Please Stop Calling London

It's become abundantly clear that Roger Goddell is a big fan of London.  There's been a game there ever year since 2007, two this season, and three next year.  Goddell loves the enthusiasm of the London fans and the fact that the games, no matter how crappy the teams sent over are, are always sold out.  He even said during his media session in the lead up to last week's 49ers-Jaguars game that he can see a Super Bowl played in London, and would even consider putting a franchise there.  Neither idea is a good one.

The first thing that needs to be considered when debating the merits of a London franchise is the travel logistics.  London is an ocean away from the East Coast.  I don't even want to know how long the flight would be from San Francisco.  It wouldn't be fair to ask teams to repeatedly make that trip.  Even worse, if a franchise were based in London, they'd have to play eight road games.  That's eight trips back-and-forth across the Atlantic.  I'm sure they'd schedule the road games in blocks so that they wouldn't have to cross the ocean as often, but that doesn't make it much better.  And again, you've got the potential London-to-West Coast travel to think about.  The West Coast teams always struggle in 1:00 road games.  Imagine how much worse it would be when the flight's that much longer and the time difference is that much greater.

Another thing about the schedule that needs to be taken into account is the return trip.  Ever since the NFL started going to London, the two teams playing in the game would have their bye the following week.  The reason for this is, obviously, to give their bodies time to get back to normal.  If there was a franchise London, they wouldn't have the luxury of scheduling the games directly before the bye.  Imagine playing in London Week 16, then flying home for your final game with a playoff berth potentially on the line.  Even worse, how about playing Week 17 in London, then turning around and playing a playoff game somewhere in the United States the following week.  Not only does that not make any sense, it would be totally unfair to do to teams.

Then there's the time difference.  As we learned during the 2012 Olympics, when people got all over NBC for their tape-delayed prime time coverage, London isn't exactly in a U.S. TV-friendly time zone.  The games that are played in London have to be early games on Sunday because of the time difference.  1:00 in the afternoon on the East Coast is 7:00 in London.  They could theoretically start a 4:30 game at 10:30 in London, but Sunday, Monday and Thursday night games are out.  Unless the NFL wants the teams playing in the middle of the night London time!

That's why a London Super Bowl would never work, either.  Kickoff of the Super Bowl is at 6:30 p.m.  Once again, with the six-hour time difference during the fall/winter, that's 12:30 in the morning in London!  Could you do it?  Sure.  Would it make sense or be fair to the players playing in the game or the fans attending the game (which would then be on a Monday morning)?  Absolutely not! 

Keep in mind, major events from Europe that are televised live in the U.S. are shown in the middle of the afternoon.  Do you really think the NFL and whatever network was covering the game would actually move the Super Bowl to an earlier time?  The likelihood of that seems about as likely as my playing in the Super Bowl.  These are the same people who added MORE night games to the schedule.  They're not going to make the biggest game of the year, the one that's an event across America, any earlier.  So, the only option would be to make it in the middle of the night in London.  And that's not exactly the best solution.

As for the logistics of operating a league with franchises on two different continents, I don't even want to begin to imagine how the NFL thinks that might work.  The short answer: it wouldn't.

During his press conference, Goddell said that he doesn't have a preference between London and LA.  This is flawed thinking.  Goddell is more concerned with expanding the game internationally than he is about putting a team back in the second-largest media market in this country.  The one where the league is based and the sport is king (the other football will always be No. 1 in England).  Sure, the NFL hasn't had an LA team in nearly 20 years.  That's all the more reason to want to go back.  Not to mention all the logistical advantages of LA over London.  To me, the choice is a no-brainer.

I'm not saying the NFL needs to abandon the London experiment entirely.  Just the opposite.  I think the annual London game has been an outstanding showcase for the league.  But that doesn't mean they should expand the London series any more than they already have or even consider placing a franchise there permanently.  The novelty would wear off.  That's one of the reasons why NFL Europe ultimately failed.

London is one of the world's great cities.  I have nothing against London.  But does it deserve an NFL franchise?  Absolutely not!  It simply wouldn't work.  Hopefully the NFL is smart enough to realize that.

Week 8 NFL Picks

That was one of the craziest endings of any baseball game, World Series or not, that I've ever seen in my life.  But with that, Saturday turns to Sunday and we turn our attention to the NFL and FOX's favorite day of the year.  NFL doubleheader followed by Game 4 of the World Series.

This week is fairly light, though.  There are six byes this week, which means there are only 13 games to be played, including the three night games (four if you include London, which kicks off at 7:00 local time).  That means we're left with just 10 games on Sunday afternoon, only six of which are early games.  And of those 10, we've got some real duds.  Bills-Saints, anyone?  Didn't think so.

Cowboys (4-3) at Lions (4-3): Dallas-This is actually one of the better games of the week.  The Cowboys are the only NFC East team that's over .500, and the Lions are just a half-game behind the Packers in the NFC North.  I'm going to make a bold prediction and say the team that wears silver helmets with a blue logo is going to win.  As for which one it is, I have a feeling that'll be Dallas.

Browns (3-4) at Chiefs (7-0): Kansas City-Who had Kansas City as the last undefeated team?  With the Browns and Bills as their next two opponents, I see that continuing until the Chiefs' bye week.  That defense is ridiculous.

Dolphins (3-3) at Patriots (5-2): New England-Rex Ryan's still on Cloud 9 after "beating" the Patriots on that ridiculous penalty the refs wouldn't have even called if he hadn't told them about it last week.  All that loss means is New England will finish 11-5 instead of 12-4.  The Patriots are still the class of the AFC East, and it's not even really close.  They hadn't lost back-to-back games for like five years until they did last season.  Losing back-to-back division games?  Even longer.  Expect that streak to continue.

Bills (3-4) at Saints (5-1): New Orleans-As we in New York remember the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Sandy, it reminds me of the last time the Bills visited the Saints.  It was 2005, and it was the first New Orleans "home" game in San Antonio after Katrina.  They finally play the Bills in the Superdome again, and they'll keep on rolling.  The New Orleans-Seattle NFC home field battle is going to last all season.

Giants (1-6) at Eagles (3-4): Philadelphia-These two played just three weeks ago, when the Eagles posted a 36-21 victory at the Meadowlands to make this Giants season descend further into embarrassment.  The Giants are at least no longer winless after beating the even-worse Vikings on Monday night.  I thought Philly-Dallas would be a game, but the Eagles got crushed and only scored three points.  With the Giants on a short week and the game in Philadelphia, I'm going to say the Eagles rebound and finish off the season sweep.

49ers (5-2) vs. Jaguars (0-7): San Francisco-The NFL really needs to reconsider the teams it sends to London.  Jacksonville is the designated "home" team for the next couple years?  Not exactly the highest-quality football for our friends across the pond.  Of course, I think the 49ers are going to win this game.  More on Roger Goddell's ridiculous London obsession in our next installment.

Jets (4-3) at Bengals (5-2): Cincinnati-Rex is still on such a high after the Patriots game that he probably completely forgot the Jets were even playing this week.  In Cincinnati.  Against a very good Bengals team that actually BEAT New England.  The Bengals have won three in a row since losing to Cleveland and have a two-game lead in the AFC North.  I really don't see them slipping up against the Jets.

Steelers (2-4) at Raiders (2-4): Oakland-Pittsburgh seems to have at least started righting the ship.  Back-to-back wins, including an impressive one last week against rival Baltimore, have the Steelers at 2-4 and thinking they might be able to save their season yet.  But their 2012 campaign was derailed by an inexplicable loss in Oakland.  For some reason, I think it's going to happen again.

Redskins (2-4) at Broncos (6-1): Denver-There were two things I forgot to take into account regarding last week's Broncos-Colts game: Indianapolis knows Peyton better than anybody, and Robert Mathis wasn't allowed to hit him during all those years they were teammates.  Anyway, the crazy thing to think about is that 6-1 Denver, which still might be the best team in football, is in SECOND place in the AFC West.  The Broncos haven't played the Chiefs yet, so that'll change.  Against the Redskins at home, they put last week behind them and move to 7-1.

Falcons (2-4) at Cardinals (3-4): Atlanta-I think I can now officially that my NFC Super Bowl pick of the Falcons is going to be wrong.  They're not the same team without BOTH Julio Jones and Roddy White.  Regardless, they finally got out of the AFC East last week and got a win over the lowly Bucs.  That was probably a confidence boost, though.  And Atlanta's still got enough healthy talent to handle Arizona.

Packers (4-2) at Vikings (1-5): Green Bay-This game was much more appealing before the season started than it is now, which is how it ended up on Sunday night.  Minnesota's not a good team.  That Monday night game against the Giants was an embarrassing display of football.  Josh Freeman shouldn't be their starting quarterback yet, either.  Ever since their bye, the Packers have been the Packers again.  That's bad new for the not-ready-for-primetime Vikings.

Seahawks (6-1) at Rams (3-4): Seattle-It's been a really long time since Seattle played.  They get that same ridiculous Thursday-Monday schedule the Giants had last week.  We're talking about one of the best teams in the NFL here.  After all that rest, they might be a little rusty at the start, but by the end, the real Seahawks will have shown up.  Seattle goes to 7-1 with its second straight division road win.

BYES: Baltimore, Chicago, Houston, Indianapolis, San Diego, Tennessee

Last Week: 8-7
This Week: 1-0
Season: 67-41

Taking a Stand at Grambling

The Grambling football team is going to play this week.  A marked difference from last week, when they refused to travel to their game at Jackson State as part of a larger stand against their school's administration.  And by not playing, Grambling's football players brought light to a much larger problem that needed to be addressed.

There were a lot of reasons for the boycott.  The players were upset about the availability of water and Gatorade at practices.  There were also issues with mildew on the equipment and unsafe conditions in the weight room.  When Head Coach Doug Williams raised money to replace the floor, the administration kept it under lock-and-key instead of installing it because Williams didn't go through the "proper channels."  He was then fired and replaced with an interim coach the players didn't like.  But the last straw was having to travel by bus to road games in Kansas City and Indianapolis, the latter of which was a 16-hour trip each way.  Even worse, the athletic director and school president flew to the game.

Now, I'm not going to act like I understand the entire situation or know everything that's going on, but I do applaud the players for taking a stand.  While I don't necessarily agree with all of their methods, they had some valid concerns.  And I can see where they felt as if a boycott was their only choice.  They weren't being listened to and had to do something drastic.  It took a boycott to finally bring attention to the problems with Grambling football.

The problems go far beyond football.  Grambling has no money.  The State of Louisiana has cut back their funding to the point that they need to rely on private donations and tuition.  That model doesn't work when you're awarding scholarships for Division I athletics.  If you look at Grambling's programs across the board, they're all struggling.  They simply don't have the money to compete at this level in their current financial situation.  That's what makes some of the stuff that happened with the football program so ridiculous.

They needed new flooring in the weight room.  Grambling couldn't pay for it so Head Coach Doug Williams, a Grambling legend and former Super Bowl MVP, raised the money for it himself.  And they don't install it why?  Why should it matter how the money was raised?  The bottom line is that the badly needed new floor was paid for, delivered and ready to be installed.  The fact that it wasn't, and that Williams got fired for ordering it, shows how much dysfunction there is at Grambling.

For that, I applaud the players.  By bringing the problems with their program to light, they made the country aware of the much more serious financial situation Grambling is facing.  That might not have been their intent, but it was a result.

The problems with Grambling football aren't going to be fixed overnight.  But they were also way too big to continue being ignored.  Some of the problems were smaller than others, and I guarantee some people probably view the players as spoiled, ungrateful crybabies.  I'm not one of them, though.  The is Grambling football.  The program built by the legendary Eddie Robinson.  This is supposed to be Grambling's marquee program here, and this is the way the players are being treated?  I can only imagine how much worse it is for Grambling's other athletes.

I don't know what the solution at Grambling is.  But it's pretty clear that there are some pretty serious problems that go beyond just football.  The school can't continue to operate its athletic department this way.  At least not under this current financial model.  It's expensive to run a Division I football program.  Especially at the I-AA level, where you're inevitably going to lose money. 

Maybe Grambling can't afford to continue playing football moving forward.  It's OK to admit that.  But if Grambling is committed to having a football program, they need to do things the right way.  Which is not the way they were doing it.

Who's to say how much conditions are going to improve at Grambling?  But the players definitely made their point.  And I give them credit for making everyone aware of what was going on.  Sometimes the only way to impart change is to do something drastic.  At least in that, the Grambling football players were successful.  Hopefully there's more success to come.

Sawx In Siwx

Yes, that's my official World Series prediction.  Before I break down exactly how I came up with that, I've got another little nugget that I didn't think of until after I'd already posted my 13 Fun Facts for the 2013 World Series.  If the Cardinals win in six, the all-time records of the Red Sox and Cardinals against each other in the World Series would be even at 12-12.  Anyway, on to why I think the Red Sox are going to win...

I said heading into the LCSes that whichever team won the AL pennant would be the World Series favorites.  After watching those 12 games, that opinion hasn't changed.  Both of these teams were very impressive with the ways they found to win, a key intangible come this time of year.  And they both got contributions from everybody, another important element when it comes to postseason baseball.  Throw in tremendous starting pitching and solid bullpen work, and it's easy to see why these are the last two standings.

So why the Red Sox?  The answer's not an obvious one. 

Some experts say St. Louis has the edge when it comes to starting pitching, but I think that's actually a pretty even split.  By not having to play a Game 7 against the Dodgers, St. Louis is able to use its ace, Adam Wainwright, in Game 1, then back him up with NLCS MVP Michael Wacha on normal rest in Game 2.  They haven't announced the rest of the rotation yet, but you'd have to figure it'll be Joe Kelly in Games 3/7 and Lance Lynn in Game 4.  But the Red Sox are going to counter with Jon Lester against Wainwright and, more importantly, a Cardinals lineup that struggles against left-handed pitching in Games 1 and 5.  Then it's John Lackey in Game 2, which means Clay Buchholz is being held until Game 3 (and possibly Game 7).

As good as the St. Louis starting pitchers have been, I think those are very even matchups.  Even if you say Wacha has the edge against Lackey (who started and won Game 7 as a rookie with the 2002 Angels), Boston has the edge with Buchholz, and, even though he got rocked in Game 4 of the ALCS, you have to think they feel comfortable with longtime Padre Jake Peavy pitching Game 4 in the NL park.  For all the credit the Cardinals starters have been getting, the Red Sox starters might not be getting enough.  At the very worst, you'd have to say the starting pitching is a draw.

It's the bullpen, though, where Boston has a big advantage.  The Red Sox won the ALCS because the Tigers bullpen was terrible and their was virtually unhittable.  So, good luck Cardinals if that's your strategy.  Craig Breslow has been great.  He's not just your matchup lefty.  He can get anybody out.  So can Junichi Tazawa.  And do I even need to get into how ridiculous Koji Uehara has been since the All-Star Break?  A walk-off homer to Jose Lobaton aside, guys don't even get on base against the Boston closer and ALCS MVP.  All he does is throw strikes, which people still can't hit. 

The St. Louis bullpen is also good, but definitely more vulnerable.  Trevor Rosenthal is a terrific closer, but if I had my choice, I'm going with Uehara.  I really like Edward Mujica, but I just have a feeling Mike Matheny's going to overuse him and/or he's really going to get roughed up in one game.  One of the Cardinals' secret weapons during their title run two years ago was Marc Rzepczynski.  Their current left-handers, Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist, have a big task ahead of them with the likes of Big Papi and Jacoby Ellsbury.  It might not be a good comparison because Detroit's bullpen isn't very good, but you saw what the Red Sox lineup did to Tigers relievers.  If they get into the Cardinals bullpen early, it's advantage Boston.  Especially if their own bullpen continues to dominate.

When it comes to the lineups, I'd also give the slight edge to Boston, although that edge has gotten smaller with the announcement that Allen Craig is good to go to DH the games at Fenway Park.  Right after they won the pennant, I assumed the Cardinals wouldn't have Craig for the World Series and, thus, have to figure out their DH situation.  This would've been a major problem.  Because St. Louis has one of the most National League-style lineups you'll ever see.  Adding Craig, though, makes it significantly deeper.  How effective will he be after being out of action for six weeks?  Nobody knows.  But being able to use Allen Craig instead of Daniel Descalso or Shane Robinson at DH definitely puts the Cardinals in a better position for the games at Fenway Park than they would've been otherwise.

The critics of year-round interleague play cite as one of their main reasons that you've got teams playing under different rules in the heart of the pennant race.  Well, as fate would have it, the two American League teams that played interleague road series during the last week of the season were, ironically enough, the Red Sox and the Tigers.  And in Boston's case, I think was a tremendous benefit.  Because they're not going to suddenly be thrown into the position of David Ortiz playing first base in the World Series after not having put on a glove since a couple of games in July.  It was only two games in Colorado, but the Red Sox constructed an Ortiz-at-first lineup that late in the season with the World Series in mind.  Of course the question then becomes, "Where do you put Mike Napoli?"  Well, remember, he used to be a catcher.  Or, you've got a very dangerous bat available as a pinch hitter (same for the Cardinals with Craig).

Top-to-bottom, though, Boston's lineup is deeper, the struggles of Stephen Drew and Will Middlebrooks aside.  Ellsbury and Victorino are great table-setters, and Pedroia makes that team go.  And there's no describing how clutch Ortiz, Napoli and even Saltalamacchia have been.  Then there's Johnny Gomes.  Johnny Gomes isn't that good and he's (along with Napoli) the ringleader of that whole ridiculous beard thing.  But for some reason he's a catalyst, and the Red Sox are undefeated when he starts in left field this postseason.  Even though the Cardinals will be starting only right-handers, I'd expect him to start at least the first two games in Fenway.

Both teams also have that emotional factor on their side.  The Cardinals have been playing all season for the great Stan Musial, who died over the winter.  The Red Sox, of course, have galvanized their city after the Boston Marathon bombings.  Boston Strong has been the rallying cry in much the same way the Yankees became the symbol of their city after 9/11.  The 2001 Yankees came up short, but I don't think the 2013 Red Sox will. 

The last thing that gives the Red Sox the edge is Fenway Park and their rabid fans.  St. Louis had the home field advantage in 2011, and that's the reason why they won.  If this series goes back to Boston, I think Fenway will be a deciding factor.  Those fans are insane.  If given a chance to get involved in the series, you know they will.  Especially if it goes back to Boston 3-2 Cardinals.  Either way, if this series goes beyond five games, which I think it will, St. Louis doesn't stand a chance against the Fenway Faithful.

Red Sox vs. Cardinals Tidbits

Well, I'm stuck with the World Series I didn't want.  The Dodgers forgot that they needed to actually score runs in the games in St. Louis, and the Tigers bullpen was just bad.  As a result, we've got the Red Sox and the Cardinals for the second time in 10 years.  And I'm in a situation where I don't want to see either team win, which I know is not possible.  But my overarching love for the game of baseball and the World Series trumps all, so I'll suck it up and watch all four-seven games, just like I do every year.

My pick will come as the series gets closer and things like the pitching rotations are revealed.  But World Series facts & figures are always fun to talk about.  So, here are some nuggets to digest leading into the 109th Fall Classic...

• This is the fourth World Series matching up the Red Sox and Cardinals.  The Cardinals won in seven in both 1946 and 1967, while Boston, of course, had that curse-breaking sweep in 2004.  Red Sox-Cardinals is the fourth-most frequent World Series pairing, behind Yankees-Dodgers (11), Yankees-Giants (7) and Yankees-Cardinals (5).  (Tigers-Cubs, Yankees-Braves and Giants-Athletics are all four-time World Series matchups, as well.)
• Looking back on that 2004 Series, there are only two players remaining, one on each team: Yadier Molina of the Cardinals and David Ortiz of the Red Sox.  Molina was the Cardinals' backup catcher back then.  The starter?  Current St. Louis manager Mike Matheny.
• Boston's current eight-game World Series winning streak is the second-longest active streak.  The Red Sox will have the longest streak if they win the first two games.  Cincinnati has won nine straight World Series games (Game 7 in 1975, sweep in 1976, sweep in 1990).  The all-time record is the Yankees' 14 straight from 1996-2000.
• The Red Sox and Cardinals finished tied for the best record in baseball at 97-65.  That means we're guaranteed to have the team with the best record win the World Series for the first time since the 2009 Yankees.  It'll be just the fourth time that has happened in the wild card era (1998 Yankees, 2007 Red Sox).
• It's also just third time ever that the two teams in the World Series finished with the same regular season record.  In 1949, the Yankees and Dodgers both went 97-57, while the 1958 Yankees and Braves were both 92-62.
• This is the first time since 1999 that the top team in the American League is playing the top team in the National League in the World Series.
• If Boston wins, they'll be the first worst-to-first World Series champion since the 1991 Twins.  The last team to reach the World Series the year after finishing in last place was the 2008 Rays.
• Red Sox manager John Farrell is in his first season with Boston.  If the Red Sox win, he'll become the first manager to win the World Series in his first season with a team since one of his Boston predecessors--Terry Francona in 2004.  The last manager to reach the World Series in his first season with a team was Jim Leyland with the 2006 Tigers.
• Farrell and Matheny are both managing in the World Series for the first time.  The last time there were two first-time World Series managers, it was Charlie Manuel (Phillies) and Joe Maddon (Rays) in 2008.
• These two franchises have won a combined 18 World Series titles, the most-ever between the opponents in World Series that didn't involve the Yankees.  Ditto on the 31 combined appearances.  (When they met in 2004, their combined number of titles was only 14 and appearances was 26.)
• Fenway Park will be hosting its 10th World Series, the most of any current stadium and more than any stadium except for the Original Yankee Stadium, which hosted 39.
• Much like when the Cardinals played the Rangers in 2011, the first games the Red Sox ever play in the current Busch Stadium will be World Series contests.  The stadium opened in 2006, and Boston's last trip to St. Louis during interleague play was in 2005.  (The Red Sox are scheduled to visit St. Louis next year.)  In fact, the Red Sox and Cardinals haven't played at all since 2008.
• The 2006 Cardinals started this current string where five of the last seven World Series have been won by the National League team.  One of the two AL teams to win was the Red Sox in 2007.

So there you go.  13 fun little tidbits about the 2013 World Series.  And we've still got three days to wait before they finally get going.

Week 7 NFL Picks

We all know what game is on Sunday night this week.  I can't wait (although, I am kind of torn because in order for the Tigers to win, there has to be a Game 7, which would be at the same time).  There hasn't been this much hype surrounding a regular season game since Brett Favre's first game in Lambeau as a member of the Packers.  The difference this time, though, is that Colts fans still like Peyton.

There are, of course, 12 other games to be played on Sunday, as well as the Monday night game, but for most people, there's only one that matters.  As for the rest of those games...

Buccaneers (0-5) at Falcons (1-4): Atlanta-Good news, Falcons.  You don't have to play an AFC East team this week.  And, you didn't lose last week, either.  The Falcons are also fortunate that they're playing the Bucs this week.  Tampa Bay's the only team in the NFC that can manage to make the Giants look good.  Even without Roddy White and Julio Jones, I think Atlanta finally picks up its second W.

Bengals (4-2) at Lions (4-2): Cincinnati-Who had both of these teams at 4-2 with one in first place and the other tied for first at the time of this meeting?  Anybody?  I'm still slightly confused by the Bengals.  They beat the Packers and held the Patriots to six points, yet lost to Cleveland and went to overtime last week in Buffalo.  In a surprisingly good matchup, I'll go with the better Bengals team.  I also think that the guys in Vegas should allow side bets on how much Ndamukong Suh will be fined after he tries to decapitate Andy Dalton.

Bills (2-4) at Dolphins (3-2): Miami-One of the NFL's one-time great rivalries gets renewed with Miami on its way back to relevance.  The Dolphins are coming off their bye, while the Bills almost pulled the upset against Cincinnati last week.  I think that's going to be the story of the Bills' season.  They'll be competitive with everybody, but the little things will be the difference in the end.  That's why I'm picking Miami.

Patriots (5-1) at Jets (3-3): New England-Am I the only person who doesn't let any Rex Ryan and the Jets' talking/whining about the Patriots even register?  I'm not even sure what kind of point they try to make.  The Patriots have owned all three of the other teams in that division for a decade!  And there isn't really anything the Jets can do to change it.  At least not this year.  The first game was closer than it should've been mainly because it was played in a driving rain.  It'll be nice at the Meadowlands tomorrow.

Cowboys (3-3) at Eagles (3-3): Philadelphia-This is a battle for first place in the NFC Least.  That's right.  The Cowboys, who are just as capable of hanging with Denver as they are at almost giving away a game to the Giants, are tied for first place with the Eagles, who were 1-3 two weeks ago.  It's a sad state of affairs in the NFC Least.  I made this pick before Michael Vick announced he wouldn't play, but I have full confidence in Nick Foles, as well as Tony Romo and his ability to lose a winnable game.

Bears (4-2) at Redskins (1-4): Chicago-The Redskins are favored.  I have no idea why.  They shouldn't be.  Chicago's a really good team.  Washington isn't.  Especially with Robert Griffin III as limited as he's been for most of the season.

Rams (3-3) at Panthers (2-3): St. Louis-Ditto on this game.  I can't figure out why the Panthers are favored.  Unless they only gave Carolina a slight nod because the game's in Charlotte.  That shouldn't matter, though.  The Rams are turning into a very formidable team.  Case in point, last week's demolition of the Texans in Houston.  That game wasn't close.  The Panthers won last week, too, but they beat the Vikings, which barely counts.  St. Louis extends its winning streak to three straight.

Chargers (3-3) at Jaguars (0-6): San Diego-There's hope for Jacksonville yet.  They actually looked like something that resembled a professional football team in last week's closer-than-expected loss to the Broncos.  It doesn't mean the Jaguars are going to beat a Chargers team that was very impressive on Monday night and already has a 1:00 road game win this season, but it does mean Jacksonville has a chance of not getting completely blown out in every game.

49ers (4-2) at Titans (3-3): San Francisco-It appears San Francisco has righted the ship.  Three straight wins after the back-to-back losses to the Seahawks and Colts.  Tennessee had the unfortunate task of going to Seattle last week, and the Titans actually kept it somewhat close, only losing by seven.  They're good.  That two game losing streak is no reflection on them (they played Kansas City and Seattle).  Sadly for the Titans, a third straight game against a good team likely results in a third straight loss before their bye.

Browns (3-3) at Packers (3-2): Green Bay-How important was Green Bay's win in Baltimore last week?  It kept the Packers even in the loss column with Chicago and Detroit, who both haven't had their bye yet.  Cleveland finally lost a game last week against those aforementioned Detroit Lions.  The Packers aren't a good matchup for them.  Especially in Lambeau.

Texans (2-4) at Chiefs (6-0): Kansas City-CBS moved this one to the late game so it could be a national broadcast.  That's probably more so that people can see Kansas City than so they can see Houston.  The Texans are officially a mess.  Not only have they lost four straight.  They got blown out at home by St. Louis last week, and things got so bad that the fans were cheering as an injured Matt Schaub was taken off the field.  Visiting one of the two undefeated teams in the NFL isn't the best way to cure all that's wrong in Houston.

Ravens (3-3) at Steelers (1-4): Baltimore-Pittsburgh finally got a win last week!  It came against the Jets, but still.  One of the best rivalries in the NFL is renewed with both teams badly in need of a victory.  If the Ravens win, Pittsburgh can kiss its playoff chances goodbye.  Likewise, if the Steelers win, Baltimore's chances of winning the division become much more difficult (especially if Cincinnati wins in Detroit).  So, in other words, this is a big game.  I still think Baltimore's got the goods to make a run, so they pull it off here.

Broncos (6-0) at Colts (4-2): Denver-There's no need to set the stage here.  Peyton Manning returns to Indianapolis.  Do you really think he's going to let his team lose to the Colts?  I don't.

Vikings (1-4) at Giants (0-6): Giants-That's right.  I'm taking the Giants.  Because as sorry as they've been this year, Monday night's game might actually be their best chance to get a win.  They haven't lost since last Thursday, and this week they get an equally bad opponent.  Like I said, it's actually possible the Giants don't lose this week.  Otherwise, they might have to wait until their home game against the Raiders.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 10-5
Season: 59-34

A Not-So-Happy Reunion

Evidently it's easy to win the Super Bowl.  At least that's what Colts owner Jim Irsay thinks.  Irsay decided to take the days leading up to the most highly-anticipated regular season NFL game in quite some time and stir the pot by taking an unnecessary cheap shot at his former quarterback.  Irsay said how disappointed he was that the Colts "only" won the Super Bowl once during Peyton's time with the team, as if that was somehow his fault (the game-sealing pick-six against the Saints in Super Bowl XLIV notwithstanding).  I guess being in the playoffs regularly and winning 12 games every year wasn't enough.

Irsay tried to backtrack after he was roundly criticized for making those comments, but that did little to help his case.  He came off as petty and ungrateful with comments that weren't just unnecessary.  They were wrong and, frankly, downright mean.  You "only" won one Super Bowl ring?  Poor baby.  You know what, the Philadelphia Eagles would gladly change places with you.  So would the Buffalo Bills, who haven't even made the playoffs since 1999, Peyton's second year with the Colts.  By saying what he said, Irsay spoiled what otherwise would've most likely been a pretty happy reunion.  Instead of lamenting what might have been, he should be thanking Peyton Manning for how much he meant to the Indianapolis Colts organization over the course of his 13 years with the team.

The Indianapolis Colts were irrelevant.  That's the only reason they were able to get Peyton Manning in the first place (and to think, some people wanted them to take Ryan Leaf with the No. 1 pick in the 1998 Draft).  In his second season, they went from 3-13 to a 13-3 division champion.  And the winning didn't stop.  They were among the NFL's dominant teams for more than a decade, and the Colts-Patriots rivalry was must-see TV.  (And if they don't have the unfortunate timing of running into Brady and that Patriots dynasty, the Colts do win one or two more Super Bowls.)  Who was it that turned the franchise around?  Turned them from a laughingstock into a powerhouse?

Without Peyton Manning, Eli never wins a Super Bowl in his brother's stadium.  Because there is no Lucas Oil Stadium.  Instead, the Los Angeles Colts are playing in Farmers Field or one of those other cushy new stadiums that's been proposed.  Without Peyton Manning, Indianapolis Colts jerseys don't go flying off the shelves all over the country.  Without Peyton Manning, free agents don't want to play in Indianapolis.  Without Peyton Manning, Indianapolis remains a basketball town.  Without Peyton Manning, the Colts aren't just irrelevant.  They never become relevant in the first place.

How important was Peyton Manning to that team?  The 2011 season is all the evidence you need.  After never missing a start over his first 13 years in the league, Peyton was forced to miss the entire season after neck surgery.  And the Colts fell apart without him.  Suddenly the team that was regularly winning 10-plus games a year couldn't win at all.  The Colts only won two games and ended up with the No. 1 pick, which just happened to be yet another opportunity to draft a franchise quarterback. 

So, if you think about it, without Peyton Manning, there's no Andrew Luck.  At least not in Indianapolis.  If Manning plays at all in 2011, you know the Colts manage to win a few more games, Luck gets taken No. 1 by somebody else, and Peyton gets to end his career the way he wanted to.  As a Colt.  But instead, Jim Irsay decided to cut the greatest player in franchise history and start over with Andrew Luck.

I get why he did what he did two summers ago.  Was it disappointing to see Peyton leave Indianapolis?  Yes.  Was it the "right" decision?  That's up for debate.  From a business perspective, it made sense.  Irsay didn't want to draft Luck and have him sit on the bench biding his time behind Peyton, all the while paying the future Hall of Famer a very large sum of money that could be spent filling some glaring needs.  He wasn't even sure if Peyton Manning was still Peyton Manning (BTW, he is).  But it was sad to see the face of the franchise discarded like yesterday's trash.  Peyton Manning deserved a better ending in Indianapolis.  Colts fans deserved a chance to say goodbye properly.

As it turns out, Irsay was just as right about drafting Luck as he was about drafting Manning.  Long-term, it looks like everything is going to work out fine for the Colts.  Just like it's worked out fine for Peyton.  He's very much the Peyton Manning of old and the main reason why the Broncos are the favorites to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl.  Wouldn't that be a kick, Peyton getting another ring before Irsay?

This Sunday is Peyton's long-awaited reunion with the Indianapolis fans who fell in love with their football team because of him.  He'll receive an outpouring of love from an appreciative stadium.  It'll be quite a contrast to Brett Favre's return to Lambeau with the Vikings.  Peyton Manning will get his much-deserved tribute, and some tears will probably be shed. 

It all had the makings of a beautiful moment.  Until Jim Irsay spoiled it.  Maybe he took all of his team's success for granted.  Either way, Peyton Manning deserved to be shown the same class he's displayed throughout his career.  Instead Jim Irsay has decided to act as if everything he's done for the franchise meant nothing.  Try to take it back all you want, Jim.  You still said what you said, and it was still interpreted exactly the way you meant it.  And it was completely uncalled for.

Worst Uniforms of All-Time

I've waited this long for it, but a conversation at work today brought a topic that bothers me every Sunday back to the forefront.  I'm, of course, talking about the Jacksonville Jaguars' uniforms.  Seriously, who told them those helmets were a good idea?  Did anybody seriously think they looked good?  The Jaguars far-and-away have the worst current uniforms in sports, and it's not even really close.  In fact, Jacksonville's right up there in worst uniforms of all-time territory.

There are plenty of other current uniforms that I have my problems with (the Seahawks, the Nets, the Marlins, the Wizards), as well as some combinations and color schemes that I simply don't understand (when the Browns wear all brown, the Texas Rangers not being able to decide if their color is red or blue, all the Spanish jerseys that simply add "Los" in front of the team name), but the Jaguars take the cake.  And it's not even close.  Jacksonville's current look is right up there with these other doozies for the worst uniforms in the history of professional sports.


1980-88 Los Angeles Kings: The Kings have had some pretty bad uniforms in their history, mostly stemming from their decision to piggyback on the Lakers' purple and gold for so long.  These were the worst, though.  Fortunately, they finally changed their primary color to black just before Wayne Gretzky arrived, so The Great One was never subjected to having to wear these.

1978-85 Vancouver Canucks: Like the Kings, the Vancouver Canucks are notorious for having some pretty bad jerseys throughout their history, so there were plenty here to choose from.  But nothing was worse than the "Flying V" design from 1978-85.  It took until the turn of the century for them to finally ditch the brown, yellow and orange color scheme.

 

1972-74 San Diego Padres: While we're talking hideous brown and yellow uniforms, I give you the San Diego Padres.  Once again, we have plenty of options.  This team thought this color scheme worked for waaaaaaaaaaay too long.  But I think the "winner" here has to be the days where they rocked all yellow with the brown and yellow hat.  The only difference between the home and away uniforms was that the road ones said "San Diego" instead of "Padres."

 

 

1975-86 Houston Astros: Who can ever forget the Astros' orange rainbow, complete with ridiculous orange hats.  I give 'em credit.  They stuck with these as the home unis for a decade, and these are the first uniforms people think of when they think of the Houston Astros.

 

 

1977-82 Chicago White Sox: Another team famous for its historically bad uniform choices is the Chicago White Sox, which seems almost inconceivable these days (their current design, which they've used for 20 years, is very solid).  I don't think there's any doubt that the shorts and whatever's going on with that collar leave this late-70s look in a class by itself.

 

 

2004-11 Toronto Blue Jays: Where do I start with how terrible these jerseys were?  A team called the "Blue" Jays was using black as its primary color.  Then there are the gray/silver/slate/whatever color that is hats they wore before realizing those were even uglier than the black ones.  Fortunately, they got the picture and made a major upgrade last season.

 

 

1991-94 Philadelphia 76ers: If you're name is the 76ers, why do you refer to yourselves exclusively as the "Sixers" on your uniforms?  Anyway, the Sixers have had a number of different jerseys throughout their history, some good, some not so good.  This one falls into the "not so good" category.

 

 

1994-2003 Cleveland Cavaliers: With the exception of the LeBron Era-present, the Cavs haven't had the best uniforms.  Case-in-point, the Shawn Kemp Era.  Not exactly sure what they were going for, but whatever it was, it didn't work.  That light blue is enough to give you a headache, I'm not exactly sure why that orange line is in the middle of the number and words, and I don't understand the logo either.

 



 

2011-Present Washington Wizards: It's not like the Wizards' previous uniforms were good, either, but the current ones don't make any sense.  They went for a "turn back the clock" type thing by going to red, white and blue.  One problem, though.  Their "turn back the clock" is to when the team was referred to as the "Bullets."

 

This is just a small sampling of the bad uniforms throughout history.  I could easily include every NBA All-Star Game jersey, as well as a bunch of others.  I didn't even tackle the NFL (although the "bad" NFL uniforms, like Buccaneer Bruce, are actually pretty awesome).  But, just as a reminder to everybody what inspired today's posting, here's the monstrosity that makes watching the Jacksonville Jaguars that much more painful.

 

 

 



NFL Week 6 Picks

We've gotten to that point in the NFL season where we know which teams are really good, which teams are really bad, and which teams fall somewhere in the middle.  But those categories, of course, are very fluid.  I have a feeling my thoughts about some teams are going to change from week-to-week.  Take Cleveland and Atlanta, for example.  The Browns were written off by everyone.  Now they've won three straight and could easily make it four in a row this week.  Atlanta, meanwhile, was a preseason Super Bowl pick by some (this guy), but the Falcons have only won one game this season, lost to the Jets on Monday, and are seeing their best players drop like flies.  They certainly don't look like a playoff team.

This week gives us some really good marquee games that'll tell us where the participants stand.  And then there's Denver-Jacksonville...

Bengals (3-2) at Bills (2-3): Cincinnati-Cincinnati finally got its signature win, holding the Patriots to six points and ending Tom Brady's touchdown pass streak last week.  I'm starting to come around with those who think the Bengals have a shot to win the AFC North.  They need a road win, though.  Since remember, their previous game before beating New England was a loss in Cleveland.  If they lose in Buffalo, we'll go back to thinking they aren't for real.  The Bengals have to back up that victory over the Patriots with one over the Bills.

Lions (3-2) at Browns (3-2): Cleveland-Believe it or not, both of these teams are tied for first place in their division.  As incredible as it sounds, it seems like the Browns knew what they were doing.  Three straight wins since the Trent Richardson trade.  It hasn't been against the greatest competition, granted, but a win's a win.  I think they keep it going against a Lions team that has only one road win this season...against the Redskins.

Raiders (2-3) at Chiefs (5-0): Kansas City-There are only three undefeated teams left in the NFL, and two of them play in the AFC West.  Kansas City may get that "1" next week against Houston.  The Raiders, however, aren't Houston.  The Chiefs will be 6-0.

Panthers (1-3) at Vikings (1-3): Minnesota-Adrian Peterson is going to play despite his two-year-old son's tragic death on Friday.  The Vikings are certainly going to play this game in his memory, and I'd expect Peterson to have a performance similar to the one Brett Favre had on that Monday night after his father died.  Minnesota's playing a beatable team, so they were my pick this week anyway.  Now they have the extra motivation to win it for their grieving best player.

Steelers (0-4) at Jets (3-2): Pittsburgh-It's been a miserable season in Pittsburgh, but at least they aren't the Jaguars.  Or the Giants.  I expected one of these teams to come into this game an absolute mess.  I just didn't expect it to be the Steelers.  The Jets have been one of the most surprising teams in the league this year.  Although, much like Cleveland, it's not like they've beaten the cream of the NFL crop.  The teams they've beaten have a combined three wins.  That total won't change if the Jets win again.  After a week off to straighten themselves out, though, I think the Steelers finally get into the win column.

Eagles (2-3) at Buccaneers (0-4): Philadelphia-The Eagles certainly have had the benefit of favorable scheduling the last two weeks.  And that may be exactly what Philly needs to get back on track.  The Bucs are a mess and Greg Schiano's days are numbered in Tampa.  Maybe finally getting out of that situation with Josh Freeman will end up being a good thing.  We're not likely to find out this week, though.  Two in a row for the Eagles, who get back to .500 (and could actually move into first place) by beating two winless teams.

Packers (2-2) at Ravens (3-2): Baltimore-Along with Saints-Patriots, this is right up there in the "Game of the Week" conversation.  Green Bay needed a week off, then came off its bye with its best performance of the season against the Lions.  And the Ravens got the road win they badly needed in Miami to maintain that three-way tie in the AFC North.  The winner of this one will be in good shape to right its season.  Baltimore needs to do that a little more in a jumbled AFC playoff race.

Rams (2-3) at Texans (2-3): Houston-Show of hands who thought Houston would come into this game in third place and on a three-game losing streak.  The Texans did have to run a very difficult gamut of Baltimore, Seattle, San Francisco, though.  And I think it's safe to say that last week's blowout in San Francisco was rock bottom.  They've got Kansas City next week, so the Texans really need a W here.

Jaguars (0-5) at Broncos (5-0): Denver-Um, yeah.  The best team in the league against the worst team in the league.  The big question heading into this game is whether or not the Broncos will cover that ridiculous 28-point spread.  Shows how much confidence America has in Jacksonville.

Titans (3-2) at Seahawks (4-1): Seattle-Exactly what I thought would happen last week did.  I finally picked Seattle in a road game, and the Seahawks promptly lost.  But they're a different team at home.  Regardless of the opponent.  The Titans are good, but I'm not stupid enough to pick against the Seahawks in Seattle.  Until they actually lose a home game (which might be against New Orleans in Week 13), I'm picking the Seahawks every time they play one.

Saints (5-0) at Patriots (4-1): New England-The last time these two played, four years ago, it was on a Monday night in New Orleans.  Everybody wanted to know if the Saints (who went on to win the Super Bowl) were for real, and most thought the Patriots would knock them from the ranks of the undefeated.  Four years later, New Orleans is again undefeated going into its meeting with New England.  Except this time the game is in Foxboro.  It would've been a battle of unbeatens if the Patriots hadn't laid an egg last weekend in Cincinnati.  That could be a blessing in disguise, though.  New motivation for Brady and Co.  As for Brees and Co., they won't be undefeated anymore.

Cardinals (3-2) at 49ers (3-2): San Francisco-Arizona's improvement under Bruce Arians this season has been obvious.  Last week's dismantling of Carolina was the greatest example of that yet.  The 49ers, meanwhile, have straightened themselves out after two very bad games against Seattle and Indianapolis.  While the Cardinals are better, they're not on the level of the 49ers yet.  San Francisco's an elite team.

Redskins (1-3) at Cowboys (2-3): Dallas-One of the NFL's greatest rivalries takes center stage on Sunday night, as NBC gets one of its favorite matchups.  It's not quite as marquee as they were probably hoping, though, since Washington's not really that good this season.  Dallas is only 2-3 yet, remarkably, tied for first in what has been a very weak division so far this year.  I was encouraged by that team I saw in the Game of the Year last week, though.  If not for one of Tony Romo's patented costly late-game interceptions, Dallas might win that game.  Washington's not Denver.  Washington the Cowboys will beat.

Colts (4-1) at Chargers (2-3): Indianapolis-The Colts could easily get caught looking ahead to the Peyton Bowl, so this one's got "trap game" written all over it.  Only one loss for Indy this season, though, and their previous trip to California yielded a very impressive win in San Francisco.  The Chargers are always going to be that scary opponent no good team actually wants to face, and San Diego's going to impact the playoff race by beating somebody good.  It won't be this week, though.

BYE: Atlanta, Miami

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-5
Season: 49-29

Previewing the LCSes

I don't mean to brag, but I happen to know a blogger who went 4-for-4 with his Division Series predictions.  And now we're down to the four best teams in baseball.  It's not always the case with the AL and NLCS, but I truly think the Dodgers and Cardinals are the top two teams in the National League, and the Red Sox and Tigers have been the best two teams in the American League pretty much all season.

This is nothing more than an incredible coincidence, but it speaks to their remarkable consistency that the Tigers and Cardinals are both playing in the LCS for the third consecutive year.  Meanwhile, the Dodgers and Red Sox were both absolute messes last season...until the trade that turned both franchises around.  The turnaround by those two storied franchises in just one year is absolutely incredible.  And, while not the sole reason for either team's success, how mutually beneficial that blockbuster turned out in such a short amount of time is amazing.

Dodgers vs. Cardinals: It sure was a risky move by Don Mattingly to start Clayton Kershaw in Game 4 with the series lead, knowing that if it didn't pay off, he wouldn't have his ace for Game 5.  But since it did work out, that puts the Dodgers in a great position heading into the NLCS.  Because now they can go Greinke in Game 1, followed by Kershaw on regular rest in Game 2.  That means they'll get to use their two best starters twice each over the first six games.

That being said, though, I feel as if the Dodgers are going to win the pennant, they almost have to do it in six.  Because the Cardinals will have Adam Wainwright waiting for them in Game 7.  And we all know how St. Louis has done in do-or-die games over the past three seasons.  St. Louis has Wainwright and Michael Wacha, but the fact that the Cardinals had to use Wainwright in Game 5 against the Pirates gives LA a huge advantage.  Now the Cardinals will have to beat either Greinke or Kershaw at least once, as well as winning both of the other games, just to get back to Wainwright. 

Besides, the Dodgers are more talented than the no-name Cardinals.  I suppose I just need to accept the fact that, regardless of how unknown the players are, St. Louis is really good.  Just not as good as the Dodgers.  Especially if Andre Ethier is healthy and able to play center field, making that lineup so much deeper than it already is. 

Last year St. Louis jumped out to a 3-1 lead before the overall better Giants team and its superior pitching took over and San Francisco ended up winning the series in seven.  I think the script is remarkably similar this year.  The Dodgers have the better pitching staff and the more talented lineup.  The biggest thing working in the Cardinals' favor is the home field advantage, and we've all seen how much of a difference it can make, especially with this team.  However, I don't think it gets that far.  It's been 25 years since the Dodgers have been to the World Series.  That should change sometime within the next 10 days.  Dodgers in six.

Tigers vs. Red Sox: When Detroit and Boston played at the beginning of September, the Red Sox won the last game 20-4 or something ridiculous like that.  That game will probably still be fresh in both teams' minds.  I think they both know that was more of an aberration, though.  Both teams have great pitching, but with those two lineups, 5-4 games are much more likely than 2-1 games.  Either way, I don't think we're getting blowouts.

Boston's going to win Game 1.  Everything lines up well for the Red Sox heading into the start of the series.  The Tigers have to fly cross-country and likely won't have either of their top two pitchers available.  Meanwhile, the Red Sox will be able to use their ace, Jon Lester.  While they haven't officially announced it, I would imagine Boston will use the same rotation as they did against Tampa Bay.  And they would be wise to do so, because that matches up Buchholz vs. Verlander in Games 3 and 7, countering Detroit's stud with a stud of their own.  So, if you figure Lester wins Games 1 and 5 and Scherzer wins Games 2 and 6, the two Buchholz-Verlander games could likely determine the series.

It seems almost too robotic to break this series down strictly on starting pitching, but that's what playoff series ultimately come down to.  And you've got the deepest rotation remaining in Boston against the best 1-2 punch in Scherzer and Verlander.  The starting pitching is almost a wash.  If it comes down to the bullpens, though, it's clearly advantage Boston.  Jim Leyland's lack of confidence in his bullpen was on full display in Game 4 of the Oakland series, when he went to Scherzer for two innings of relief.  Benoit can't even be totally trusted.  Koji Uehara, meanwhile, Jose Lobaton's walk-off homer notwithstanding, has been virtually lights-out since the All-Star Break.

There are two superstar lineups that can't be ignored either.  Miguel Cabrera is severely limited.  That's obvious.  That's been obvious through September.  But that Tigers lineup is stacked, and a 50/60 percent Cabrera is better than the alternative.  The Red Sox and their stupid beards of course can mash also.  Their biggest advantage is Fenway Park.  That lineup is built for that ballpark.  Detroit's job is going to be slowing down that offense.  Because the Tigers have to win at least one game in Fenway if they're going to win the pennant.

This one is very, very close.  I think whoever wins the ALCS will be the favorites in the World Series.  The Red Sox and Tigers are so evenly matched that I don't think a Game 7 is out of the question.  And who doesn't want to see that Buchholz-Verlander Game 7 matchup?  If Verlander has proven anything over the past two years, that's the type of situation he strives for.  And thrives in.  Tigers in seven.

So there you have it.  I said Tigers-Dodgers at the start of the Division Series, and I don't see any reason to change my pick now. 

10 Greatest Centers of All-Time

At work today, I saw an interesting article in Basketball Times.  It was by the Boston Globe's Bob Ryan basically telling Dwight Howard how much of an idiot he was when he claimed he was right up there with Kareem and Wilt (I'm not exactly clear on the details of what Howard said, but I know it's something along those lines).  Anyway, Ryan noted that he wouldn't even have Howard among the Top 15 guys he'd call if he needed a center.  That got me thinking, and you know what that means.

Gotta say, I agree with Bob Ryan.  It was pretty easy to come up with a list of the Top 10 centers in NBA history.  The fact that some of the greatest players of all-time were centers certainly made it easier.  Basically, though, it proves how asinine Dwight Howard's comments really were.  Does he think he's in the same class as any of these guys?  I'll give you a hint.  He isn't.

On to the list...

10. Moses Malone: It was tough to leave off Patrick Ewing, but I also couldn't not include Moses Malone.  Three-time MVP, 14-time All-Star, number retired by two different teams, ABA All-Time Team and NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team.  Oh yeah, and Finals MVP in 1983 when the Sixers won their only championship.  He also played 21 years and is seventh all-time in scoring.

9. David Robinson: The Admiral played on three U.S. Olympic teams, winning bronze with the last team of amateurs in 1988 before taking gold in 1992-96 with the original two Dream Teams.  None of that has anything to do with why he's one of the greatest centers in NBA history, though.  David Robinson was an exemplary player in every sense of the word.  He's one of two guys (Michael Jordan's the other) to win Rookie of the Year, Defensive Player of the Year and MVP, to go along with scoring, rebounding and blocked shots titles.  Then, of course, there were the two NBA titles, that only came after somebody else came along...

8. Tim Duncan: The Spurs made the playoffs during the first seven years of Robinson's career, until he was hurt in 1996-97 and they ended up 20-62, which got them the No. 1 pick in the draft...and creating perhaps the greatest frontcourt tandem in history.  Duncan was the missing piece for the Spurs to finally become champions, and they've won four during his remarkable career (and he's been Finals MVP three times).  He's a 14-time All-Star the only player in history to be both All-NBA and on the NBA All-Defensive Team during his first 13 seasons.  I could go on and on.  But the main reasons for the San Antonio Spurs' consistent success over the past 25 years are David Robinson and Tim Duncan.

7. Robert Parish: Putting Robert Parish at No. 7 might seem kind of low to some, which only shows the quality of this list (and how delusional Dwight Howard is).  Parish, of course, won three NBA titles alongside Larry Bird and Kevin McHale with the Celtics in the '80s, and all three were included on the NBA's 50 Greatest Players list.  He then won a fourth championship with the 1996-97 Bulls, making him, at 43, the oldest player ever to win a ring.  Parish played 21 seasons, and his 1,611 games played are an NBA record.

6. Hakeem Olajuwon: Sam Bowie was famously taken No. 2 by the Blazers in the 1984 NBA Draft, right before the Bulls took Michael Jordan.  The other team to pass on Jordan was Houston, who took local product Hakeem Olajuwon with the No. 1 pick.  The Rockets, however, weren't criticized for their selection, because it turned out to be a great one.  Olajuwon and Ralph Sampson formed the original "Twin Towers," and they took the Rockets to the Finals in 1986.  Later, during the two years between Jordan's two three-peats, Olajuwon's Rockets won the NBA title.  Among his many accomplishments, The Dream is the NBA's all-time leader in blocks (3,830).

5. Shaquille O'Neal: How good do the guys above him have to be for Shaq to end up at No. 5?  Shaq's brash and a big personality, but he had the talent to back it up.  Love him or hate him, there's no disputing his place in the history of the game.  Shaq was really the last of his kind--the big, bruising center.  And he played that role as the anchor of the Lakers' dynasty, then won another title with the 2006 Heat.  I really grew to respect Shaq much more towards the end of his career, when he was willing to take on a reduced role on teams he thought had a chance to win.  And when he finally retired after the 2010-11 season, it was as one of the all-time greats.

4. George Mikan: When you're the true pioneer of a position, and a league, you deserve a place this high.  Because there probably wouldn't be an NBA without George Mikan.  And basketball certainly wouldn't be a sport dominated by big men.  He was, without a doubt, the league's original superstar, and he has to be on the shortlist of the game's all-time greatest players.  Mikan retired as a seven-time champion and is widely considered the best player of the first half of the 20th Century.

3. Wilt Chamberlain: Keeping with the Lakers theme, Wilt comes in at No. 3.  Where do I start with Wilt Chamberlain's greatness?  How about the 100-point game?  Or the career averages of 30.1 points and 22.9 rebounds?  Or the seven consecutive scoring titles and 11 rebounding crowns?  The fact that he scared even the best players in the NBA during his prime?  Or the fact that they changed the rules simply because of how dominant he was?  They doubled the width of the foul lane because of him!  He only won two titles, but that's primarily Bill Russell's fault.  The Celtics won seven of the eight playoff series they played against Wilt's Warriors/76ers/Lakers.

2. Bill Russell: I know this choice is going to draw some criticism, but I put Bill Russell "only" at No. 2.  He won 11 championships (the last two as a player/coach), more than any other athlete in the history of North American professional sports, and the NBA Finals MVP trophy is named after him.  But he was never the focal point of the Celtics' offense.  I know that's nitpicking, because that dynasty was built on defense, and Russell was one of the best rebounders and shot blockers in NBA history.  If you were to put Bill Russell as No. 1 on your list, I wouldn't argue with you.  I think the top two are a virtual coin flip.  I just happen to prefer...

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Kareem is the NBA's all-time leading scorer (breaking Chamberlain's record), but that's not the reason I have him at No. 1.  He was dominant in high school, dominant at UCLA and dominant in the NBA.  He might've been the greatest player in college basketball history, and John Wooden called him "Lewis Alcindor" until the day he died.  He was drafted No. 1 overall by the Bucks in 1969, won Rookie of the Year that season, then won the championship after they acquired Oscar Robertson the following year.  But it was after he got traded to the Lakers that Kareem truly became Kareem.  He added five more championships in LA with those great teams in the '80s.  But I rank Kareem as the top center of all-time because of his longevity.  He was a six-time MVP (a record), two-time Finals MVP, 19-time All-Star (a record), 15-time All-NBA choice and 11-time All-Defensive Team member.  To be that great for that long requires some special talent.  That's why I agree with Pat Riley, the coach of those Laker teams.  Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is the greatest center in NBA history.

Week 5 NFL Picks

Which of the teams that played on Thursday night is going to end up signing Josh Freeman?  My money's on the Browns.  Hoyer's out for the year, and they have absolutely no faith in Brandon Weedon.  E.J. Manuel's only out for a couple weeks, so if given his choice, I think Freeman takes the rest of the year in Cleveland over a few weeks in Buffalo.

The Bucs are one of four teams with a bye this week, and all four of them needed a week off.  The Steelers are also winless (and there's a Pirates game on Sunday).  The Vikings only have a win because they played the Steelers.  Ditto about the Redskins, who played the Raiders.  And, of course, the contrived Washington name "controversy" had to again come to the forefront, with the President weighing in and people interpreting his comments as him telling them to change the name, even though that's not what he said at all.  I guess they've gotta think about something in Washington while they're busy NOT governing the country.  Anyway...

Saints (4-0) at Bears (3-1): New Orleans-This is the first real test for undefeated New Orleans.  The Saints' only road game this season was one they almost lost in Tampa Bay.  The Bears are also a better home team, and they return to Soldier Field for the first time since Week 2.  Monday night's performance was too impressive, though.  I'm starting to become a believer in the Saints.  I still don't think they're as good as they do (their cockiness is one of the reasons I can't like that team), but I do think they'll pick up a road win over a good Bears team.

Patriots (4-0) at Bengals (2-2): New England-Two of the best teams in the AFC go at it.  Last week, the Patriots got a nice road win in Atlanta, and I don't know what happened to the Bengals in Cleveland.  If Cincinnati truly wants to be considered "elite," they can't lose games they're supposed to win.  They also need to find a way to win games like this one.  I can't say I see it happening, though.  New England always manages to pull out these early-season games against teams looking to make a statement.

Lions (3-1) at Packers (1-2): Green Bay-The Lions moved into first place with that win over the Bears last week.  Green Bay, however, was unable to lose because the Packers had their bye week.  Did that cure whatever was ailing Aaron Rodgers and Co.?  I don't know.  But I do know the Packers are better than 1-2.  Coming off the bye, at home, against a division rival, I see the Packers getting back to .500.

Chiefs (4-0) at Titans (3-1): Kansas City-Who would've thought that both of these teams would be tied for first place in their divisions at the end of September?  Yet here we have the undefeated Chiefs against the one-loss Titans, who could easily be undefeated themselves.  Believe it or not, this is a big game.  The winner is going to stick around the playoff chase all season.  But, in fairness to the Titans and their start, Kansas City's the better team.  The Chiefs move to 5-0.

Seahawks (4-0) at Colts (3-1): Seattle-Right up there with 49ers-Texans as the best interconference matchup of the weekend.  My stance on Seattle hasn't changed.  The Seahawks aren't the same team on the road.  With that being said, though, that comeback last week in Houston was very impressive.  If they manage to do it again, maybe I'll jump fully on that Seahawks bandwagon.  Picking against them hasn't worked well for me, so I'm going to take Seattle this week, even though I have a feeling it's going to screw me in the end.

Jaguars (0-4) at Rams (1-3): St. Louis-Every time we get a couple matchups of good team vs. good team, it has to be balanced out by Jacksonville vs. St. Louis.  The good news for the Jaguars is that this game isn't in Jacksonville, where they've scored a grand total of 5! points this season.  As it is, though, they're a welcome visitor for a Rams team that needs a win if they have any hope of keeping pace in the NFC West.

Ravens (2-2) at Dolphins (3-1): Baltimore-This is a tough one.  The Dolphins lost in New Orleans on Monday night, which most people expected.  The Ravens, meanwhile, lost in Buffalo, their second road loss in as many games.  I'm still not ready to give up on Baltimore, though.  Last week's loss brought Miami back to Earth a little bit.  As a result, I'm going with the Ravens.

Eagles (1-3) at Giants (0-4): Giants-You want two teams that need a win, you're no going to find a better matchup.  The Eagles looked overmatched against Denver last week, and are 0-3 against the AFC West.  Fortunately for them, they're back in the division against a Giants team that's an absolute mess.  It's already been a long season for both of these teams.  It's about to get a lot longer for one.  Hopefully that one is Philadelphia.

Panthers (1-2) at Cardinals (2-2): Arizona-Basically a coin flip here.  Arizona got a win in Tampa last week, while Carolina was sitting at home.  The Panthers, though, are also coming off a victory, that 38-0 thumping of the Giants.  Since the game's in Phoenix, I'll go with the Cardinals.

Broncos (4-0) at Cowboys (2-2): Denver-NFL, if the Cowboys' two AFC home games are against Denver and Oakland, and it's their year to play an AFC team on Thanksgiving, why are we being subjected to the Raiders on the holiday?  Not that CBS is complaining too badly.  It's still a national game.  Peyton Manning's start has been historic, and the Broncos' offense is clearly the best in the league.  The Dallas defense thinks they can stop it though, or, at the very least, slow it down.  Even if they do, Peyton Manning is still Peyton Manning.  And the unheralded Denver defense isn't given enough credit.  Amazingly, though, even after they lose, the Cowboys will still be in first place in the NFC East at 2-3.

Texans (2-2) at 49ers (2-2): San Francisco-I've got a feeling this one is going to be a war.  That's what happens when you've got two great defenses in a primetime showdown.  It's also what happens when you get two good teams that are badly in need of a win.  Houston, especially, needs a victory after back-to-back losses against Baltimore and Seattle.  The 49ers had lost two in a row before getting that win in St. Louis last Thursday.  I think that got the 49ers back on track.  They were embarrassed by Seattle in their last Sunday night game.  I don't see it happening again.

Chargers (2-2) at Raiders (1-3): San Diego-Thanks to the Tigers and A's, the start of this one got pushed to 11:30 on Sunday night, and only a masochist would subject himself to a Chargers-Raiders game at that hour.  So maybe that's Baseball's gift to us all.  (My question, though, is why didn't they just swap home games?)  Anyway, no one wants to watch this game, and I suspect very few will, even though it's now a national telecast on NFL Network.  The Chargers are better than the Raiders.  I'll leave it at that.

Jets (2-2) at Falcons (1-3): Atlanta-Remember last year when the Jets got all those national games because the NFL actually thought they might be worth watching?  Well, those days are far behind us.  Things haven't gone that well for Atlanta against the AFC East so far.  In their last two games, the Falcons have lost to the Dolphins and the Patriots.  There's a big difference between the Jets and the Patriots, though.  Atlanta snaps its losing streak on Monday night.

BYE: Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Washington

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-6
Season: 41-24

Division Series Preview

Now that the Pirates and Rays have won the Wild Card Games, our Division Series matchups are set.  Two of the Division Series are actual division series, as the AL East rival Red Sox and Rays face each other, as do NL Central foes St. Louis and Pittsburgh.  There's also a Tigers-A's rematch.  But the marquee series of the four has got to be Braves-Dodgers.  And I have to say, of these eight teams, there's probably five that have a realistic chance of hoisting the Commissioner's Trophy at the end of the month.

For most of the year, the one thing I constantly said about the National League was that the playoffs were sure going to be fun.  That's because we knew the NL playoff teams so early, and there isn't really that much of a difference between them.  It might take the full 17 games to determine the pennant, and any one of the four could come away with it.  I'm not saying that to be wishy-washy or non-committal.  I'm saying that because it's 100 percent true.  The National League playoff teams are so evenly matched that these three series should be plenty entertaining.

Cardinals vs. Pirates: Let's start with everyone's adopted favorite team--the Pirates.  Pittsburgh's such a feel-good story, and you don't want to see this run end.  And matching up with the division-rival Cardinals was probably the best possible scenario for it to continue.  The Pirates and Cardinals are incredibly familiar with each other, which helps both teams.  Both teams come in hot, but Pittsburgh might have a little bit of an advantage in that they've won four in a row, including Tuesday's wild card game, while St. Louis has been off since Sunday.  That's one of the biggest pitfalls with the new system.  Will all that time off cool down the Cardinals?  If Allen Craig can't play, that's another problem St. Louis might have to overcome.  The Pirates, meanwhile, are healthy.  And on a roll.  I also think Pittsburgh has a slight edge on the mound, although St. Louis does have the luxury of potentially using Adam Wainwright twice if the series goes the distance.  Ultimately, I think the Cardinals' playoff experience will be the X-factor.  During their runs over the last two years, St. Louis always had unsung heroes step up.  They have plenty of candidates to fill that role again.  However, this is also the first time since 2009 that St. Louis won the NL Central.  That comes with a different kind of pressure they didn't feel as a wild card the last two Octobers.  St. Louis does have just enough to survive, though, ruining America's favorite story.  Cardinals in four.

Braves vs. Dodgers: SPOILER ALERT!  The Dodgers are my pick to win the NL pennant.  I don't really think I'm giving too much away there, though.  I've been saying that all year, especially since LA woke up at the end of June.  They're the most complete team in the National League, even without Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier.  The main reason why I'm so high on the Dodgers is that incredible pitching staff.  Clayton Kershaw is the best pitcher in the National League.  He's going to pitch twice.  That means the Braves either have to beat him at least once or win every game he doesn't pitch.  Pitching in those games, though, will be Zack Greinke, Hyun-Jin Ryu and Ricky Nolasco.  Easily the deepest rotation among the four teams.  That's how the Giants won the title last year.  That doesn't mean the Braves can't win, though.  I'm really high on Atlanta's team.  I just fear the Braves peaked too soon.  They should've clinched home field going away, yet ended up with the incredibly unfavorable Dodgers matchup.  Their hitters are very streaky and tend to strike out a lot.  Against Dodgers pitching, that's a bad combination.  Atlanta's rotation might have to carry the load, which they're definitely capable of doing.  I expect a lot of 1-0 and 2-1 games in this series.  However, the Dodgers are a better team than the Braves right now.  That's why I think LA's run doesn't end here.  Dodgers in four.

Red Sox vs. Rays: If anybody was stupid enough to count Tampa Bay out at any point during the last week, they clearly don't know the Rays.  This team seems to thrive on pressure.  And three elimination game wins later, this crazy road trip makes its fourth stop of the week in Boston.  I'm also willing to guarantee that of the three opponents they'd potentially face, the Rays were the one the Red Sox least wanted to see.  Playing them 19 times a year is bad enough.  Now they've got to face them in a best-of-five elimination series.  They should just ask the division rival Yankees and Orioles how fun that is.  Boston is the better team and has been all season.  But the Red Sox are also a team of mashers.  When they get on one of those runs when everybody's hitting, they're very hard to stop.  However, you've got to think the almost full week off could possibly have cooled those bats down, while the Rays have been doing it everywhere against everybody all week.  Pitching-wise, it's a wash.  Boston had the luxury of setting up its rotation with Lester and Buchholz in Games 1 and 2, but Tampa Bay isn't at that much of a disadvantage in the pitching department.  The Rays are able to stay in rotation and use Matt Moore, David Price and Alex Cobb all on normal rest in the first three games.  And, despite Boston's 12-7 edge in the season series this year, the Rays always play the Red Sox tough.  This series is going to be a tight, back-and-forth affair.  And you've got to think that the Red Sox want nothing to do with a Game 5, even if it is in Fenway Park.  Not with the way Tampa Bay has played in all these elimination games, all on the road, over the past week.  Boston should be on alert.  That offense will be enough to pull through, though.  Red Sox in five.

Athletics vs. Tigers: Remember last year when A's-Tigers went five?  Well, it's time for the rematch.  On paper, the Tigers should win this series easily.  But that was the case last year, too, before Detroit got stretched to the limit.  Each team is slightly better in 2013.  The A's have a legitimate ace in Bartolo Colon and Justin Verlander isn't even Detroit's best pitcher this season.  That honor goes to 21-3 Max Scherzer, who's been tabbed for the Games 1 & 5 starts.  Then in Games 3 & 4, Oakland will have to deal with AL ERA leader Anibal Sanchez and Doug Fister, who's the best No. 4 starter in the game after Nolasco.  And have I mentioned Detroit has Miguel Cabrera?  Miggy's been hampered and basically unable to move for the past month, but is still an incredibly imposing presence.  Throw in Victor Martinez, who missed all of last year with an injury, and the ever-consistent Prince Fielder and a rejuvenated Torii Hunter.  The Tigers are so deep offensively that they've got Jhonny Peralta playing left field now.  Oakland's a scrappy bunch that I'll never count out.  I've learned better.  Even though nobody's ever heard of half the players on the roster, the A's have won back-to-back AL West titles and finished with the second-best record in baseball this season.  However, Detroit's talent is superior, and better teams prove it in October.  I'll give the A's a game, and it wouldn't be a total stretch to say it'll go five, but the Tigers are too good.  Tigers in four.

I'll even give you my World Series prediction, which I've been saying would be the matchup since about the All-Star Break.  Tigers vs. Dodgers.  (Yes, it's scary that I agree with Jayson Stark.)  And, if you recall from my baseball season preview back in March, I said Detroit would avenge last year's World Series loss.  No reason to change that pick now.  The Tigers beat the Dodgers in the World Series.

NHL Preview: Western Conference

Today was a great day in sports.  The MLB playoffs began (with a Pirates win!), and it was Opening Night in the NHL.  Yesterday I took a look at the Eastern Conference, which I think, top to bottom, is a little stronger than the West.  However, the top of the Western Conference is slightly better than the top of the East.  While the West also boasts some of the worst teams in hockey, there are more Stanley Cup contenders on that side of the draw. 

And one of my reservations about the playoff system could be put to an early test...because it's not much of a stretch to think some combination of LA, San Jose and Vancouver could end up with the most and second-most amount of points in the conference.  Then, of course, there's defending champion Chicago.

Speaking of the Blackhawks, they're obviously the team to beat in the Central Division.  Especially now that archrival Detroit has finally gotten its wish and been moved to the Eastern Conference.  While the death of the Blackhawks-Red Wings rivalry is certainly sad, the realignment has reaffirmed the Blackhawks' place at the top of the Central.  Unlike last time they won, Chicago is poised to make another Cup run again this year.  No team has repeated since the 1997-98 Red Wings, but the Blackhawks have a real shot at ending that drought.

The second-best team in the Central Division is probably St. Louis.  The Blues have been a team on the rise for the last several seasons, including a conference finals run in 2012.  While not on the same level as Chicago or the top teams in the Pacific Division, St. Louis should have no problem making the playoffs.  That third guaranteed playoff spot is probably up for grabs between Minnesota, Nashville and Winnipeg.  Personally, I think the Wild are the best team in that group.  They're the only one of the three that made the playoffs last season and are only going to get better this year.  The Predators (the team I would've moved to the Eastern Conference), though, just missed out and don't need to do much to overtake Minnesota. 

Winnipeg finally moved out of the Southeast Division and into a more travel-friendly situation.  However, their chances of making the playoffs were probably better in the old Southeast.  Instead of playing Florida, Tampa Bay and Carolina regularly, they'll have a heavy dose of the Western Conference's elite.  That improved travel situation should help, though.  The same can be said about Dallas and Colorado.  While I don't expect either the Stars or Avalanche to contend, they're the other teams that should benefit the most from the new schedule.  Dallas doesn't have to repeatedly go to the Pacific time zone for division games anymore, and Colorado doesn't have to make all those trips to Western Canada.  In the long run, they'll both see the benefits.

I know what I said yesterday about the new Atlantic Division potentially being the most competitive in the league, but the Pacific Division is arguably the best.  Perennial contenders Los Angeles, San Jose and Vancouver are all among the NHL's elite and have legitimate Stanley Cup visions.  Throw in the Ducks, Coyotes and an improving Edmonton team, and you're going to have at least one good team that misses out on the playoffs out of the Pacific.

Let's start with that three-headed monster at the top.  The Kings came out of nowhere to win the Cup two seasons ago, then returned to the conference finals last year.  They're good, playoff-tested and have one of the best goalies in the league in Jonathan Quick.  San Jose, meanwhile, has to eventually get over the hump and reach the Final, right?  The have to.  There's just too much talent there.  Unless they do something drastic and completely blow up that team, the Sharks are always going to be in the mix and a threat to make a run deep into June.  It's almost a similar thing in Vancouver, where the perennially underachieving Canucks got swept out of the playoffs by those very Sharks last season.  That led to Alain Vigneault's ouster and trade to the Rangers for John Tortorella (they weren't really traded for each other, but they may as well have been).  The Canucks went to Game 7 of the Final with essentially this same team in 2011.  If they can figure out their goalie situation, doing that again is entirely possible.

There's also plenty of talent in Anaheim.  It wouldn't surprise anybody if the Ducks cracked into that triumvirate.  They did, after all, win the division last season.  Two years ago, Phoenix won the division two years ago before regressing and missing the playoffs last year.  Which Coyotes team is the real one?  The one that made the conference final, or the one that finished in the middle of the pack?  I think it's some sort of combination, which means making the playoffs will be tough.

Edmonton is finally on its way back to respectability, but a return to the postseason will probably have to wait a year or two.  The Oilers remind me a lot of the Penguins about 10 years ago, though.  They've been so bad for so long that they've accumulated so many high draft picks, who are all reaching the NHL at the same time.  A resurgence in Edmonton isn't far away.  Unfortunately, I can't say the same about Alberta's other NHL team.  In this division, the Flames' playoff chances are slim at best.

So here's who I forsee making the playoffs out of the Western Conference, as well as my Stanley Cup Final pick...

Central: Chicago, St. Louis, Minnesota, Nashville
Pacific: Los Angeles, San Jose, Vancouver, Anaheim

Stanley Cup Final: CHICAGO over Pittsburgh