty even. I don't think Brady vs. Luck will be.
Ravens (7-2) at Steelers (6-3): Pittsburgh-We somehow got the two best games of the week saved for Sunday and Monday night. First, we get the AFC North archrivals, who play each other in two of the next three weeks. The Ravens have a one-game lead, but the Steelers have been on a roll lately, having won four straight. Sure, things got a little harier than they should've last week, but they won a game without Ben Roethlisberger. I don't think the fact that they won't have him this week is going to be as much of a problem as some people are making it out to be. Byron Leftwich is a tested veteran who might just be the best backup in the league. I don't think there'll be much of a drop off. In fact, I think the Steelers defense shuts down the Ravens offense and Leftwich does just enough to get Pittsburgh a win.
Bears (7-2) at 49ers (6-2-1): Chicago-I guess when the defense doesn't score it means the Bears don't score at all. Losing Jay Cutler and going against the Texans defense in the rain was just a bad combination for Chicago. I watched most of the game and I'm still not sure how the 49ers ended up with a tie against the Rams. The one thing it does is take San Francisco out of all the tiebreakers. That makes a win here even more vital for both teams. The second bye in the playoffs is likely at stake. Alex Smith is probably going to play, but was limited in practice because, he too, was knocked out of the game last week. Jason Campbell's been taking first-team snaps all week, which should make the Bears offense function slightly better than it did last week. Smith is prone to make mistakes in big games, and the 49ers' only clunker this year came at home against the Giants. The Bears will jump all over him if he makes too many mistakes. Campbell's just going to have to not lose the game, which he's more than capable of. (P.S.-Did you know that if you took the 49ers last week, it simply didn't count in straight-up leagues, but they still counted it as a loss in spread leagues because they didn't cover?)
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-4-1
Season: 100-46-1
Anyway, last week was interesting in the situations that it created for a lot of teams going into this week's games. There are going to be a bunch of backup quarterbacks getting the nod for good teams this week, most notably Jason Campbell for the Bears and Byron Leftwich for the Steelers. How long will Cuter and Big Ben be out? And how big of an impact will it have on the playoff races?
Cardinals (4-5) at Falcons (8-1): Atlanta-Remember when Arizona was 4-0? Yeah, I don't either. In the words of immortal ex-Cardinals coach Dennis Green, "They are who we THOUGHT they were." And I don't want to brag, but who called last week being the game when the Falcons finally lost? Maybe Roddy White should've gone easy on that 16-0 talk. As it turns out, though, the loss didn't hurt Atlanta at all, since none of the other first-place teams won last week, either. And they've still got a three-game lead in the NFC South. The Cardinals already have a win over the Patriots in New England, but that came back when people still thought they were actually good. They won't win in Atlanta.
Browns (2-7) at Cowboys (4-5): Dallas-So, Dallas goes and wins in Philly to keep its playoff chances alive, then gets a three-game homestand that starts with Cleveland and Washington. Suddenly, things aren't as bleak for America's Team as they once looked. In fact, they can move within one game of the Giants if they beat the Browns. If they don't, they don't deserve to be in the playoff hunt.
Packers ("6-3") at Lions (4-5): Green Bay-Since it's the Lions' CBS year, the Thanksgiving matchup with the Packers will be played a few days early. Green Bay was rolling before its bye, winning four straight. They can't afford a loss, especially with the 6-4 Seahawks and Vikings both off this week. The last thing the Packers want is end up in a tiebreaker. Especially with Seattle. You all remember what happened when those two played each other, right? Anyway, the Lions will be all-but-officially knocked out with a loss this week. Sadly, I don't see Detroit returning to the playoffs. 'Cause they ain't winning this one.
Bengals (4-5) at Chiefs (1-8): Cincinnati-Just when we were getting on the NFL for making us watch the Chiefs on a Monday night, they go finally lead a game and take the Steelers to overtime in Pittsburgh. (By the way, best ending of a game ever! Let's kick a field goal on first down and get the hell out of here!) With that win over the Giants, the Bengals are back in the AFC playoff mix. They should get back to .500 with a win over the worst team in the league.
Jets (3-6) at Rams (3-5-1): St. Louis-Does anybody care? Well, yes, the media cares. Because the media is obsessed with Tim Tebow. Woody Johnson still claims that he got Tebow for more than just attention, but I think he's probably utilizing the philosophy that if he keeps saying it, people might actually start to believe it. The Rams are less dysfunctional and participated in the NFL's quadrennial tie last week, while the Jets were getting spanked all over Seattle. Another NFC West road game will probably go just as well.
Eagles (3-6) at Redskins (3-6): Philadelphia-It's not officially official yet, but Andy Reid is coaching his final seven games with the Eagles. I actually think not having Michael Vick this week could help. They needed a change, and maybe Nick Foles does give them a better chance to win. I also think it helps that they're playing the Redskins. Washington might get caught looking ahead to its Thanksgiving game in Dallas. Even though I probably shouldn't, I'm going with the Eagles. I just can't see them in last place.
Buccaneers (5-4) at Panthers (2-7): Tampa Bay-The Bucs have quietly put a very solid season together, and they're only a half-game out of a playoff spot right now. With a win, they'll move into a tie with the Vikings and Seahawks for the second wild card spot, and let's not forget this all started with that Thursday-night win in Minnesota. It was 16-10 when these two met in Tampa in Week 1, but the Bucs are a better team now than they were then. They'll win by more than six points this time.
Jaguars (1-8) at Texans (8-1): Houston-So, how big of a statement did the Texans make in Chicago last week? I can definitely see Houston in the Super Bowl. A home game against the last-place Jaguars should be a walk in the park. Although, we have seen the better team lose games like this before. As long as they don't look ahead to their Thanksgiving debut in Detroit, they should be fine. Even if they do, they'll still probably win.
Saints (4-5) at Raiders (3-6): New Orleans-The Saints might not be dead just yet. They've certainly worked their way back into the discussion if nothing else. And it's safe to say that they played their best game of the season by far in knocking off the Falcons. Thanks to playing the two worst teams in the NFL back-to-back, the Raiders had a two-game winning streak going. Then they played a couple of actual NFL teams and gave up a combined 97 points in their last two losses. Expect them to give up a few more this week.
Chargers (4-5) at Broncos (6-3): Denver-Denver can't officially clinch the AFC West this week, but if San Diego wants to have any hope of winning the division, this is a must-win game. Remember, it was against the Chargers that the Broncos went on that crazy comeback to win 35-24 after trailing 24-0. The Chargers are in the middle of a rough stretch where they go Bucs, Broncos, Ravens, Bengals, Steelers. Their playoff chances might already be shot. Denver, meanwhile, has an incredibly easy remaining schedule. This one will be somewhat close, but the Broncos will win.
Colts (6-3) at Patriots (6-3): New England-Remember when this game was the one everybody circled on the NFL calendar? Not so much anymore. Although, the NFL has determined that enough people care to move this game from 1:00 to the national doubleheader game at 4:30. Both teams are currently in playoff position and will retain their spots no matter what happens this week. I just can't get excited for a Colts-Patriots game that doesn't involve both Manning and Brady, though. Brady vs. Luck just doesn't have the same cachet. When it was Peyton vs. Brady, it was usually pretty even. I don't think Brady vs. Luck will be.
Ravens (7-2) at Steelers (6-3): Pittsburgh-We somehow got the two best games of the week saved for Sunday and Monday night. First, we get the AFC North archrivals, who play each other in two of the next three weeks. The Ravens have a one-game lead, but the Steelers have been on a roll lately, having won four straight. Sure, things got a little harier than they should've last week, but they won a game without Ben Roethlisberger. I don't think the fact that they won't have him this week is going to be as much of a problem as some people are making it out to be. Byron Leftwich is a tested veteran who might just be the best backup in the league. I don't think there'll be much of a drop off. In fact, I think the Steelers defense shuts down the Ravens offense and Leftwich does just enough to get Pittsburgh a win.
Bears (7-2) at 49ers (6-2-1): Chicago-I guess when the defense doesn't score it means the Bears don't score at all. Losing Jay Cutler and going against the Texans defense in the rain was just a bad combination for Chicago. I watched most of the game and I'm still not sure how the 49ers ended up with a tie against the Rams. The one thing it does is take San Francisco out of all the tiebreakers. That makes a win here even more vital for both teams. The second bye in the playoffs is likely at stake. Alex Smith is probably going to play, but was limited in practice because, he too, was knocked out of the game last week. Jason Campbell's been taking first-team snaps all week, which should make the Bears offense function slightly better than it did last week. Smith is prone to make mistakes in big games, and the 49ers' only clunker this year came at home against the Giants. The Bears will jump all over him if he makes too many mistakes. Campbell's just going to have to not lose the game, which he's more than capable of. (P.S.-Did you know that if you took the 49ers last week, it simply didn't count in straight-up leagues, but they still counted it as a loss in spread leagues because they didn't cover?)
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-4-1
Season: 100-46-1
Thursday, November 15, 2012
A Complete Embarrassment
Even though it's still not official yet, that Blue Jays-Marlins trade is just as shocking two days later as it was when it was announced. And it got me thinking. This is worse than 15 years ago, when the Marlins sold off their World Championship team piece by piece. At least everyone knew that was going to happen. And the Marlins built the nucleus of their second World Championship team six years later with a lot of the pieces they got in those trades. This time, that's not the case. It's just Jeffrey Loria being cheap.
I've long subscribed to the belief that the Florida/Miami Marlins are one of the worst-run organizations in all of sports, and that Jeffrey Loria is by far the worst owner in sports. He doesn't care about winning. That's what this trade proves. And the worst part is he'll continue to make money for running a Quadruple-A organization thanks to the boatload he'll pocket through revenue sharing. It really is a crime that Major League Baseball continues to let this guy "run" his team this way.
I'll give Jeffrey Loria this...he's a good con artist. First, he got the city to build him a stadium completely with public funds. Then, as a thank you, he changes the team name from "Florida" to "Miami" and vows to build a winner. He brings in a charismatic manager in Ozzie Guillen and suddenly remembers Miami's not a small market, signing free agents Jose Reyes, Mark Buehrle and Heath Bell to join a decent team that already has Hanley Ramirez, Josh Johnson, Logan Morrison and the incredible Giancarlo Stanton. Suddenly, the future looked bright in Miami.
Well, we were all fooled. The honeymoon didn't even last a full season. Sure, fans showed up in the beginning, but then the Marlins started losing. Ramirez, who didn't want to move to third base in the first place, was the first domino to fall, getting traded to the Dodgers, and Guillen was fired at the end of the season. But instead of just writing this off as a bad year with a still very talented team, Loria simply gave up. Of those players I mentioned earlier, a grand total of two (Stanton and Morrison) will be on the Marlins' 2013 Opening Day roster. (That's as of now. Who knows if he's done gutting the team yet?) This "the Marlins are going to make an effort to be good" thing barely lasted a season. He played us all for fools. And we were all suckers.
Part of what makes this so sad is that everybody wanted to believe Jeff Loria was actually going to try. They play in Miami. That can be a phenomenal baseball town. They deserve a winner. They thought they were going to get one. That's why they gave him a stadium that they'll still be paying for 20 years from now. They'll still be paying for a stadium that's going to sit half-empty year after year. But in Marlins' fans defense, I wouldn't blame them for not coming. You held up your end of the deal. Loria's not holding up his, so why go see the team play and put money in his pocket?
The 2012 season was supposed to be the start of a new era for the Marlins. They had to get out of that football stadium. Everybody knew that. Finally moving into their own baseball-only park was supposed to be the first step in being a consistent winner. Well, it turns out the start of the new era was delayed until 2013. This trade was the dawning of the age when the Miami Marlins offically made the move from Major League franchise to total joke. As long as Jeff Loria's around, they'll continue to be a punchline.
Sadly, this doesn't come as a total surprise. The Marlins have only ever tried to be good twice in their 20-year history. And they won the World Series as a wild card team each time. While they've occasionally seen marginal success in years other than 1997 and 2003, the Marlins have basically been an afterthought otherwise. Until last winter, when they actually started to act like a Major League franchise and were arguably the most aggressive team in free agency.
As it turns out, all last season turned out to be was the Marlins' first attempt to be good that didn't work out. And we know what happens the year after the Marlins try to be good. It happened in 1998. It happened in 2004. It'll happen again in 2013.
Baseball fans of Miami, I feel for you. You're not in danger of losing the Marlins anymore. The huge tax bill for Marlins Park guarantees that. But you deserve to have an actual Major League team playing in that park. Not the team Jeff Loria's going to put out there next season. Giancarlo Stanton (who only managed to remain on the Marlins because he doesn't make that much money yet) deserves better. The fans of Miami deserve better. Major League Baseball deserves better.
If you aren't good because you just aren't good, that's one thing. But the Marlins owe it to everyone to at least try. And right now, that's not what they're doing. It's wrong to call the Marlins a joke. Because it isn't funny. They're an embarrassment. A complete and total embarrassment.
I've long subscribed to the belief that the Florida/Miami Marlins are one of the worst-run organizations in all of sports, and that Jeffrey Loria is by far the worst owner in sports. He doesn't care about winning. That's what this trade proves. And the worst part is he'll continue to make money for running a Quadruple-A organization thanks to the boatload he'll pocket through revenue sharing. It really is a crime that Major League Baseball continues to let this guy "run" his team this way.
I'll give Jeffrey Loria this...he's a good con artist. First, he got the city to build him a stadium completely with public funds. Then, as a thank you, he changes the team name from "Florida" to "Miami" and vows to build a winner. He brings in a charismatic manager in Ozzie Guillen and suddenly remembers Miami's not a small market, signing free agents Jose Reyes, Mark Buehrle and Heath Bell to join a decent team that already has Hanley Ramirez, Josh Johnson, Logan Morrison and the incredible Giancarlo Stanton. Suddenly, the future looked bright in Miami.
Well, we were all fooled. The honeymoon didn't even last a full season. Sure, fans showed up in the beginning, but then the Marlins started losing. Ramirez, who didn't want to move to third base in the first place, was the first domino to fall, getting traded to the Dodgers, and Guillen was fired at the end of the season. But instead of just writing this off as a bad year with a still very talented team, Loria simply gave up. Of those players I mentioned earlier, a grand total of two (Stanton and Morrison) will be on the Marlins' 2013 Opening Day roster. (That's as of now. Who knows if he's done gutting the team yet?) This "the Marlins are going to make an effort to be good" thing barely lasted a season. He played us all for fools. And we were all suckers.
Part of what makes this so sad is that everybody wanted to believe Jeff Loria was actually going to try. They play in Miami. That can be a phenomenal baseball town. They deserve a winner. They thought they were going to get one. That's why they gave him a stadium that they'll still be paying for 20 years from now. They'll still be paying for a stadium that's going to sit half-empty year after year. But in Marlins' fans defense, I wouldn't blame them for not coming. You held up your end of the deal. Loria's not holding up his, so why go see the team play and put money in his pocket?
The 2012 season was supposed to be the start of a new era for the Marlins. They had to get out of that football stadium. Everybody knew that. Finally moving into their own baseball-only park was supposed to be the first step in being a consistent winner. Well, it turns out the start of the new era was delayed until 2013. This trade was the dawning of the age when the Miami Marlins offically made the move from Major League franchise to total joke. As long as Jeff Loria's around, they'll continue to be a punchline.
Sadly, this doesn't come as a total surprise. The Marlins have only ever tried to be good twice in their 20-year history. And they won the World Series as a wild card team each time. While they've occasionally seen marginal success in years other than 1997 and 2003, the Marlins have basically been an afterthought otherwise. Until last winter, when they actually started to act like a Major League franchise and were arguably the most aggressive team in free agency.
As it turns out, all last season turned out to be was the Marlins' first attempt to be good that didn't work out. And we know what happens the year after the Marlins try to be good. It happened in 1998. It happened in 2004. It'll happen again in 2013.
Baseball fans of Miami, I feel for you. You're not in danger of losing the Marlins anymore. The huge tax bill for Marlins Park guarantees that. But you deserve to have an actual Major League team playing in that park. Not the team Jeff Loria's going to put out there next season. Giancarlo Stanton (who only managed to remain on the Marlins because he doesn't make that much money yet) deserves better. The fans of Miami deserve better. Major League Baseball deserves better.
If you aren't good because you just aren't good, that's one thing. But the Marlins owe it to everyone to at least try. And right now, that's not what they're doing. It's wrong to call the Marlins a joke. Because it isn't funny. They're an embarrassment. A complete and total embarrassment.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Where Are the Free Agents Going?
Well, the hot stove has certainly started burning, hasn't it? The Blue Jays and Marlins. Wow! It's like 1998 all over again. Anybody on the Marlins who makes any money is now on the Blue Jays. And the Blue Jays suddenly made themselves very relevant in the AL East again. Josh Johnson AND Mark Buehrle?! And Jose Reyes?!
I think that with this trade, Toronto's now officially out of the sweepstakes for any significant free agent, of which there are many. So, where are those guys going to go? Here are some of the biggest names hitting the open market this offseason, and the teams that I think would be the best fit/the most likely place they'll sign:
Josh Hamilton-Hamilton's obviously the biggest prize out there. He's told the Rangers they won't get a hometown discount, although Texas does figure to be in the mix to retain his services. Outside of the Rangers, there aren't many teams that'll be able to afford Hamilton. Regardless, they're preparing for life without Hamilton, but that might simply be a Plan B so that they don't wind up in the same situation as the Cardinals last year after Albert left. I can also see teams wanting him to move to left field. Like the Red Sox, but I doubt they'll shell out the money for him. I can see the White Sox being a player. Same thing with the Brewers. Both of those teams would probably keep him in center. And if Michael Bourn leaves Atlanta, I can see the Braves getting involved in the Hamilton sweepstakes. Ultimately, though I think he stays in Texas.
Michael Bourn-Speaking of Michael Bourn, the Braves would be fools if they didn't try to re-sign him. He's the perfect guy for that team, and exactly what the Braves need. But you know where else he'd be a perfect fit? Washington. The Nationals don't want Bryce Harper in center. They don't want Jayson Werth leading off, either. Michael Bourn would solve both those problems. If Angel Pagan leaves San Francisco, Bourn could be a really good fit for the Giants, too. Or for the Phillies. Same thing about the Rangers if Hamilton leaves. Or Milwaukee. In other words, there are a lot of teams that would love to have Michael Bourn. But only one can. I'm saying it'll be the Nationals.
B.J. Upton-This much we know...B.J. Upton won't be a Ray in 2013. Ultimately where he goes could be determined by where Hamilton and Bourn end up. While I don't think it's likely, I don't think Milwaukee's out of the question. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Mets make a run at him, but again, I don't see that happening. I do think he lands in the NL East, though. The Phillies have a lot of money to spend and outfield holes to fill after getting rid of Shane Victorino and Hunter Pence. And B.J. Upton would be the perfect Victorino replacement. He might be too similar to Jimmy Rollins, though. He'd also be the perfect replacement for Michael Bourn should Bourn leave Atlanta. It'll be one of the two. Let's go with the Phillies.
Nick Swisher/Ichiro-These two are a package deal because the Yankees will keep one, but not the other. They both have their pros and they both have their cons. Swisher's younger, a switch hitter and can also play first base. But he might've worn out his welcome and certainly sounded like a guy with one foot out the door during the ALCS. Ichiro, on the other hand, was the Ichiro of old after he got traded to the Yankees. Other than Brett Gardner, they don't have anybody in the lineup like him, and it showed. If they're smart, they realize that's something that won't be easily replicated. But Ichiro's 38 years old. Do you want another expensive veteran? I'm playing a gut here, but I say Ichiro's the one that stays with the Yankees, while Swisher signs with the Phillies.
Shane Victorino-He's not going back to the Dodgers to be the fourth outfielder behind Matt Kemp, Andre Etiher and Carl Crawford. That's for sure. So where's Victorino going? I don't think a return to the Phillies is completely out of the question, but I do see it as highly unlikely. Would he move north and play center field for the World Champion Giants? That depends on Angel Pagan, but I can definitely see it. Same thing about Atlanta, although I think that'd be a long shot. The Rangers if Hamilton leaves? That's intriguing to think about, isn't it? I can see a smaller-market American League team getting involved for Victorino, too. Somebody like a Cleveland or a Tampa Bay. And let's not forget, Houston's in the American League now, too. Do the Astros make a run and make Victorino their franchise player as they usher in a new era? Probably not, but it's something to think about. It's also not that far-fetched to see Victorino staying in Southern California next season. Wearing red and playing right field. This is a tough one, but I can see Victorino playing in Anaheim.
Mike Napoli-I'm not sure why I'm including Napoli on this list. He pretty much already signed with the Red Sox. Boston seems to be making him a priority, and it looks like they're going to put him at first base. Not a horrible call, but you still need to let him catch once or twice a week. Although, they probably won't have the option to DH him, since David Ortiz purchases a glove for interleague road games and interleague road games only. But make no mistake, Napoli's going to Boston.
Adam LaRoche-If the Nationals sign Bourn or Upton, which I think is likely, that means Harper moves to left and Michael Morse moves to first. That makes Adam LaRoche the odd man out. He likely wouldn't be out of a job for long, though. If the Napoli thing doesn't pan out (which it will), LaRoche could be a target of the Red Sox. Milwaukee's always an option, too. And it doesn't look like Tampa Bay's going to bring back Carlos Pena, so LaRoche on the Rays isn't a stretch. Especially since he'd be pretty cheap. In fact, I can't just see that. I think it's going to happen. LaRoche to Tampa Bay.
Zack Greinke-Greinke is by far the best starting pitcher on the market. Which means virtually any team you can think of is going to be after him. The Dodgers are going to want him. The Rangers are going to want him. The Red Sox and Yankees are probably both going to want him. There are probably a bunch of other teams I can't think of right now taht are going to want him. But most of all, the Angles want to retain him. Especially now that Ervin Santana's gone, I see the Angels making a big push and throwing a lot of money at keeping that rotation in tact. I think they give him enough incentive to stay. Greinke's back with the Angels.
Rafael Soriano-Mariano Rivera's coming back next season. This news surprised exactly no one. As a result, Rafael Soriano exercised his opt-out. This also surprised a grand total of no one. Soriano's the best closer on the market, and he'll have plenty of suitors. I'm sure there are those teams that believe the closer position is overrated and will stay away from Soriano and the salary he'll command, but there are a few that will be willing to pay for his services. The two most likely options: Detroit, which has officially given up on Jose Valverde, and the Dodgers, who are going to be serious players next season. Since I can't picture him in the National League for some reason, I'll say it'll be the Tigers.
That's just a small sample of the many big names that are likely to switch teams via free agency this offseason. I didn't even mention Torii Hunter and Angel Pagan, two other intriguing options for a number of teams. As is usually the case in free agency, as one domino falls, so go the others. And let's not forget this...Prince Fielder didn't sign with the Tigers until January. And that's the move that turned Detroit into a World Series team.
I think that with this trade, Toronto's now officially out of the sweepstakes for any significant free agent, of which there are many. So, where are those guys going to go? Here are some of the biggest names hitting the open market this offseason, and the teams that I think would be the best fit/the most likely place they'll sign:
Josh Hamilton-Hamilton's obviously the biggest prize out there. He's told the Rangers they won't get a hometown discount, although Texas does figure to be in the mix to retain his services. Outside of the Rangers, there aren't many teams that'll be able to afford Hamilton. Regardless, they're preparing for life without Hamilton, but that might simply be a Plan B so that they don't wind up in the same situation as the Cardinals last year after Albert left. I can also see teams wanting him to move to left field. Like the Red Sox, but I doubt they'll shell out the money for him. I can see the White Sox being a player. Same thing with the Brewers. Both of those teams would probably keep him in center. And if Michael Bourn leaves Atlanta, I can see the Braves getting involved in the Hamilton sweepstakes. Ultimately, though I think he stays in Texas.
Michael Bourn-Speaking of Michael Bourn, the Braves would be fools if they didn't try to re-sign him. He's the perfect guy for that team, and exactly what the Braves need. But you know where else he'd be a perfect fit? Washington. The Nationals don't want Bryce Harper in center. They don't want Jayson Werth leading off, either. Michael Bourn would solve both those problems. If Angel Pagan leaves San Francisco, Bourn could be a really good fit for the Giants, too. Or for the Phillies. Same thing about the Rangers if Hamilton leaves. Or Milwaukee. In other words, there are a lot of teams that would love to have Michael Bourn. But only one can. I'm saying it'll be the Nationals.
B.J. Upton-This much we know...B.J. Upton won't be a Ray in 2013. Ultimately where he goes could be determined by where Hamilton and Bourn end up. While I don't think it's likely, I don't think Milwaukee's out of the question. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Mets make a run at him, but again, I don't see that happening. I do think he lands in the NL East, though. The Phillies have a lot of money to spend and outfield holes to fill after getting rid of Shane Victorino and Hunter Pence. And B.J. Upton would be the perfect Victorino replacement. He might be too similar to Jimmy Rollins, though. He'd also be the perfect replacement for Michael Bourn should Bourn leave Atlanta. It'll be one of the two. Let's go with the Phillies.
Nick Swisher/Ichiro-These two are a package deal because the Yankees will keep one, but not the other. They both have their pros and they both have their cons. Swisher's younger, a switch hitter and can also play first base. But he might've worn out his welcome and certainly sounded like a guy with one foot out the door during the ALCS. Ichiro, on the other hand, was the Ichiro of old after he got traded to the Yankees. Other than Brett Gardner, they don't have anybody in the lineup like him, and it showed. If they're smart, they realize that's something that won't be easily replicated. But Ichiro's 38 years old. Do you want another expensive veteran? I'm playing a gut here, but I say Ichiro's the one that stays with the Yankees, while Swisher signs with the Phillies.
Shane Victorino-He's not going back to the Dodgers to be the fourth outfielder behind Matt Kemp, Andre Etiher and Carl Crawford. That's for sure. So where's Victorino going? I don't think a return to the Phillies is completely out of the question, but I do see it as highly unlikely. Would he move north and play center field for the World Champion Giants? That depends on Angel Pagan, but I can definitely see it. Same thing about Atlanta, although I think that'd be a long shot. The Rangers if Hamilton leaves? That's intriguing to think about, isn't it? I can see a smaller-market American League team getting involved for Victorino, too. Somebody like a Cleveland or a Tampa Bay. And let's not forget, Houston's in the American League now, too. Do the Astros make a run and make Victorino their franchise player as they usher in a new era? Probably not, but it's something to think about. It's also not that far-fetched to see Victorino staying in Southern California next season. Wearing red and playing right field. This is a tough one, but I can see Victorino playing in Anaheim.
Mike Napoli-I'm not sure why I'm including Napoli on this list. He pretty much already signed with the Red Sox. Boston seems to be making him a priority, and it looks like they're going to put him at first base. Not a horrible call, but you still need to let him catch once or twice a week. Although, they probably won't have the option to DH him, since David Ortiz purchases a glove for interleague road games and interleague road games only. But make no mistake, Napoli's going to Boston.
Adam LaRoche-If the Nationals sign Bourn or Upton, which I think is likely, that means Harper moves to left and Michael Morse moves to first. That makes Adam LaRoche the odd man out. He likely wouldn't be out of a job for long, though. If the Napoli thing doesn't pan out (which it will), LaRoche could be a target of the Red Sox. Milwaukee's always an option, too. And it doesn't look like Tampa Bay's going to bring back Carlos Pena, so LaRoche on the Rays isn't a stretch. Especially since he'd be pretty cheap. In fact, I can't just see that. I think it's going to happen. LaRoche to Tampa Bay.
Zack Greinke-Greinke is by far the best starting pitcher on the market. Which means virtually any team you can think of is going to be after him. The Dodgers are going to want him. The Rangers are going to want him. The Red Sox and Yankees are probably both going to want him. There are probably a bunch of other teams I can't think of right now taht are going to want him. But most of all, the Angles want to retain him. Especially now that Ervin Santana's gone, I see the Angels making a big push and throwing a lot of money at keeping that rotation in tact. I think they give him enough incentive to stay. Greinke's back with the Angels.
Rafael Soriano-Mariano Rivera's coming back next season. This news surprised exactly no one. As a result, Rafael Soriano exercised his opt-out. This also surprised a grand total of no one. Soriano's the best closer on the market, and he'll have plenty of suitors. I'm sure there are those teams that believe the closer position is overrated and will stay away from Soriano and the salary he'll command, but there are a few that will be willing to pay for his services. The two most likely options: Detroit, which has officially given up on Jose Valverde, and the Dodgers, who are going to be serious players next season. Since I can't picture him in the National League for some reason, I'll say it'll be the Tigers.
That's just a small sample of the many big names that are likely to switch teams via free agency this offseason. I didn't even mention Torii Hunter and Angel Pagan, two other intriguing options for a number of teams. As is usually the case in free agency, as one domino falls, so go the others. And let's not forget this...Prince Fielder didn't sign with the Tigers until January. And that's the move that turned Detroit into a World Series team.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Who to Watch In College Hoops
College basketball season started this weekend. Most of the top teams have already played their first games, which probably makes this post seem late for some of you, but I don't think that's the case at all. With a few exceptions, the first game for most top teams is essentially a glorified exhibition game. The season doesn't really get going until the Thanksgiving tournaments, and conference play in most leagues doesn't begin until January.
This is also a very interesting season in college basketball. The face of the sport as we knew it will be forever changed next year, as the football-driven constant conference realignment continues to rear its ugly head. In fact, it's already started. Missouri, one of the best teams in the Big 12, is now a member of the SEC. And don't even get me started on the whole Big East-to-ACC exodus. This season's Big East Tournament will undoubtedly mark the end of an era. Thinking of a Big East without Syracuse is like trying to think of a Big Ten without Michigan or a Pac-12 without UCLA.
But we at least have one final season of college basketball as we knew it. And, as usual, I don't see the big boys playing nicely with the teams from the smaller conferences. (It's only going to get worse as the major conferences add more and more schools.) Most, if not all of the at-large NCAA Tournament bids will come from one of these nine leagues, with a couple being reserved for the likes of the CAA, Missouri Valley and West Coast Conference:
ACC: Again, don't get me started on the whole Syracuse-Pitt-Notre Dame thing. It's going to be just as weird to see a "conference" game between North Carolina and Pitt. But that's next year. As for this year, as crazy as it sounds, I think the best team in the ACC plays on Tobacco Road, but doesn't wear a shade of blue. NC State's run in the NCAA Tournament last year was just a sign of things to come. The Wolfpack are legit. Duke and North Carolina are still in the discussion, too, obviously, but right now I view them both as fringe Top 10 teams. If Duke still had Austin Rivers and Kyrie Irving it would be a different story, but I think they'll be looking up at NC State. Florida State's still good despite losing most of its core guys from last year, and I really think Miami can make some noise after last year's run in the NIT. Maryland's better, too. If the ACC gets six tournament teams, which I think it will, the Terps will be one of them.
Atlantic 10: This is a strange transitional year in the A-10. Temple's on the way out, claiming its well-deserved place in the Big East next season. Charlotte's also on its way out to rejoin Conference USA. Butler and VCU, the mid-major Final Four darlings of the last couple years, are in, shedding their mid-major label. As a result, we've got a crazy mix-and-match collection of 16 teams in the A-10. Temple's always been the class of this conference, and I don't really expect that to change. They'll claim one last Tournament bid before everyone else says "Bye." I doubt there are many Atlantic 10 men's basketball teams that will be sad to see Temple go. Newcomer VCU also has a shot to contend for the conference title, and Saint Louis has a very good team with a very good coach in Rick Majerus. Keep your eye on the Billikens. They'll be in the Top 25 before long. Xavier's always a contender, too, and Butler's chances at getting an NCAA at-large bid are obviously much better in the better conference.
Big East: West Virginia's gone and UConn's ineligible, which means the Big East is down to 14 teams headed to the Garden in March. And the best of that lot is pretty clear. It's Louisville, a program quickly becoming one of the cornerstone teams of the Big East. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Cardinals in the Final Four for the second straight year. Syracuse should also hover around the Top 10 for most of the year. Notre Dame has all five starters back and would probably like to play on Saturday night in New York (the Big East Championship Game) one time before peacing out in 2014. Georgetown and Cincinnati should easily get back to the Tournament, too, and Marquette probably will as well. The seventh NCAA Tournament team from the Big East is a toss-up. Pitt should rebound after a down year in 2011-12. So should Villanova. And Seton Hall somehow didn't get into the Tournament last year, so you know they'd like to take care of business and not have to worry about the bubble this season.
Big Ten: Indiana's back! The Hoosiers are the preseason No. 1 and loaded for a deep Tournament run behind Cody Zeller. This should be a good year for the Big Ten in men's basketball. Ohio State's coming off a Final Four appearance, Michigan State's still Michigan State, and a lot of experts think Michigan's a potential Final Four team. Throw in the always-tough Wisconsin and a Minnesota team that made the finals of the NIT last season, and you've got six teams that could potentially all get a 5-seed or higher in the NCAA Tournament. Purdue's always in the discussion, too, and Northwestern is finally going to get that first NCAA bid sooner or later. The Wildcats are good enough to have that be this year. It'll be a long year for Illinois, Iowa, Penn State and Nebraska.
Big 12: The only team that was actually going to challenge Kansas for the Big 12 title plays in the SEC now. And Missouri's departure is going to make this a down year in the Big 12. Kansas State, Baylor and probably Texas will join the Jayhawks in the Tournament, and West Virgina's going to be a tough matchup every night. But they're no Missouri. And TCU's no Texas A&M. If the Big 12 does get a fifth Tournament team, it'll probably be either Oklahoma State or Iowa State. But I only see them getting four.
Conference USA: I know it's a borderline "major" conference, but they always seem to get at least one at-large bid, and half of this league's teams are joining the Big East next year, so I always count it. The class of Conference USA, as has been the case for the last several years, is Memphis. I guarantee everybody that's not going to the Big East with them won't miss Memphis in Conference USA. The talent-gap between them and the rest of the league is pretty wide. There might be only one Conference USA at-large bid up for grabs, which will probably come down to Tulsa and UTEP. I'm curious to see what kind of a team Larry Brown is going to have at SMU, though. Will they actually be able to contend when they get to the Big East?
Mountain West: Another conference in transition, they've already lost BYU and Utah, and San Diego State's leaving after this year. The Aztecs will be right up there fighting for one last Mountain West championship, though. I think it'll probably come down to San Diego State and UNLV for the conference title. UNLV will likely be ranked all year, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them make a deep NCAA Tournament run. New Mexico's also very good and will give the Mountain West at least three NCAA teams. I can see there being as many as five, though. I'd be surprised if Colorado State didn't get in, and Nevada will certainly benefit from playing a much tougher schedule than they did in the WAC.
Pac-12: The down years in the Pac-12 may be behind them. UCLA's back in top form after not even getting into the NIT last year. The Bruins might be in trouble with the NCAA, though, which puts even more urgency on this season. Arizona didn't get into the Tournament either last year, but I expect that to change. They're too good. Stanford should be buoyed by its NIT title, and Washington won the regular season last year. Oregon has to be getting sick of its annual trip to the NIT. Same thing with Oregon State, which plays in the CBI every year through some sort of presidential decree. And let's not forget about Colorado, last year's surprise Pac-12 tourney champs in their inaugural year in the league. I don't see them repeating that, but something weird always seems to happen in the Pac-12 Tournament.
SEC: As if the SEC wasn't tough enough, Missouri and Texas A&M join this year to make the league even better. How many NCAA bids will the SEC get? It could be a lot. Kentucky's definitely going to get one. John Calipari's one-and-done formula seems to work. He won a national title with a bunch of freshmen last year, all of those guys are now in the NBA, and all he did was reload with another preseason Top 5 team. Unlike last year, Kentucky's actually in for a battle in the SEC this season. Florida was one win away from the Final Four last season, and the Gators have all the tools to challenge Kentucky for the top spot. I'd expect Missouri to make plenty of noise during its maiden voyage in the SEC, too. Will they get beaten up in the tougher league though? Vanderbilt's got a nice little mini-dynasty going, and I'd be very surprised if Cuonzo Martin doesn't get Tennessee back to the NCAA Tournament. Of the teams in the SEC West, Alabama is clearly the best. They'll have their annual bubble watch, but I do see them getting in. Then there are the two maroon and white schools--Mississippi State and Texas A&M. I'm not sure if Mississippi State is deep enough. It might come down to their non-conference record. And with Texas A&M, we'll find out how good they actually are. Because middle of the pack in the Big 12 and middle of the pack in the SEC are nowhere close to the same thing.
In the mid-majors, expect the West Coast Conference's Big Three (Gonzaga, Saint Mary's, BYU) to all get in. The CAA was weakend by the loss of VCU. They might only get one bid, which might come down to Drexel and George Mason. Doug McDermott's an All-American candidate, and his Creighton team is the best in the MVC by a mile. Even if they don't win the conference tournament, I think they get in the Tournament no matter what. Illinois State, Wichita State and Northern Iowa could be in the mix for at-large bids out of the Missouri Valley.
This is also a very interesting season in college basketball. The face of the sport as we knew it will be forever changed next year, as the football-driven constant conference realignment continues to rear its ugly head. In fact, it's already started. Missouri, one of the best teams in the Big 12, is now a member of the SEC. And don't even get me started on the whole Big East-to-ACC exodus. This season's Big East Tournament will undoubtedly mark the end of an era. Thinking of a Big East without Syracuse is like trying to think of a Big Ten without Michigan or a Pac-12 without UCLA.
But we at least have one final season of college basketball as we knew it. And, as usual, I don't see the big boys playing nicely with the teams from the smaller conferences. (It's only going to get worse as the major conferences add more and more schools.) Most, if not all of the at-large NCAA Tournament bids will come from one of these nine leagues, with a couple being reserved for the likes of the CAA, Missouri Valley and West Coast Conference:
ACC: Again, don't get me started on the whole Syracuse-Pitt-Notre Dame thing. It's going to be just as weird to see a "conference" game between North Carolina and Pitt. But that's next year. As for this year, as crazy as it sounds, I think the best team in the ACC plays on Tobacco Road, but doesn't wear a shade of blue. NC State's run in the NCAA Tournament last year was just a sign of things to come. The Wolfpack are legit. Duke and North Carolina are still in the discussion, too, obviously, but right now I view them both as fringe Top 10 teams. If Duke still had Austin Rivers and Kyrie Irving it would be a different story, but I think they'll be looking up at NC State. Florida State's still good despite losing most of its core guys from last year, and I really think Miami can make some noise after last year's run in the NIT. Maryland's better, too. If the ACC gets six tournament teams, which I think it will, the Terps will be one of them.
Atlantic 10: This is a strange transitional year in the A-10. Temple's on the way out, claiming its well-deserved place in the Big East next season. Charlotte's also on its way out to rejoin Conference USA. Butler and VCU, the mid-major Final Four darlings of the last couple years, are in, shedding their mid-major label. As a result, we've got a crazy mix-and-match collection of 16 teams in the A-10. Temple's always been the class of this conference, and I don't really expect that to change. They'll claim one last Tournament bid before everyone else says "Bye." I doubt there are many Atlantic 10 men's basketball teams that will be sad to see Temple go. Newcomer VCU also has a shot to contend for the conference title, and Saint Louis has a very good team with a very good coach in Rick Majerus. Keep your eye on the Billikens. They'll be in the Top 25 before long. Xavier's always a contender, too, and Butler's chances at getting an NCAA at-large bid are obviously much better in the better conference.
Big East: West Virginia's gone and UConn's ineligible, which means the Big East is down to 14 teams headed to the Garden in March. And the best of that lot is pretty clear. It's Louisville, a program quickly becoming one of the cornerstone teams of the Big East. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Cardinals in the Final Four for the second straight year. Syracuse should also hover around the Top 10 for most of the year. Notre Dame has all five starters back and would probably like to play on Saturday night in New York (the Big East Championship Game) one time before peacing out in 2014. Georgetown and Cincinnati should easily get back to the Tournament, too, and Marquette probably will as well. The seventh NCAA Tournament team from the Big East is a toss-up. Pitt should rebound after a down year in 2011-12. So should Villanova. And Seton Hall somehow didn't get into the Tournament last year, so you know they'd like to take care of business and not have to worry about the bubble this season.
Big Ten: Indiana's back! The Hoosiers are the preseason No. 1 and loaded for a deep Tournament run behind Cody Zeller. This should be a good year for the Big Ten in men's basketball. Ohio State's coming off a Final Four appearance, Michigan State's still Michigan State, and a lot of experts think Michigan's a potential Final Four team. Throw in the always-tough Wisconsin and a Minnesota team that made the finals of the NIT last season, and you've got six teams that could potentially all get a 5-seed or higher in the NCAA Tournament. Purdue's always in the discussion, too, and Northwestern is finally going to get that first NCAA bid sooner or later. The Wildcats are good enough to have that be this year. It'll be a long year for Illinois, Iowa, Penn State and Nebraska.
Big 12: The only team that was actually going to challenge Kansas for the Big 12 title plays in the SEC now. And Missouri's departure is going to make this a down year in the Big 12. Kansas State, Baylor and probably Texas will join the Jayhawks in the Tournament, and West Virgina's going to be a tough matchup every night. But they're no Missouri. And TCU's no Texas A&M. If the Big 12 does get a fifth Tournament team, it'll probably be either Oklahoma State or Iowa State. But I only see them getting four.
Conference USA: I know it's a borderline "major" conference, but they always seem to get at least one at-large bid, and half of this league's teams are joining the Big East next year, so I always count it. The class of Conference USA, as has been the case for the last several years, is Memphis. I guarantee everybody that's not going to the Big East with them won't miss Memphis in Conference USA. The talent-gap between them and the rest of the league is pretty wide. There might be only one Conference USA at-large bid up for grabs, which will probably come down to Tulsa and UTEP. I'm curious to see what kind of a team Larry Brown is going to have at SMU, though. Will they actually be able to contend when they get to the Big East?
Mountain West: Another conference in transition, they've already lost BYU and Utah, and San Diego State's leaving after this year. The Aztecs will be right up there fighting for one last Mountain West championship, though. I think it'll probably come down to San Diego State and UNLV for the conference title. UNLV will likely be ranked all year, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them make a deep NCAA Tournament run. New Mexico's also very good and will give the Mountain West at least three NCAA teams. I can see there being as many as five, though. I'd be surprised if Colorado State didn't get in, and Nevada will certainly benefit from playing a much tougher schedule than they did in the WAC.
Pac-12: The down years in the Pac-12 may be behind them. UCLA's back in top form after not even getting into the NIT last year. The Bruins might be in trouble with the NCAA, though, which puts even more urgency on this season. Arizona didn't get into the Tournament either last year, but I expect that to change. They're too good. Stanford should be buoyed by its NIT title, and Washington won the regular season last year. Oregon has to be getting sick of its annual trip to the NIT. Same thing with Oregon State, which plays in the CBI every year through some sort of presidential decree. And let's not forget about Colorado, last year's surprise Pac-12 tourney champs in their inaugural year in the league. I don't see them repeating that, but something weird always seems to happen in the Pac-12 Tournament.
SEC: As if the SEC wasn't tough enough, Missouri and Texas A&M join this year to make the league even better. How many NCAA bids will the SEC get? It could be a lot. Kentucky's definitely going to get one. John Calipari's one-and-done formula seems to work. He won a national title with a bunch of freshmen last year, all of those guys are now in the NBA, and all he did was reload with another preseason Top 5 team. Unlike last year, Kentucky's actually in for a battle in the SEC this season. Florida was one win away from the Final Four last season, and the Gators have all the tools to challenge Kentucky for the top spot. I'd expect Missouri to make plenty of noise during its maiden voyage in the SEC, too. Will they get beaten up in the tougher league though? Vanderbilt's got a nice little mini-dynasty going, and I'd be very surprised if Cuonzo Martin doesn't get Tennessee back to the NCAA Tournament. Of the teams in the SEC West, Alabama is clearly the best. They'll have their annual bubble watch, but I do see them getting in. Then there are the two maroon and white schools--Mississippi State and Texas A&M. I'm not sure if Mississippi State is deep enough. It might come down to their non-conference record. And with Texas A&M, we'll find out how good they actually are. Because middle of the pack in the Big 12 and middle of the pack in the SEC are nowhere close to the same thing.
In the mid-majors, expect the West Coast Conference's Big Three (Gonzaga, Saint Mary's, BYU) to all get in. The CAA was weakend by the loss of VCU. They might only get one bid, which might come down to Drexel and George Mason. Doug McDermott's an All-American candidate, and his Creighton team is the best in the MVC by a mile. Even if they don't win the conference tournament, I think they get in the Tournament no matter what. Illinois State, Wichita State and Northern Iowa could be in the mix for at-large bids out of the Missouri Valley.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
NFL Week 10 Picks
Now that we've reached the halfway point, we can start to look at the NFL "if the playoffs started today..." scenarios and there won't be 6,000 ties for the wild card spots. The only reason I'm bringing this up is because if the season ended today, the Colts wouldn't just be a playoff team, they'd be playing the Broncos in a wild card game. It would be Peyton Manning vs. the Colts (and Andrew Luck) in the first round of the playoffs. Who said the NFL gods didn't have a sense of humor?
As for the Colts, they shined in their only primetime game of the year on Thursday night. But they were playing the Jaguars, so I'm not sure how much we can actually take away from that. And thank you NFL Network for that amazing stat about Andrew Luck. Not only has a rookie quarterback never made the playoffs, there's never been one to even go .500. It looks like at least that part is going to change. Like everyone else, I'm obviously 1-0 on the week. Here we go with the rest of them:
Giants (6-3) at Bengals (3-5): Giants-I can't believe I'm actually going to see back-to-back Cincinnati Bengals home games. Never thought I'd say that. They held their own against Peyton and Co., but still lost, and now sit 3-5 on the year. The Giants? What happened last week? Sure, they were playing a good Steelers team, and I know they can't go undefeated, but it was sure weird to see them collapse in the fourth quarter when Eli's thing is leading the fourth-quarter comeback. I think they rebound this week and go into their bye on a high note, while the Bengals are happy they won't be playing any more Mannings this season after this week. (Unless the Chiefs sign Cooper, who can't really be any worse than Matt Cassel.)
Titans (3-6) at Dolphins (4-4): Miami-Miami was sitting on a wild card berth heading into last week before losing that surprising playoff contender vs. surprising playoff contender matchup in Indianapolis. The Titans lost last week, too, getting thumped in Chicago. But that really says more about the Bears than the Titans. As for this week's game, I like the Dolphins in Miami.
Lions (4-4) at Vikings (5-4): Minnesota-The Vikings dropped out of a playoff position last week in Seattle, and Minnesota is really slumping, having lost three out of four. The Lions breathed life back into their playoff chances with a victory in Jacksonville last week, and a win over the Vikings would really go a long way for Detroit. Side note about the Lions: Ndamukong Suh was voted the Dirtiest Player in the NFL for the second straight year the ohter day. The Lions are favored, but I don't know why. It's a toss-up at best, and I'm taking the home team.
Bills (3-5) at Patriots (5-3): New England-Um, yeah, New England clobbered St. Louis in London, then had a bye week to prepare for the Bills, who they handle with regularity. We all remember when these teams played in Buffalo in Week 4. The Bills actually had the lead before the Patriots scored like 28 points in the fourth quarter or something like that to win by a ridiculous 52-28 margin. I think this one will be equally not close.
Falcons (8-0) at Saints (3-5): New Orleans-Yes, you read that correctly. I think this is the week the '72 Dolphins pop the champagne. The Falcons are clearly the best team in football, but I don't see them running the table. I had one of the Saints games tabbed as the one they finally lose, and this week's game is in the Superdome, which is obviously advantage New Orleans. If the Saints don't beat the Falcons this week they: (a) can officially kiss their playoff chances goodbye, and, (b) definitely aren't going to beat them in Atlanta.
Chargers (4-4) at Buccaneers (4-4): Tampa Bay-This is definitely an interesting matchup. The Bucs went cross-country last week and beat the Raiders, while the Chargers got a much-needed win over Kansas City to stay one game behind the Broncos in the AFC West. I think the Chargers are the better team, but they don't play well when traveling across the country. Especially for a 1:00 game. That's why I'm going with the Bucs.
Broncos (5-3) at Panthers (2-6): Denver-After that brutal early schedule, it's smooth sailing for the Broncos from here. Their second-half schedule is so easy that the Peyton Manning-trademarked 12-4 seems likely. I have to give the Panthers their due credit, though. They did get a win last week. It was against Washington, but still. And make no mistake, they aren't going to beat Denver.
Raiders (3-5) at Ravens (6-2): Baltimore-I'm still not sure about this no-Ray Lewis incarnation of the Ravens' defense. They've still got a lot to prove if they're going to be considered a Super Bowl contender right now. They got slaughtered in Baltimore, and got away with one in Cleveland last week. Fortunately, the Browns aren't very good. Neither are the Raiders. And this is the Ravens' first home game with their no-look defense, which I think will provide them with a needed jolt.
Jets (3-5) at Seahawks ("5-4"): Seattle-Surprise, surprise. Rex Ryan ran his mouth. So did Antonio Cromartie. They both said the Jets are going to make the playoffs. They either have a lot of faith or they're delusional (probably a little bit of both), 'cause that ain't gonna happen. The Seahawks making the playoffs, on the other hand, that's not a stretch at all. In fact, they're sitting in a wild card spot right now. Seattle's still "undefeated" at home, too, which gives me even less incentive to go with the Jets this week.
Cowboys (3-5) at Eagles (3-5): Philadelphia-Everybody in the NFC East lost last week, so nothing really changed. The Giants are still running away with the division and these two are still looking at their dwindling playoff hopes disappearing altogether. The loser here will be done. Both teams are such dysfunctional messes that I really can't see either winning. But somebody has to, so let's go with the homestanding Eagles and let Andy Reid keep his job for another week.
Rams (3-5) at 49ers (6-2): San Francisco-St. Louis is definitely a lot better. I can say that with certainty. But they're still a last-place team in a division that suddenly has three very good teams. The best of those is the 49ers, who were last in action in a Monday night game that I was one of the few people I know was actually able to watch during the hurricane two weeks ago. They were very impressive against a Cardinals team that actually would've tied them for the division lead had they won. Anyway, the 49ers are coming off a bye week and playing a home game against a team they should easily beat. They will.
Texans (7-1) at Bears (7-1): Chicago-When NBC made this game a Sunday nighter, I bet even they didn't think it would be the game of the season. But here we go with what could very well be a Super Bowl preview between two of the three best teams in the NFL (they're playing for the 2-spot behind the Falcons in the power rankings; I've currently got them at 2 and 2A). It's the Bears defense against the Texans offense, which is a push, and the surprisingly good Houston defense against Jay Cutler and Co., which is advantage Texans. But seeing as Chicago's defense scores as many points as most offenses, that part of the matchup is technically a wash. I think the Bears offense is good enough, and who knows how cold a night game in Chicago is going to be? The Bears are used to that. The Texans aren't. And you know they're going to get pumped up hosting the Game of the Year on Sunday night. This is going to be a good one that the Bears pull out in the end.
Chiefs (1-7) at Steelers (5-3): Pittsburgh-Dear NFL, why do you think people want to watch the Kansas City Chiefs lose on national TV two weeks in a row? Not much I can say here. The Chiefs still haven't led all season and are by far the worst team in the league. The Steelers are finally getting their act together, and last week's win over the Giants with all that day-of travel and everything else was certainly impressive. They're in playoff position for the first time this season and only a game behind the Ravens in the AFC North. Fortunately, after this week, the only people subjected to watching the Chiefs will be people in Kansas City and fans of whoever they're playing that week.
Last Week: 9-5
This Week: 1-0
Season: 91-42
Bonus Picks: CFL Playoffs
Edmonton Eskimos at Toronto Argonauts: Toronto-The road to the 100th Grey Cup begins where it will end. At SkyDome. The Eskimos are in the Western Conference, but playing in the Eastern Conference semifinal because Canadians are weird and let teams switch conferences in the playoffs if they're better than the teams in the other conference. For the sake of not confusing us Americans any further, I hope Toronto wins.
Saskatchewan Roughriders at Calgary Stampeders: Calgary-Calgary was the third-best team in the CFL this season. Saskatchewan wasn't. They only avoided the trip to Toronto by winning last week, but it's not like going to Calgary is much different. They were going to lose either way.
As for the Colts, they shined in their only primetime game of the year on Thursday night. But they were playing the Jaguars, so I'm not sure how much we can actually take away from that. And thank you NFL Network for that amazing stat about Andrew Luck. Not only has a rookie quarterback never made the playoffs, there's never been one to even go .500. It looks like at least that part is going to change. Like everyone else, I'm obviously 1-0 on the week. Here we go with the rest of them:
Giants (6-3) at Bengals (3-5): Giants-I can't believe I'm actually going to see back-to-back Cincinnati Bengals home games. Never thought I'd say that. They held their own against Peyton and Co., but still lost, and now sit 3-5 on the year. The Giants? What happened last week? Sure, they were playing a good Steelers team, and I know they can't go undefeated, but it was sure weird to see them collapse in the fourth quarter when Eli's thing is leading the fourth-quarter comeback. I think they rebound this week and go into their bye on a high note, while the Bengals are happy they won't be playing any more Mannings this season after this week. (Unless the Chiefs sign Cooper, who can't really be any worse than Matt Cassel.)
Titans (3-6) at Dolphins (4-4): Miami-Miami was sitting on a wild card berth heading into last week before losing that surprising playoff contender vs. surprising playoff contender matchup in Indianapolis. The Titans lost last week, too, getting thumped in Chicago. But that really says more about the Bears than the Titans. As for this week's game, I like the Dolphins in Miami.
Lions (4-4) at Vikings (5-4): Minnesota-The Vikings dropped out of a playoff position last week in Seattle, and Minnesota is really slumping, having lost three out of four. The Lions breathed life back into their playoff chances with a victory in Jacksonville last week, and a win over the Vikings would really go a long way for Detroit. Side note about the Lions: Ndamukong Suh was voted the Dirtiest Player in the NFL for the second straight year the ohter day. The Lions are favored, but I don't know why. It's a toss-up at best, and I'm taking the home team.
Bills (3-5) at Patriots (5-3): New England-Um, yeah, New England clobbered St. Louis in London, then had a bye week to prepare for the Bills, who they handle with regularity. We all remember when these teams played in Buffalo in Week 4. The Bills actually had the lead before the Patriots scored like 28 points in the fourth quarter or something like that to win by a ridiculous 52-28 margin. I think this one will be equally not close.
Falcons (8-0) at Saints (3-5): New Orleans-Yes, you read that correctly. I think this is the week the '72 Dolphins pop the champagne. The Falcons are clearly the best team in football, but I don't see them running the table. I had one of the Saints games tabbed as the one they finally lose, and this week's game is in the Superdome, which is obviously advantage New Orleans. If the Saints don't beat the Falcons this week they: (a) can officially kiss their playoff chances goodbye, and, (b) definitely aren't going to beat them in Atlanta.
Chargers (4-4) at Buccaneers (4-4): Tampa Bay-This is definitely an interesting matchup. The Bucs went cross-country last week and beat the Raiders, while the Chargers got a much-needed win over Kansas City to stay one game behind the Broncos in the AFC West. I think the Chargers are the better team, but they don't play well when traveling across the country. Especially for a 1:00 game. That's why I'm going with the Bucs.
Broncos (5-3) at Panthers (2-6): Denver-After that brutal early schedule, it's smooth sailing for the Broncos from here. Their second-half schedule is so easy that the Peyton Manning-trademarked 12-4 seems likely. I have to give the Panthers their due credit, though. They did get a win last week. It was against Washington, but still. And make no mistake, they aren't going to beat Denver.
Raiders (3-5) at Ravens (6-2): Baltimore-I'm still not sure about this no-Ray Lewis incarnation of the Ravens' defense. They've still got a lot to prove if they're going to be considered a Super Bowl contender right now. They got slaughtered in Baltimore, and got away with one in Cleveland last week. Fortunately, the Browns aren't very good. Neither are the Raiders. And this is the Ravens' first home game with their no-look defense, which I think will provide them with a needed jolt.
Jets (3-5) at Seahawks ("5-4"): Seattle-Surprise, surprise. Rex Ryan ran his mouth. So did Antonio Cromartie. They both said the Jets are going to make the playoffs. They either have a lot of faith or they're delusional (probably a little bit of both), 'cause that ain't gonna happen. The Seahawks making the playoffs, on the other hand, that's not a stretch at all. In fact, they're sitting in a wild card spot right now. Seattle's still "undefeated" at home, too, which gives me even less incentive to go with the Jets this week.
Cowboys (3-5) at Eagles (3-5): Philadelphia-Everybody in the NFC East lost last week, so nothing really changed. The Giants are still running away with the division and these two are still looking at their dwindling playoff hopes disappearing altogether. The loser here will be done. Both teams are such dysfunctional messes that I really can't see either winning. But somebody has to, so let's go with the homestanding Eagles and let Andy Reid keep his job for another week.
Rams (3-5) at 49ers (6-2): San Francisco-St. Louis is definitely a lot better. I can say that with certainty. But they're still a last-place team in a division that suddenly has three very good teams. The best of those is the 49ers, who were last in action in a Monday night game that I was one of the few people I know was actually able to watch during the hurricane two weeks ago. They were very impressive against a Cardinals team that actually would've tied them for the division lead had they won. Anyway, the 49ers are coming off a bye week and playing a home game against a team they should easily beat. They will.
Texans (7-1) at Bears (7-1): Chicago-When NBC made this game a Sunday nighter, I bet even they didn't think it would be the game of the season. But here we go with what could very well be a Super Bowl preview between two of the three best teams in the NFL (they're playing for the 2-spot behind the Falcons in the power rankings; I've currently got them at 2 and 2A). It's the Bears defense against the Texans offense, which is a push, and the surprisingly good Houston defense against Jay Cutler and Co., which is advantage Texans. But seeing as Chicago's defense scores as many points as most offenses, that part of the matchup is technically a wash. I think the Bears offense is good enough, and who knows how cold a night game in Chicago is going to be? The Bears are used to that. The Texans aren't. And you know they're going to get pumped up hosting the Game of the Year on Sunday night. This is going to be a good one that the Bears pull out in the end.
Chiefs (1-7) at Steelers (5-3): Pittsburgh-Dear NFL, why do you think people want to watch the Kansas City Chiefs lose on national TV two weeks in a row? Not much I can say here. The Chiefs still haven't led all season and are by far the worst team in the league. The Steelers are finally getting their act together, and last week's win over the Giants with all that day-of travel and everything else was certainly impressive. They're in playoff position for the first time this season and only a game behind the Ravens in the AFC North. Fortunately, after this week, the only people subjected to watching the Chiefs will be people in Kansas City and fans of whoever they're playing that week.
Last Week: 9-5
This Week: 1-0
Season: 91-42
Bonus Picks: CFL Playoffs
Edmonton Eskimos at Toronto Argonauts: Toronto-The road to the 100th Grey Cup begins where it will end. At SkyDome. The Eskimos are in the Western Conference, but playing in the Eastern Conference semifinal because Canadians are weird and let teams switch conferences in the playoffs if they're better than the teams in the other conference. For the sake of not confusing us Americans any further, I hope Toronto wins.
Saskatchewan Roughriders at Calgary Stampeders: Calgary-Calgary was the third-best team in the CFL this season. Saskatchewan wasn't. They only avoided the trip to Toronto by winning last week, but it's not like going to Calgary is much different. They were going to lose either way.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
The Award Finalists
I watched a special on MLB Network today where the finalists for each of the eight major awards were unveiled. The winners will be announced on MLB Network, too. This is a new wrinkle for MLB, and it's one that I really like. Sure, it takes some luster off my annual series of posts breaking down each award the night before it's announced, but I'll survive. This is a really good step that I think fans will definitely embrace. While it's always fun debating the candidates, knowing that the field has been reduced to only three doesn't really take anything away from the debate. Although, there are some guys I'm surprised didn't make the final cut for certain awards.
AL Rookie: Yoenis Cespedes (A's), Yu Darvish (Rangers), Mike Trout (Angels)
No surprises here. These three were clearly the three best rookies in the American League this season. Trout's going to win. That's pretty obvious. Darvish and Cespedes were the prize international grabs, and they were both as good as advertised. Cespedes was a middle-of-the-lineup hitter for an A's team that won a surprise division title, while Darvish ended up as the de facto ace of the Rangers staff, making the All-Star team and starting the AL Wild Card Game. The only question is which will finish second behind Trout.
My Vote: 1. Trout, 2. Darvish, 3. Cespedes
NL Rookie: Todd Frazier (Reds), Bryce Harper (Nationals), Wade Miley (Diamondbacks)
Some might disagree, but I think this is another easy one. Harper's obviously the biggest name of the three, but he certainly lived up to the hype. Consider: as a 19-year-old rookie, he was the everyday center fielder and leadoff hitter for the team that finished with the best record in baseball. Oh yeah, and he made the All-Star team, too. Is Harper the NL Rookie of the Year? That's a clown question, bro. As for the other two, Miley also made the All-Star team and led all Diamondbacks starters in pretty much everything. I still don't really know who he is. Frazier, who was a Little League World Series hero for Toms River, N.J.'s championship team in 1998, was great filling in for Joey Votto and Scott Rolen at various points this season, and he's a big reason why Cincinnati won the NL Central.
My Vote: 1. Harper, 2. Frazier, 3. Miley
AL Manager: Bob Melvin (A's), Buck Showalter (Orioles), Robin Ventura (White Sox)
Just like AL Rookie of the Year, these were the three obvious finalists. Ventura had never before managed at any level before getting the White Sox job, and he did a great job, keeping his team in first place for most of the season before they were caught by the Tigers in the end. But this is a two-man race. If they could give it to both Melvin and Showalter, that would be completely fine with me. But I don't think they're going to do that, which means you have to separate the two somehow. Showalter deserves a world of credit for the Orioles' surprising playoff run, but I'm giving the slight edge to Melvin. The equally surprising A's didn't just make the playoffs. They won a division that includes the Rangers and Angels. With a team full of guys you've never heard of.
My Vote: 1. Melvin, 2. Showalter, 3. Ventura
NL Manager: Dusty Baker (Reds), Bruce Bochy (Giants), Davey Johnson (Nationals)
I'm not sure why Bruce Bochy is a finalist. Yes, the Giants won the World Series, but they were supposed to be good. I would've gone with Mike Matheny as the third finalist for taking the Cardinals back to the playoffs without Albert. Dusty Baker's won this award in the past, and the Reds won the NL Central with the second-best record in baseball. But Davey Johnson's the clear choice. Everything he did with the Nationals this season worked. (Even the controversial decision to shut down Stephen Strasburg.) As a result, a team most people thought was a year or two away, had the best record in the Majors and brought playoff baseball back to the nation's capital for the first time since 1933.
My Vote: 1. Johnson, 2. Baker, 3. Bochy
AL Cy Young: David Price (Rays), Justin Verlander (Tigers), Jered Weaver (Angels)
The AL Cy Young is the biggest toss-up of the eight awards. I have no idea which of these three guys will win, and I'd really be fine with any of them. I said Price immediately after the season ended, and I'm going to stick with it. Narrowly. His league-leading 20 wins and 2.56 ERA came were made even more impressive by the fact he played in a division that included the Yankees and Orioles, who he always saved his best for. Weaver was just as dominant as Price, albeit for an Angels team that underachieved. And Verlander's Verlander. He wasn't as incredible as last season, but that was a tough act to follow.
My Vote: 1. Price, 2. Weaver, 3. Verlander
NL Cy Young: R.A. Dickey (Mets), Gio Gonzalez (Nationals), Clayton Kershaw (Dodgers)
Another one that's too close to call. In fact, there could easily be two or three more guys on this list. Where's Craig Kimbrel, who had possibly the most dominant year a closer's ever had? My end-of-season vote went to Kimbrel, who's obviously not going to win. And what about Johnny Cueto or Aroldis Chapman? No love for the Reds. Kershaw won this award last year, but he only had 14 wins and was hurt for much of the year, so I think he finishes third. That leaves Gio and Dickey. R.A. Dickey's year was as amazing as his story. He led the NL in strikeouts and won 20 games for a terrible Mets team. But, sorry Mets fans, as dominant as Dickey was, my vote would go to Gonzalez. Call me old school, but I'm inclined to give 19 wins for a playoff team credence over 20 wins for a terrible team. Trading for Gio Gonzalez is perhaps the reason why the Nationals made the playoffs. He was considered only their second-best pitcher, but performed like an ace and led the league in ERA for the best team in baseball.
My Vote: 1. Gonzalez, 2. Dickey, 3. Kershaw
AL MVP: Adrian Beltre (Rangers), Miguel Cabrera (Tigers), Robinson Cano (Yankees), Josh Hamilton (Rangers), Mike Trout (Angels)
Where's Adam Jones? I had him third on my AL MVP list. Since the writers vote 10-deep for MVP, they named five guys as finalists instead of three, but who we kidding? This is a two-man race. It's Cabrera vs. Trout. I haven't gotten into the Cabrera vs. Trout debate yet, so I will now. Mike Trouyt had a sensational rookie year, but Miguel Cabrera was the best player in the American League this season. He won the Triple Crown. That has to still mean something. He led the league in average, home runs and RBIs. For a team that made the World Series. Trout's numbers were ridiculous. Especially for a 20-year-old rookie. But I simply don' think the Trout supporters make a strong enough argument. Their favorite "stat" to point to is that Trout led the league in WAR. So what? What's WAR? It's not even a real stat. Likewise, you can't really hold Mike Trout's stolen bases against Miguel Cabrera. It's apples and oranges. Trout's a leadoff hitter. He's supposed to get on base and steal bases. Cabrera bats third. He isn't paid to steal bases. He's paid to drive in runs and hit homers. The defense thing makes no sense, either. Mike Trout is much better defensively than Miguel Cabrera. Cabrera would be the first to admit that. What everybody fails to mention, though, is that Miguel Cabrera switched positions this year so that the Tigers could sign Prince Fielder and, while no means a "good" third baseman, he at least held his own over there. And let's also not forget this: the Tigers went to the World Series. The Angels finished third in their four-team division. Mike Trout will unanimously win Rookie of the Year. Miguel Cabrera should be the MVP, though. In my opinion, it's not even close.
My Vote: 1. Cabrera, 2. Trout, 3. Hamilton, 4. Cano, 5. Beltre
NL MVP: Ryan Braun (Brewers), Chase Headley (Padres), Andrew McCutchen (Pirates), Yadier Molina (Cardinals), Buster Posey (Giants)
Joey Votto had this thing pretty much locked up at the All-Star Break. Then he missed two months and dropped out of the running. Chase Headley's the surprise name here, and it's nice to see a guy who doesn't get a lot of press playing for a bad team on the West Coast being recognized. He's not going to come anywhere close to winning, but just being on the list of finalists shows Chase Headley that he's not completely anonymous in San Diego. Ryan Braun's numbers this season were actually better than they were last year when he won. (I guess he didn't need steroids after all.) But he's not going to win. Not after his suspension/non-suspension. Andrew McCutchen almost single-handedly kept the Pirates in the race and was right up there with Votto at the All-Star Break before fading down the stretch. But this race comes down to the two catchers. Molina's the best catcher in baseball and displayed the offense to go with it this season. He's quickly becoming the face of the Post-Albert Cardinals. There's a clear winner here, though. And his name is Buster Posey. When Melky Cabrera was suspended in August, the 2010 NL Rookie of the Year put the Giants on his back. He won the batting title while hitting in the middle of the order and catching every day. The Giants got hot and never stopped, winning their second World Series in Posey's three seasons. Is it any coincidence that the only time they haven't won was last year, when he got hurt in May and missed the rest of the season? Buster Posey's 2012 season was the definition of an MVP season.
My Vote: 1. Posey, 2. Molina, 3. McCutchen, 4. Braun, 5. Headley
AL Rookie: Yoenis Cespedes (A's), Yu Darvish (Rangers), Mike Trout (Angels)
No surprises here. These three were clearly the three best rookies in the American League this season. Trout's going to win. That's pretty obvious. Darvish and Cespedes were the prize international grabs, and they were both as good as advertised. Cespedes was a middle-of-the-lineup hitter for an A's team that won a surprise division title, while Darvish ended up as the de facto ace of the Rangers staff, making the All-Star team and starting the AL Wild Card Game. The only question is which will finish second behind Trout.
My Vote: 1. Trout, 2. Darvish, 3. Cespedes
NL Rookie: Todd Frazier (Reds), Bryce Harper (Nationals), Wade Miley (Diamondbacks)
Some might disagree, but I think this is another easy one. Harper's obviously the biggest name of the three, but he certainly lived up to the hype. Consider: as a 19-year-old rookie, he was the everyday center fielder and leadoff hitter for the team that finished with the best record in baseball. Oh yeah, and he made the All-Star team, too. Is Harper the NL Rookie of the Year? That's a clown question, bro. As for the other two, Miley also made the All-Star team and led all Diamondbacks starters in pretty much everything. I still don't really know who he is. Frazier, who was a Little League World Series hero for Toms River, N.J.'s championship team in 1998, was great filling in for Joey Votto and Scott Rolen at various points this season, and he's a big reason why Cincinnati won the NL Central.
My Vote: 1. Harper, 2. Frazier, 3. Miley
AL Manager: Bob Melvin (A's), Buck Showalter (Orioles), Robin Ventura (White Sox)
Just like AL Rookie of the Year, these were the three obvious finalists. Ventura had never before managed at any level before getting the White Sox job, and he did a great job, keeping his team in first place for most of the season before they were caught by the Tigers in the end. But this is a two-man race. If they could give it to both Melvin and Showalter, that would be completely fine with me. But I don't think they're going to do that, which means you have to separate the two somehow. Showalter deserves a world of credit for the Orioles' surprising playoff run, but I'm giving the slight edge to Melvin. The equally surprising A's didn't just make the playoffs. They won a division that includes the Rangers and Angels. With a team full of guys you've never heard of.
My Vote: 1. Melvin, 2. Showalter, 3. Ventura
NL Manager: Dusty Baker (Reds), Bruce Bochy (Giants), Davey Johnson (Nationals)
I'm not sure why Bruce Bochy is a finalist. Yes, the Giants won the World Series, but they were supposed to be good. I would've gone with Mike Matheny as the third finalist for taking the Cardinals back to the playoffs without Albert. Dusty Baker's won this award in the past, and the Reds won the NL Central with the second-best record in baseball. But Davey Johnson's the clear choice. Everything he did with the Nationals this season worked. (Even the controversial decision to shut down Stephen Strasburg.) As a result, a team most people thought was a year or two away, had the best record in the Majors and brought playoff baseball back to the nation's capital for the first time since 1933.
My Vote: 1. Johnson, 2. Baker, 3. Bochy
AL Cy Young: David Price (Rays), Justin Verlander (Tigers), Jered Weaver (Angels)
The AL Cy Young is the biggest toss-up of the eight awards. I have no idea which of these three guys will win, and I'd really be fine with any of them. I said Price immediately after the season ended, and I'm going to stick with it. Narrowly. His league-leading 20 wins and 2.56 ERA came were made even more impressive by the fact he played in a division that included the Yankees and Orioles, who he always saved his best for. Weaver was just as dominant as Price, albeit for an Angels team that underachieved. And Verlander's Verlander. He wasn't as incredible as last season, but that was a tough act to follow.
My Vote: 1. Price, 2. Weaver, 3. Verlander
NL Cy Young: R.A. Dickey (Mets), Gio Gonzalez (Nationals), Clayton Kershaw (Dodgers)
Another one that's too close to call. In fact, there could easily be two or three more guys on this list. Where's Craig Kimbrel, who had possibly the most dominant year a closer's ever had? My end-of-season vote went to Kimbrel, who's obviously not going to win. And what about Johnny Cueto or Aroldis Chapman? No love for the Reds. Kershaw won this award last year, but he only had 14 wins and was hurt for much of the year, so I think he finishes third. That leaves Gio and Dickey. R.A. Dickey's year was as amazing as his story. He led the NL in strikeouts and won 20 games for a terrible Mets team. But, sorry Mets fans, as dominant as Dickey was, my vote would go to Gonzalez. Call me old school, but I'm inclined to give 19 wins for a playoff team credence over 20 wins for a terrible team. Trading for Gio Gonzalez is perhaps the reason why the Nationals made the playoffs. He was considered only their second-best pitcher, but performed like an ace and led the league in ERA for the best team in baseball.
My Vote: 1. Gonzalez, 2. Dickey, 3. Kershaw
AL MVP: Adrian Beltre (Rangers), Miguel Cabrera (Tigers), Robinson Cano (Yankees), Josh Hamilton (Rangers), Mike Trout (Angels)
Where's Adam Jones? I had him third on my AL MVP list. Since the writers vote 10-deep for MVP, they named five guys as finalists instead of three, but who we kidding? This is a two-man race. It's Cabrera vs. Trout. I haven't gotten into the Cabrera vs. Trout debate yet, so I will now. Mike Trouyt had a sensational rookie year, but Miguel Cabrera was the best player in the American League this season. He won the Triple Crown. That has to still mean something. He led the league in average, home runs and RBIs. For a team that made the World Series. Trout's numbers were ridiculous. Especially for a 20-year-old rookie. But I simply don' think the Trout supporters make a strong enough argument. Their favorite "stat" to point to is that Trout led the league in WAR. So what? What's WAR? It's not even a real stat. Likewise, you can't really hold Mike Trout's stolen bases against Miguel Cabrera. It's apples and oranges. Trout's a leadoff hitter. He's supposed to get on base and steal bases. Cabrera bats third. He isn't paid to steal bases. He's paid to drive in runs and hit homers. The defense thing makes no sense, either. Mike Trout is much better defensively than Miguel Cabrera. Cabrera would be the first to admit that. What everybody fails to mention, though, is that Miguel Cabrera switched positions this year so that the Tigers could sign Prince Fielder and, while no means a "good" third baseman, he at least held his own over there. And let's also not forget this: the Tigers went to the World Series. The Angels finished third in their four-team division. Mike Trout will unanimously win Rookie of the Year. Miguel Cabrera should be the MVP, though. In my opinion, it's not even close.
My Vote: 1. Cabrera, 2. Trout, 3. Hamilton, 4. Cano, 5. Beltre
NL MVP: Ryan Braun (Brewers), Chase Headley (Padres), Andrew McCutchen (Pirates), Yadier Molina (Cardinals), Buster Posey (Giants)
Joey Votto had this thing pretty much locked up at the All-Star Break. Then he missed two months and dropped out of the running. Chase Headley's the surprise name here, and it's nice to see a guy who doesn't get a lot of press playing for a bad team on the West Coast being recognized. He's not going to come anywhere close to winning, but just being on the list of finalists shows Chase Headley that he's not completely anonymous in San Diego. Ryan Braun's numbers this season were actually better than they were last year when he won. (I guess he didn't need steroids after all.) But he's not going to win. Not after his suspension/non-suspension. Andrew McCutchen almost single-handedly kept the Pirates in the race and was right up there with Votto at the All-Star Break before fading down the stretch. But this race comes down to the two catchers. Molina's the best catcher in baseball and displayed the offense to go with it this season. He's quickly becoming the face of the Post-Albert Cardinals. There's a clear winner here, though. And his name is Buster Posey. When Melky Cabrera was suspended in August, the 2010 NL Rookie of the Year put the Giants on his back. He won the batting title while hitting in the middle of the order and catching every day. The Giants got hot and never stopped, winning their second World Series in Posey's three seasons. Is it any coincidence that the only time they haven't won was last year, when he got hurt in May and missed the rest of the season? Buster Posey's 2012 season was the definition of an MVP season.
My Vote: 1. Posey, 2. Molina, 3. McCutchen, 4. Braun, 5. Headley
Saturday, November 3, 2012
NFL Week 9 Picks
While watching the Chiefs-Chargers game on Thursday night, I decided something. The Kansas City Chiefs are bad. Really bad. I'm not surprised they haven't had a lead all season. Frankly, I'm surprised they managed to get a win. As ridiculous as it was when Steve Spurrier said that Alabama could beat an NFL team, I think Alabama would at least give the Chiefs a game. Anyway, since the NFL for some reason decided that a Chiefs-Chargers game was worthy of a national audience, I (like 95 percent of America) have started this week 1-0. As for the rest of the picks...
Broncos (4-3) at Bengals (3-4): Denver-The Broncos' schedule actually starts to get easier next week, but first, it's one more game against a 2012 playoff team (and, yes, this is the CBS national early game, giving Denver eight national games in eight weeks). The scary thing is that Denver's only getting better. It's not that Cincinnati's bad. They're just not as good as the Broncos. Think they miss Tebow? I'm pretty sure they don't. Peyton keeps them in first place.
Ravens (5-2) at Browns (2-6): Baltimore-Well, the Ravens sure looked like a different team against Houston, didn't they? Who knew what a difference a few injuries on defense could make. But Baltimore had last week off to figure things out and they're playing Cleveland, not Houston, this week. I'm not sure I view the Ravens as a Super Bowl contender anymore, but they should have enough to easily get by the Browns.
Cardinals (4-4) at Packers ("5-3"): Green Bay-I just have a feeling that blown call in Seattle could end up screwing the Packers more and more as the season goes on. These teams are headed in opposite directions. Clearly. The Cardinals have lost four straight since their 4-0 start, while Green Bay has won three straight to move into a wild card position. Arizona probably needs to win more, but it's November in Lambeau. This is when the Packers start to shine.
Bears (6-1) at Titans (3-5): Chicago-The Bears are creeping up on the Texans as the second-best team in the NFL. They really showed me something last week against Carolina. Chicago was playing like crap and it looked like they were going to lose to a team they should beat easily, then they go and score two touchdowns late to win by a point. Teams that win games like that are generally the ones that have pretty special seasons. Can you tell I'm really high on the Chicago Bears?
Dolphins (4-3) at Colts (4-3): Miami-This might be the most surprising matchup of the season so far. The Dolphins are playing the Colts in Week 9 and not only are they both over .500, they're both sitting in playoff position right now. I've got to be honest. I was shocked at how thoroughly the Dolphins dismantled the Jets at the Meadowlands last week. That tells me as much about Miami as it does about the Jets. The Colts had a nice win last week, too, knocking off the Titans in overtime in Nashville. With Ryan Tannehill out, the Dolphins will turn to Matt Moore this week. I should probably pick the Colts, but I have confidence in Moore.
Panthers (1-6) at Redskins (3-5): Washington-There should probably be more hype for this game than there's been so far, seeing as it's the first meeting between Cam Newton and Robert Griffin III. But a lot of that enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that Carolina is a trainwreck. The Redskins, on the other hand, are headed in the right direction. They're coming off losses to the Giants and Steelers, but playing against Carolina at home should be a different story.
Lions (3-4) at Jaguars (1-6): Detroit-Jacksonville is right up there with Kansas City in the competition for worst team in the league. This is the Lions' opportunity to even up their record and get back in the playoff hunt. Detroit needs a win here, and I think they get it.
Bills (3-4) at Texans (6-1): Houston-Prior to their bye, the Texans took on the Ravens in a matchup of the two best teams in the AFC. And Houston completely crushed Baltimore. There's no question who the best team in the AFC is anymore. The Bills were also off last week. In their last game, they lost a shootout against Tennessee. The biggest storylines on their end are Mario Williams' return to Houston (I don't even know if he's playing, is that bad?) and that they have a chance to be .500 and just a game out of first at the midway point. Neither will happen. The Texans go to 7-1.
Buccaneers (3-4) at Raiders (3-4): Tampa Bay-Remember 10 years ago when these two played each other in the Super Bowl? Yeah, I don't either. Because it seems like it's been forever since either was any good. The Raiders must've paid off the schedule-maker, because they haven't exactly run the NFL gauntlet in the last three weeks, drawing Jaguars, Chiefs, Bucs. (Reality check next week when they visit Baltimore.) The Bucs beat the Saints earlier in the year and rocked Minnesota last week. They also won Super Bowl XXXVII. Those reasons are as good as any for picking Tampa Bay.
Vikings (5-3) at Seahawks ("4-4"): Minnesota-I'm not really sure what happened against Tampa Bay. Totally forgot about that game because of the World Series. The Seahawks have lost two straight, but are undefeated* at home this year, which includes wins over Dallas and New England, as well as another "victory" against Green Bay. And two of the Vikings' three losses have come on the road. Even though I probably should pick Seattle, I have a feeling Minnesota's going to win.
Steelers (4-3) at Giants (6-2): Giants-This was one of the best games of the week before everything that went down with Hurricane Sandy. There are some who thought this game should've been cancelled, but I agree with the decision to play it. However, the Steelers' hotel is without power and they couldn't find another one, which means they have to leave for the game on Sunday morning. Fortunately Pittsburgh and New Jersey are close enough that they can do that. Considering Pittsburgh's injuries and the fact that the Giants are on a roll, I was already leaning Giants anyway. Throw in Pittsburgh's day-of-game travel situation, and it makes me even more confident the Giants will win.
Cowboys (3-4) at Falcons (7-0): Atlanta-Why did everybody think that last week would be the one when Atlanta finally lost? I had no doubt they'd beat the Eagles. The Cowboys, on the other hand, I can definitely see pulling off the upset. Dallas always seems to get up for games like this one. Especially since they need a win because they find themselves slipping out of the playoff race by the week. I have a feeling this will be a very entertaining contest. And I also have a feeling the Falcons will pull it out in the end and stay undefeated.
Eagles (3-4) at Saints (2-5): Philadelphia-I'm sure when the NFL set this up as the Monday night game, they thought it would be a top-notch matchup between two playoff contenders. Well, that's not the case. Both teams can keep fooling themselves with their delusions of making the playoffs, but neither one is going to. Especially the loser of this game. New Orleans is favored. But I really hate that team and I can't wait for Jonathan Vilma's suspension to be reinstated for a second time (dude, you did it, everybody knows it). So, I'm picking the Eagles because they're the lesser of two evils.
Last Week: 10-4
This Week: 1-0
Season: 82-37
Broncos (4-3) at Bengals (3-4): Denver-The Broncos' schedule actually starts to get easier next week, but first, it's one more game against a 2012 playoff team (and, yes, this is the CBS national early game, giving Denver eight national games in eight weeks). The scary thing is that Denver's only getting better. It's not that Cincinnati's bad. They're just not as good as the Broncos. Think they miss Tebow? I'm pretty sure they don't. Peyton keeps them in first place.
Ravens (5-2) at Browns (2-6): Baltimore-Well, the Ravens sure looked like a different team against Houston, didn't they? Who knew what a difference a few injuries on defense could make. But Baltimore had last week off to figure things out and they're playing Cleveland, not Houston, this week. I'm not sure I view the Ravens as a Super Bowl contender anymore, but they should have enough to easily get by the Browns.
Cardinals (4-4) at Packers ("5-3"): Green Bay-I just have a feeling that blown call in Seattle could end up screwing the Packers more and more as the season goes on. These teams are headed in opposite directions. Clearly. The Cardinals have lost four straight since their 4-0 start, while Green Bay has won three straight to move into a wild card position. Arizona probably needs to win more, but it's November in Lambeau. This is when the Packers start to shine.
Bears (6-1) at Titans (3-5): Chicago-The Bears are creeping up on the Texans as the second-best team in the NFL. They really showed me something last week against Carolina. Chicago was playing like crap and it looked like they were going to lose to a team they should beat easily, then they go and score two touchdowns late to win by a point. Teams that win games like that are generally the ones that have pretty special seasons. Can you tell I'm really high on the Chicago Bears?
Dolphins (4-3) at Colts (4-3): Miami-This might be the most surprising matchup of the season so far. The Dolphins are playing the Colts in Week 9 and not only are they both over .500, they're both sitting in playoff position right now. I've got to be honest. I was shocked at how thoroughly the Dolphins dismantled the Jets at the Meadowlands last week. That tells me as much about Miami as it does about the Jets. The Colts had a nice win last week, too, knocking off the Titans in overtime in Nashville. With Ryan Tannehill out, the Dolphins will turn to Matt Moore this week. I should probably pick the Colts, but I have confidence in Moore.
Panthers (1-6) at Redskins (3-5): Washington-There should probably be more hype for this game than there's been so far, seeing as it's the first meeting between Cam Newton and Robert Griffin III. But a lot of that enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that Carolina is a trainwreck. The Redskins, on the other hand, are headed in the right direction. They're coming off losses to the Giants and Steelers, but playing against Carolina at home should be a different story.
Lions (3-4) at Jaguars (1-6): Detroit-Jacksonville is right up there with Kansas City in the competition for worst team in the league. This is the Lions' opportunity to even up their record and get back in the playoff hunt. Detroit needs a win here, and I think they get it.
Bills (3-4) at Texans (6-1): Houston-Prior to their bye, the Texans took on the Ravens in a matchup of the two best teams in the AFC. And Houston completely crushed Baltimore. There's no question who the best team in the AFC is anymore. The Bills were also off last week. In their last game, they lost a shootout against Tennessee. The biggest storylines on their end are Mario Williams' return to Houston (I don't even know if he's playing, is that bad?) and that they have a chance to be .500 and just a game out of first at the midway point. Neither will happen. The Texans go to 7-1.
Buccaneers (3-4) at Raiders (3-4): Tampa Bay-Remember 10 years ago when these two played each other in the Super Bowl? Yeah, I don't either. Because it seems like it's been forever since either was any good. The Raiders must've paid off the schedule-maker, because they haven't exactly run the NFL gauntlet in the last three weeks, drawing Jaguars, Chiefs, Bucs. (Reality check next week when they visit Baltimore.) The Bucs beat the Saints earlier in the year and rocked Minnesota last week. They also won Super Bowl XXXVII. Those reasons are as good as any for picking Tampa Bay.
Vikings (5-3) at Seahawks ("4-4"): Minnesota-I'm not really sure what happened against Tampa Bay. Totally forgot about that game because of the World Series. The Seahawks have lost two straight, but are undefeated* at home this year, which includes wins over Dallas and New England, as well as another "victory" against Green Bay. And two of the Vikings' three losses have come on the road. Even though I probably should pick Seattle, I have a feeling Minnesota's going to win.
Steelers (4-3) at Giants (6-2): Giants-This was one of the best games of the week before everything that went down with Hurricane Sandy. There are some who thought this game should've been cancelled, but I agree with the decision to play it. However, the Steelers' hotel is without power and they couldn't find another one, which means they have to leave for the game on Sunday morning. Fortunately Pittsburgh and New Jersey are close enough that they can do that. Considering Pittsburgh's injuries and the fact that the Giants are on a roll, I was already leaning Giants anyway. Throw in Pittsburgh's day-of-game travel situation, and it makes me even more confident the Giants will win.
Cowboys (3-4) at Falcons (7-0): Atlanta-Why did everybody think that last week would be the one when Atlanta finally lost? I had no doubt they'd beat the Eagles. The Cowboys, on the other hand, I can definitely see pulling off the upset. Dallas always seems to get up for games like this one. Especially since they need a win because they find themselves slipping out of the playoff race by the week. I have a feeling this will be a very entertaining contest. And I also have a feeling the Falcons will pull it out in the end and stay undefeated.
Eagles (3-4) at Saints (2-5): Philadelphia-I'm sure when the NFL set this up as the Monday night game, they thought it would be a top-notch matchup between two playoff contenders. Well, that's not the case. Both teams can keep fooling themselves with their delusions of making the playoffs, but neither one is going to. Especially the loser of this game. New Orleans is favored. But I really hate that team and I can't wait for Jonathan Vilma's suspension to be reinstated for a second time (dude, you did it, everybody knows it). So, I'm picking the Eagles because they're the lesser of two evils.
Last Week: 10-4
This Week: 1-0
Season: 82-37
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)