Pro Football Hall of Fame Vote

We've reached Super Bowl weekend, which means it's also time to find out who'll get the call from the Pro Football Hall of Fame.  I've always been critical of the Pro Football Hall of Fame voting process and the limit of five "modern era" players per year, and this year is no exception.  Of the 15 finalists, there's probably 12 or 13 that I'd want to give my vote to if I had one.  And I'm generally opposed to the idea of the senior nominees automatically making the final cut, but seeing as Ray Guy is one of those senior nominees and is finally thisclose to his long-overdue induction, I'm more than OK with it this year.

Seeing as this is the process we're stuck with, though, that's the procedure I'll follow with my hypothetical vote.

First they cut the list from 15 to 10.  The five I'd drop off here are Morten Andersen, Eddie DeBartolo, Kevin Greene, Marvin Harrison and Aeneas Williams.  Then, the real cut.  After making it from the 10 to the five, election becomes a mere formality.  So, this elimination is really what determines who makes it into the Hall of Fame this year and whose agonizing wait continues.  I'll reveal the five that I'm cutting, then say why the other five are my Pro Football Hall of Fame Induction Class of 2014.

My last five cuts are Derrick Brooks, Tim Brown, Tony Dungy, John Lynch and Andre Reed.  That means the five I'm putting in Canton are Jerome Bettis, Charles Haley, Walter Jones, Will Shields and Michael Strahan.

Jerome Bettis, Running Back (1993-95 Rams; 1996-2005 Steelers): Bettis has been waiting long enough.  A lot of people thought he'd be a first-ballot Hall of Famer, but here he is still four years later.  Bettis is fifth all-time in rushing and had eight 1,000-yard seasons.  He's an all-time great for one of the NFL's most iconic franchises, and won the Super Bowl in his final game.  For some reason, they like to make the offensive skill position guys wait, and they usually elect only one or two a year.  Now that Cris Carter is finally in, Jerome Bettis moves to the front of the line.

Charles Haley, Defensive End/Linebacker (1986-91, 1999 49ers; 1992-96 Cowboys): Talk about guys who've been waiting long enough, why isn't Charles Haley in the Hall of Fame yet?  I think the reason he isn't is that even today, Charles Haley is still vastly underrated.  One of the best defensive players in the NFL on two dynasties during his prime, yet vastly underrated.  But the guy was a starter on five Super Bowl winners!  And even with all that aside, he was a two-time Defensive Player of the Year and was named All-Pro at two different positions.  Put Charles Haley in the Hall of Fame!  It's been long enough.

Walter Jones, Tackle (1997-2008 Seahawks): Following the at least one offensive lineman per year rule that evidently exists, I think Walter Jones gets in.  The Seahawks playing in the Super Bowl certainly helps, because they seem to like putting in the finalist who spent his whole career playing for one of the two Super Bowl teams.  I guess they want one guy who they know will get a guaranteed cheer.  Either way, Jones is deserving regardless.  A many-time All-Pro, he was on the All-Decade Team of the 2000s and was integral in the Seahawks' run to their only other Super Bowl appearance in 2005.

Will Shields, Guard (1993-2006 Chiefs): Last year, there were three first-ballot offensive lineman who easily could've been elected.  They went with two--Larry Allen and Jonathan Ogden.  That means it's Will Shields' turn this year.  You want a workhorse?  He never missed a start in his career, and he was the premier right guard in the game for a majority of that time.  Three-times First Team All-Pro, 12 Pro Bowls, the 2000s All-Decade Team.  I think Will Shields is one of the safest bets for election this year.

Michael Strahan, Defensive End (1993-2007 Giants): Shields isn't the safest bet, though.  Because Michael Strahan is a virtual lock.  He just missed the final cut last year in his first year on the ballot, but this year he's the head of the class.  And just imagine that cheer he's going to get from that Giants Stadium crowd when he's announced as a Hall of Famer at the Super Bowl!  Like Bettis, he ended his career by winning the Super Bowl, putting an exclamation point on his outstanding career.  One that earned him a place in Canton.  Then he can tell Kelly all about it on Monday.

Now moving on to the two senior candidates (although, I think you know where I stand on one of them)...

Ray Guy, Punter (1973-86 Raiders): I'm not going to count my chickens before they're hatched, but when and if they announce Guy's name on Saturday night, I'll be saying "FINALLY!" with a huge smile on my face.  Punter is a position.  It's a travesty that there isn't one in the Hall of Fame.  It's even more of a travesty that it's taken this long for Ray Guy to finally reach this point.  He's belonged in the Hall of Fame for years.  This is the selection committee's chance to right an egregious wrong.  if they don't, it'll be an even bigger travesty (and I fear it'll never happen).  Put Ray Guy in the Hall of Fame.  He's waited long enough!  Even more, it's about time we finally have every position in the sport represented in Canton.  And the best punter ever deserves to be the first punter to get a bust.  It's.  About.  Time.

Claude Humphrey, Defensive End (1968-78 Falcons; 1979-81 Eagles): I usually don't know that much about the senior nominees, and that definitely applies in the case of Claude Humphrey.  But they usually elect both senior candidates, and I think (hope) this year won't be any different.  Humphrey played on some bad teams, but he was Defensive Rookie of the Year in 1968 and was named First Team All-Pro five straight times.  He also played in Super Bowl XV with the 1980 Eagles.

So there you have it.  My 2014 Pro Football Hall of Fame Class consists of Jerome Bettis, Ray Guy, Charles Haley, Claude Humphrey, Walter Jones, Will Shields and Michael Strahan.  But this being the typically unpredictable Pro Football Hall of Fame vote, I'll throw in my usual disclaimer that I really have absolutely no idea what's going to happen.  And, like I said off the top, I could make a case for almost all of these guys.  So, whoever gets in, he's going to be deserving.  That's the only good thing about the voting process.  We're guaranteed a great class.

Outdoor Hockey at Yankee Stadium

I had a very special experience tonight.  I was one of the 50,000 fortunate souls that was at Yankee Stadium for the NHL Stadium Series game between the Rangers and the Islanders.  Yes, it was cold.  No, I didn't care.  One of the most memorable sporting experiences I've ever had.  This is just a sampling of the pictures I took at the Stadium tonight.  Enjoy.

 

This was the view from our seats in the right center field bleachers.

 

The best seats in the house for Yankees games ain't too bad for hockey either.

 

If you ask me, this picture is worth more than $950.

The one with all eight retired numbers is pretty cool, too.

 

The NHL Network set in right field.

 

Cee-Lo performed before the game and between the 1st and 2nd periods.

 

The Rangers take the ice.

 

The opening face-off.

 

Rangers win!  Theeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Rangers win!

 

 

 

The postgame handshake line.

 

 

Super Bowl Fun Facts

Today was Super Bowl Media Day, which means that after a week and a half of hype, we're finally getting close.  Although, here in New York, it's been virtually nothing but the Super Bowl for that entire time, seeing as we're making history here with the first open-air, cold-weather Super Bowl.  The weather, and the will it snow or won't it discussion, has dominated a lot of that talk.

We all know that this is the first cold-weather Super Bowl, the first Super Bowl hosted by two teams/states, etc.  But there are plenty of other fun facts related to the Broncos and Seahawks.  It's time for our annual look at some random Super Bowl tidbits that are completely useless in real life.  Hopefully, you find some of them interesting.

• It's just the second time in 20 years that the two No. 1 seeds made it to the Super Bowl.  The last time that happened was Super Bowl XLIV, when the Saints beat Peyton Manning and the Colts.
• They both beat the Giants at Met Life Stadium during the regular season.  The last time both Super Bowl teams won a regular season game in the Super Bowl stadium?  That would once again be the Saints and Colts, who both beat the Dolphins in Miami during the 2009 season.
• We've also got the No. 1 offense (Denver) against the No. 1 defense (Seattle).  That hasn't happened in the Super Bowl in 11 years, since the Bucs crushed the Raiders in Super Bowl XXXVII.
• Speaking of the Bucs and Raiders, they were in the same division way back in 1976, Tampa Bay's first year in the NFL.  Seattle, of course, was the other '76 expansion team, and they moved to the AFC West the next season, staying there until they joined the NFC West in 2002.  What all this means is that we have a Super Bowl matchup of former division rivals.  The last time that happened was five years ago, when the Steelers beat the Cardinals.  Pittsburgh and Arizona were rivals in the old NFL Century Division from 1967-69.  (There was also Super Bowl III, which featured future division rivals--the Jets and the Colts.)
• As coincidence would have it, the Seahawks' first-ever playoff game in 1983 was against the Broncos.
• Once again, we've got a Steelers-Cardinals connection.  Peyton Manning is the first quarterback to start the Super Bowl for two different teams since Kurt Warner.  He's, of course, looking to become the first to win the Super Bowl with two different teams.
• No coach has won the Super Bowl with two different teams, either.  John Fox is the sixth different coach to make it with two different franchises.  The last coach to do it was Mike Holmgren, who led Seattle to its only other Super Bowl appearance (XL) after the back-to-back appearances with Green Bay in 1996-97.
• Current Seahawks coach Pete Carroll can become the first coach to win both a National Championship in college and a Super Bowl title since Barry Switzer, who won three national titles at Oklahoma and Super Bowl XXX with the Cowboys.  The only other coach to do this was Switzer's predecessor in Dallas, Jimmy Johnson, who'll be on the set with the FOX crew during the pregame show.
• Russell Wilson will be just the fourth black quarterback to start the Super Bowl.  Doug Williams (XXII) is still the only black QB to win one.  Steve McNair's Titans lost Super Bowl XXXIV, and Donovan McNabb was the last black quarterback to start the Super Bowl, with the Eagles (XXXIX).
• A stat that certainly works in Seattle's favor, the team wearing white has won two straight Super Bowls and eight of the last nine.  The only colorful champion of the last decade was the Packers in Super Bowl XLV.
• Continuing an odd trend, this is the seventh Super Bowl on FOX, and all of them have included either the Packers (XXXI, XLV), Patriots (XXXI, XXXVI, XXXIX, XLII) or Broncos (XXXIII, XLVIII).
• This one is obvious and has been brought up repeatedly, but it's cool nonetheless, Eli Manning won Super Bowl XLVI in Peyton's home stadium in Indianapolis.  Two years later, Peyton is looking to win the Super Bowl in Eli's home stadium.
• Since the 2002 realignment when Houston came into the league, neither Western Division has won the Super Bowl.  In fact, it hasn't happened this century.  The last team from the West to win the Super Bowl was the 1999 Rams.  The last team from west of the Mississippi to win was actually the Broncos, with their back-to-back titles in 1997-98.
• This is just the third time that two western-based franchises are meeting in the Super Bowl.  The 49ers beat the Broncos in Super Bowl XXIV and the Chargers in Super Bowl XXIX.  (The last West vs. West Super Bowl was Super Bowl XXXIII, when Denver beat Atlanta, but that doesn't really count, since Atlanta's located on the East coast.)
• Denver's making its seventh Super Bowl appearance, tying New England for third-most all-time.  Only Dallas and Pittsburgh have been to more.  The Cowboys and Steelers have both played in the Super Bowl eight times (including three against each other).  If you add up the appearances of Pittsburgh, Denver and New England, they've won almost half of all AFL/AFC championships in the Super Bowl era (22 of 48, which is actually 22 of the last 40 since Pittsburgh's first appearance in Super Bowl IX).  (Dallas, meanwhile, went to eight of the first 30 and hasn't been back since.)
• It's the third time in four years that the Super Bowl stadium is hosting the game for the first time.
• Lastly, if Seattle wins, they'll become the 19th different franchise to win the Super Bowl.  They'd be the first team to win the Super Bowl for the first time since the Saints won Super Bowl XLIV to conclude the 2009 season.

We've Got a Lot to Talk About

There's been a lot of stuff that's happened in the world of sports over the past couple of days.  So much that I want to blog about it all.  I couldn't decide!  Then I figured, why not just blog about all of them?

I'll start with the Roger Baddell bashing.  Mr. Brilliant Commissioner once again proves his brilliance by suggesting the NFL could/should eliminate extra points.  Why?  Because they're too automatic.  Has anybody had any issues with the existence of the extra point before Mr. Brilliant Commissioner opened his big mouth?  And, keep in mind, this isn't something that has actually been discussed.  This is just him speaking off the cuff and thinking people will actually not think he's an idiot.  I can't wait for Denver to win the Super Bowl 28-27 because Seattle missed an extra point.  Hey Rog, here's a plan.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Speaking of if it ain't broke, don't fix it, the Pro Bowl was never good to begin with, but it's been made so much worse ever since he got his hands on it.  I'm convinced he wants to Pro Bowl to simply go away, and he's made some pretty good steps towards achieving that goal.  First, he moved the game to the week before the Super Bowl, because, you know, why would you want players from the two best teams in the league playing in the All-Star Game?  That's just crazy talk!  Then he gets this idea to drop the AFC-NFC format that worked perfectly fine and steal the NHL's idea of having team captains pick the teams.  The NHL's format is incredibly stupid.  It should be eliminated, not emulated.

At least he acknowledged that the New York Super Bowl might not have exactly been the best idea he ever had.  Was it the snowstorm we had on Tuesday or the ridiculously bitter cold?  I was watching the news on Wednesday, and they showed hundreds of workers digging the stadium out.  And this is just so they can paint the field, which they kinda need to do.  But don't worry, he WILL sit out in the cold among the fans.  Well, he'd better.  It was his dumb idea to play the game here in the first place.  Although, I did half expect him to bring the Super Bowl to an outdoor stadium in a cold weather city, then sit there in his comfortable, heated suite.

Moving on to one of my other favorite bashing targets, the NBA has unveiled its All-Star Game jerseys.  And they're not letting the t-shirt thing die.  Since the players didn't look stupid enough wearing pajama tops on the court during the Christmas games.  I understand it's all in the name of marketing, but I think you're overestimating how stupid people are willing to look.  If they want a t-shirt, they'll buy a t-shirt.  If they want a jersey, they'll buy a jersey.  You don't need to combine them into one hideous-looking thing that even the players who have to wear them hate.  (Don't get me started on those nickname jerseys either.)

The NBA All-Star Game takes place during the Olympics, which will soon capture the world's attention.  The various nations are gradually announcing their teams, and the USA bobsled team was announced the other day.  The women's team includes Lolo Jones, which of course drew plenty of comments.  I don't claim to know anywhere near enough about bobsledding to have an opinion on whether she earned her place on the team, but did people seriously not see it coming?  People are talking about bobsledding, aren't they?  Lolo Jones might be a lightning rod, and some of the criticism of her is unfair, but she increased the sport's profile, which was one of the things they were looking for.

Speaking of the Olympics, I agree with the European leaders who think it's a slap in the face for President Obama to send Billie Jean King and other notable gay athletes as the head of the American delegation to Sochi instead of going himself.  I've said this before and it's not a popular opinion, but it's a Russian law.  It's none of our business.  We're going to be guests in their country.  They're not asking us to agree with the law.  They're just asking us to respect it, which is what we would expect if it was the other way around.

I wonder, would it be worse for an American going to the Olympics to hold hands with a man or wear Team USA gear around Sochi?  Didn't the Cold War end like 20 years ago?  Don't the US and Russia get along now, differing views on the gay law notwithstanding?  I, for one, am not as paranoid about something happening at the Olympics as everyone else seems to be.  Terror threats obviously have to be taken seriously, but the Olympics are too obvious a target and there's so much security that somebody would be stupid to try something.  I'm not saying there aren't people stupid enough to think about it.  I just think if they actually did want to try something, they probably wouldn't be very successful.

Greg Maddux and Tony La Russa both won't have a logo on their hat on their Hall of Fame plaque.  The other four were obvious, and you wondered which hat they'd choose for those two.  I, like most people, figured Maddux would go in as a Brave.  That's where he had his most success, and he's going in with a rotation-mate and his manager.  But he started his career in Chicago and spent just as much time with the Cubs as the Braves.  It's a little weird, but you've gotta respect his decision.  One classy individual.  La Russa probably couldn't decide, either.  His success in Oakland and St. Louis was about equal, although he won two World Series with the Cardinals compared to just one with the A's, so that's probably the way I would've gone.  I just hope this doesn't become a trend.  Because, as great as he was as a Mariner, Randy Johnson should go in a Diamondback next year.

As I sit here watching the Kings-Ducks game at Dodger Stadium, I once again get to thinking about how stupid an outdoor hockey game in Southern California is.  Outdoor hockey is seeing your breath as you try to stay warm in sub-zero temperatures.  Not a jersey with flip flops and shorts as you "suffer" through a 50-degree night in January.  There's a freakin' beach volleyball court next to the ice in left field!

One last hockey story that'll move your heart if you haven't already seen/heard it.  Mandi Schwartz, a women's hockey player at Yale, passed away from cancer a few years ago.  Every year, Yale has a "White Out For Mandi" game to raise money for the cause.  Madi Schwartz's brother, Jaden, plays for the St. Louis Blues.  The Blues' road trip to play the three New York teams coincided with this year's "White Out For Mandi" game.  But instead of just letting Jaden go, the entire team went.  And they held an open practice at Yale's rink prior to the game.  Awesome.  One of the classiest moves I've seen in a long time.

Oh yeah, and the Yankees won the Masahiro Tanaka sweepstakes.  I'm not surprised.  Even when people were saying the Cubs were the frontrunners, I was still pretty convinced he'd end up in pinstripes.  And to all those people who said that they overpaid for him may be right, but this was a situation where they had to overpay.  The Yankees needed to restore the faith of their fan base, and this was the way to do it.  Everyone knew they needed starting pitching and he was the prime target.  They couldn't let him go somewhere else, especially after losing Cano, and even more so after saving the money they don't have to pay A-Rod.  Mission accomplished.  The Yankees got their man.  Payroll limit be damned.

Bronx Bombers

This afternoon I got a chance to enjoy one of my Christmas presents.  I went to see a matinee of the new Broadway play "Bronx Bombers." 

As the name suggests, the play is about the New York Yankees.  In fact, as you walk into the theatre, the first thing you notice is a replica of that famous Yankee Stadium façade.  The play is also performed in the round, creating a stadium-like atmosphere that only enhances the experience.  They also have Michael Kay give the "no photos, no recording" announcement and it ends the only way it could...with Frank Sinatra serenading everyone with "New York, New York."  Basically, it has everything you'd expect.

The central character is really the only person it could be.  Yogi Berra.  Yogi's not just one of most beloved Yankees of all time, he's someone who takes great pride in those pinstripes and what they represent.  But more importantly, Yogi Berra bridges the generations.  That's why he's the only Yankee who would've worked.  With another player from another era, the story would've seemed forced.  With Yogi Berra, though, the idea of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig in the same room as Reggie Jackson and Derek Jeter is made much more believable.

The story begins at a very tumultuous time in Yankees history.  1977.  It's the day after the famous fight between Reggie Jackson and Billy Martin in the Fenway Park dugout and Yogi calls the two of them, along with Thurman Munson, to his hotel room for a meeting that he hopes will help mend fences.  I'm not going to give away any major plot points here, but the meeting (which takes up most of the first act) doesn't end well.  Berra then returns home to talk about it with his wife and has a vision of Babe Ruth.  End Act I.

Act II begins with a great 45-minute scene where Yogi and his wife have dinner with perhaps the five greatest Yankees legends there ever were: Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle and Jeter.  Elston Howard is also there, and his presence is the most significant.  The legends put the Martin-Jackson feud in perspective.  The Yankees are bigger than any one individual player, but players want to be Yankees because they want to be legends and win championships.  Like each of the immortals at that dinner.  They're all bigger than the game.  But, more significantly, they're all Yankees.

That's never more evident than at the end, when Berra and Jeter are together in the Yankees clubhouse before the final game at the Old Stadium.  Then all the legends return to bring the mystique and aura across the street.  Cue Sinatra.

Emmy winner Peter Scolari is superb as Berra, and the portrayals of Jackson by Francois Battiste and Mantle by Bill Dawes are so realistic it's scary.  And the play is incredibly well-written by Eric Simonson, who also wrote both "Lombardi" and "Magic/Bird."  There are light-hearted parts and some touching moments, as well as a unique blend of generations (and some perspective that brings about greater understanding) during the dinner party scene.  And don't worry, there are plenty of Yogi-isms, too.

If you think you have to be a Yankees fan to enjoy "Bronx Bombers," you're wrong.  There are certainly some inside jokes and references that only Yankees fans will understand, but that's not a reason to stay away.  Neither is being a Red Sox or Mets or any other team's fan.  Baseball fans will appreciate "Bronx Bombers."  Because as much as the play is about the Yankees, it's about Major League Baseball.

All of the TV commercials urging people to buy tickets are promoting "Bronx Bombers" as "a night you'll never forget."  That's a bold statement.  It's also right.

NFL Championship Game Picks

It's rare that we have the four best teams in football playing on Conference Championship Sunday, but that's exactly what we've got this year.  For most of the year, it's looked like the Broncos and Seahawks have been on a collision course for MetLife Stadium.  And we're one game away from that happening.  Of course, the two 1-seeds both getting to the Super Bowl is rare (the last time we had it was Saints-Colts, and that was the first time it had happened in like 15 years).  Will Denver and Seattle buck that trend or will New England keep it in tact?  And what about the 49ers?  Do they continue that streak of a team that played on Wild Card Weekend making it all the way to the Super Bowl?

AFC: Patriots (13-4) at Broncos (14-3): Denver-Chapter 15 in the Manning vs. Brady Saga, and it takes place in the AFC Championship Game one more time.  The last time they met with the AFC title on the line was after the 2006 season, when the Colts made that ridiculous comeback en route to their Super Bowl title.  That's also the only time that the two have faced each other in a playoff game that didn't take place at Foxboro.  You want a reason why Brady has such an edge in the all-time series, start there.  It seems like every time they play it's in New England.

That includes that crazy game in Week 12, when the Broncos had a 24-0 lead before the Patriots came back to win in overtime.  Don't think either team forgets that.  It gives the Patriots a ton of confidence heading into their third straight AFC Championship Game, and it also motivates the Broncos to make sure it doesn't happen again.  If not for the Dolphins, that Patriots comeback would've put this game in New England instead of Denver, which would've been an incredible advantage for the Patriots.  But as it is, the game's in Denver and that altitude.

Both teams have deficiencies on the defensive end, and it seems likely that with the two Hall of Fame quarterbacks, the game's going to be pretty high scoring.  And as great as both QBs are, the running game is really going to be the key.  The Patriots ran all over the Colts last week, and their running back-by-committee formula will help keep the legs fresh.  Likewise, Manning needs his running backs.  The running game will become even more important if either team gets out to a big lead and needs to milk the clock, which is something Denver was unable to do in the regular season meeting.

As much as this game is all about the two offenses, the defenses will be just as important.  People like to get on the Denver defense as the team's big weakness, but it was the Broncos' defense that stepped up and stopped that late Charger drive to preserve the win last week.  Brady has helped mask the deficiencies with the New England defense, but outside of Aqib Talib, they don't exactly strike fear into their opponents.  Remember, the Colts still managed to score 22 points last week, and the Broncos' offense is much better than the Colts offense.  We also don't know whether or not Gostkowski's going to have to pull double-duty again, and how much affect it'll have if he does.

Brady usually gets the upper hand in the head-to-head matchups, and a New England win sends Bradicheck to their sixth Super Bowl together.  I don't see it happening, though.  Denver let the game get away when these two met in the regular season, but is at home and will have the crowd on their side this time.  But I think last year will be the real motivating factor.  The Broncos were heavy favorites to get to the Super Bowl last season, but lost to Baltimore in the Divisional round.  Well, they've already gotten past that hurdle this time.  They know this is their chance to seal the deal and send Peyton back to the Super Bowl.

NFC: 49ers (14-4) at Seahawks (14-3): Seattle-If the AFC's all about the two offenses, defense will be the story in the NFC Championship Game.  49ers-Seahawks has developed into one of the best, most competitive rivalries in the NFL, and this time they're meeting with a trip to the Super Bowl on the line.  It's San Francisco's third straight NFC title game, but they have to go to the unfriendliest place in the NFL.  A place where they've gotten absolutely embarrassed the last two times they've played there.

Beating the Seahawks isn't impossible, though, and winning the rematch at Candlestick in Week 14 was huge for the 49ers' confidence.  Seattle had been essentially already anointed the NFC champs, but that was the 49ers' chance to say "Remember us?  We ARE the NFC champs until someone beats us."  And San Francisco comes into the game as the hottest team of the four.  They've won eight straight, including that victory over the Seahawks and two road playoff games.  (I saw a stat yesterday that said Colin Kaepernick already has more road playoff wins than Joe Montana and Steve Young combined.  But in fairness to Montana and Young, the 49ers didn't really play any road playoff games in the 80s and 90s, so that's not really their fault.)

Anyway, the storylines coming into this game are fascinating.  You've got the two head coaches, who go back to their Stanford-USC days.  The two exceptional defenses.  The two quarterbacks who are capable of doing seemingly anything.  The rivalry, which prompted the Seahawks to prevent anyone who lives in California from buying tickets (which I think is awesome).  A trip to this little game called the Super Bowl on the line.  And, most importantly, that crowd.  The reason why it's so impossible for visiting teams to win in Seattle.

For the 49ers to have any chance, they either need to get out to an early lead or at least keep it close long enough to take the crowd out of it.  Otherwise, they could be the victims of a third straight Seattle blowout.  San Francisco also needs to establish the run in order to open up the passing game.  If Kaepernick tries to beat the Seattle secondary through the air, it's not going to happen.  Seattle, meanwhile, needs to establish the run in order to prevent Russell Wilson getting killed by the 49ers pass rush.

It all comes back to that crowd, though.  Arizona proved it's possible, but there's a reason why that's the only home game Russell Wilson has lost in his NFL career (well, he's technically lost twice if you count that Monday night game last season where the Packers were screwed by the replacement refs).  And that's the reason it was so important for the Seahawks to earn the No. 1 seed.  Especially with the 49ers coming to town, that crowd isn't letting the Seahawks lose the NFC Championship Game if they can do anything about it.

Last Week: 4-0
Playoffs: 6-2
Season: 173-90-1

Oslo's Olympics to Lose

While most of the world's attention is beginning to shift to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, a piece of significant news about the 2022 Winter Games came out yesterday.  When the deadline passed for cities to announce their intentions to bid, six cities threw their hat into the ring.  That's now down to five, as Stockholm, Sweden has withdrawn.

Sweden has traditionally been among the top nations in the Winter Olympics, and understandably so.  yet Sweden has never hosted the Winter Olympics.  In fact, the only Olympics ever held in the country were the 1912 Summer Games, which were in Stockholm.  A successful bid in 2022 would've made Stockholm the first city to host both the Summer and Winter Games.

When the initial list of candidates was announced, Stockholm was viewed as one of the favorites.  Except the city's legislature doesn't want to provide the financial guarantee necessary to move forward with the bid.  Their rationale (which I find shotty at best) is that the millions they would've had to spend on facilities could be better spent elsewhere.  Specifically, they don't see the need for a bobsled/luge track in Sweden (Sweden's good at every other winter sport, so those facilities weren't seen as a problem).

All of this is good news for Oslo.  Oslo was viewed as the top candidate and early favorite when the six cities were announced, and the absence of Stockholm makes things look even more favorable for the Norwegian capital.  Just like it was pretty much assumed the 2018 Winter Games would be in Pyongchang, South Korea, which won easily on the first vote, it seems highly unlikely that the 2022 Games will be held anywhere other than Oslo.

Not only does Oslo have the best and most technically-sound bid (not to mention how cool a Winter Olympics in Norway would be), each of the other bids has some limitations that will be difficult to overcome.  The other bidding cities are Almaty, Kazakhstan; Beijing, China; Krakow, Poland; and Lviv, Ukraine. 

Let's start with why Beijing won't host the 2022 Winter Olympics.  The most obvious reason is Pyongchang 2018 and Tokyo 2020.  They're not going to have three consecutive Olympics in Asia, let alone the Far East.  Throwing in the fact that Beijing hosted the Summer Games in 2008, and that would be four out of eight Olympics in the Far East, including two trips to Beijing.  The mostly-European IOC won't let that happen.  They're especially not going to give a Winter Games to the same city that hosted a Summer Games 14 years earlier.  I'm not saying that'll never happen, but the gap won't be that close when/if it does.

Moving on Almaty and Lviv.  They're hurt by Sochi.  Sochi is, obviously, in Russia.  Kazakhstan and Ukraine are both former Soviet republics.  That would be like going from the U.S. to Canada eight years apart (which has been done, most recently with Salt Lake City and Vancouver).  Kazakhstan and Ukraine have never hosted the Olympics (Summer or Winter), although some of the soccer games in 1980 were held in Kiev, which would likely outweigh the Sochi factor.  But with the Olympics making their first trip to the area this year, I'm not sure the second trip would come this quickly.  I do think both bids are strong enough to make the cut as finalists, though, and one likely will be.  If I had to make that choice, I'd say it'll be Almaty.  They've bid a number of times before and deserve to make the final cut.

That leaves us with Krakow.  Krakow is the sentimental favorite among the other four, as the bid is a testament to the memory of late Polish President Lech Kaczynski.  Kaczynski announced in March 2010 that he would like to see a Polish bid for the 2022 Olympics, then died a month later in a plane crash that also took the life of the President of the Polish Olympic Committee.  Polish officials went along with Kaczynski's dream and submitted a bid for Krakow.  But here's the interesting part, Krakow would co-host with the Slovakian city of Jasna.  It would be the first Olympics ever staged in two countries, not counting 1956, when the Summer Games were held in Melbourne, but the equestrian events took place in Stockholm.

I'm not exactly sure how the co-hosting thing would work, and I'm sure that might be a bit of a concern for some IOC members, as well.  That might be the only thing holding the Krakow bid back.  Although I do think that Krakow will be a finalist.  Kaczynski had a lot of friends at the IOC, and honoring his memory is the right thing to do.  But it might not be enough to bring Krakow over the top.  Not with such an overwhelming favorite, which has been an Olympic host before and will make an exceptional one again.

Some Thoughts On A-Rod

It's been a couple days since A-Rod's reduced suspension was handed down and Tony Bosch/Baseball took that ridiculous victory lap on 60 Minutes.  Of course, it's not over.  A-Rod filed suit against, well, basically anyone you can think of, trying to get the suspension overturned, and has vowed to show up in Tampa for Yankees Spring Training.  There's so much to process here, but the bottom line is a sad one.  A-Rod had the talent to be one of the all-time greats.  Instead, he's going to go down as one of Baseball's all-time biggest jokes.

When they originally announced the suspensions and A-Rod immediately announced he was going to appeal, my prediction was that it would ultimately be reduced to 162.  I don't want to say "I told you so," but...  My rationale was this: chop off the games he played during his appeal, treat this as his first and second offenses, make him serve the 50 (first offense) and 100 (second offense) consecutively, then, because no team in their right mind is going to activate a guy who was suspended all year in mid-September, add on the remaining 12 games to make it a whole season.  Of course, Frederic Horowitz got to that number a different way than I did, but the result was the same.  And I happen to agree with the number.

The most interesting part of the entire circus surrounding the suspension to me was the news that ESPN's Buster Olney broke on Monday.  A-Rod had a chance to put this whole thing behind him during Spring Training last year and declined.  He would've been given the standard 50-game suspension, that he could've served at the start of the season, when he was on the DL anyway.  Hindsight might be 20-20, but why wouldn't he just accept 50 games then and be done with it?  He already knew he was going to miss the first three months of last season anyway.

Actually, I know exactly why.  His ego.  That and because he probably thought he'd actually be able to get off with nothing.  A-Rod's become the new Lance Armstrong.  He's told so many lies that he believes them himself.  And surrounding himself with Yes Men isn't helping either.  Of course his lawyers are going to tell him to keep fighting a losing battle.  The longer he fights, the more money in their pockets.

I doubt there's a single person who doesn't think A-Rod's guilty of taking PEDs.  Except for maybe A-Rod himself.  If there actually was any doubt left in anybody's mind, 60 Minutes took care of that.  The evidence against him seems pretty strong, and there's so much of it that A-Rod's team can't possibly "justify" it all in any believable way.  Horowitz certainly didn't believe those explanations.

60 Minutes also confirmed another thing I've long suspected--Tony Bosch is among the lowest of the low.  I couldn't tell if he was making stuff up on the spot or what, but the one thing that was made clear is that the guy is absolute scum.  He flat-out admitted that he'd still be doing it if he can't gotten caught!  (I also loved the "everyone's doing it, so I was leveling the playing field" rationale.)  Plus, he's changed his story so many times, his credibility is zero.  Remember when this all started and he said he was just A-Rod's "nutritionist?"

It's rare that I agree with Scott Boras, but what he said yesterday was spot-on.  Everybody's spending all this time trying to catch the "cheaters," but guys like Bosch get off scot-free?  How is that right?  Bosch was engaged in some pretty serious illegal activity, and he knew exactly what he was doing.  Yet he's not even going to face prosecution.  All because he agreed to help "catch the bad guys?"  Well, I've got news for ya, Tony Bosch is one of the "bad guys."

And Bosch willing to flip sure made things easy for MLB.  This guy goes from having a lawsuit against him by MLB to MLB's star witness.  With the lawsuit dropped, his legal fees paid (as well as covered in any future proceedings), and protection.  Why wouldn't he tell them what he wanted to hear?  A known liar is your star witness.

A-Rod made a couple of valid points during his appeal, and that was by far the most significant one.  MLB paid for Bosch's testimony.  There's no other way to look at it.  Sure, many people will find a way to justify it, but Bosch wasn't willing to cooperate until it became beneficial to him.  And since MLB was the one hooking him up, why wouldn't he want to hook them up in return?  However believable his testimony may have been, you have to take it with a grain of salt.

The whole "he's obstructing with the investigation" thing was laughable too.  The way you went about getting this evidence wasn't exactly the most ethical.  Whether or not it was even legal is questionable.  Can you blame him for trying to prevent those documents from becoming public?  Besides, he was trying to do the same thing you did.  Why would anyone want to get their hands on evidence that might incriminate them of something?  It's so shocking that he would do that!

Likewise, I've agreed with A-Rod from Day One that he was singled out.  Bud Selig hates A-Rod.  He won't admit it, but it's clear to everyone.  The original 211-game suspension proved that.  He wanted to make an example of somebody, so why not the guy he dislikes the most?  If A-Rod had been treated the same way as everyone else, he wouldn't have received a suspension more than three times the length of the next longest one (which went to a guy who failed a test and got off, yet was lying the whole time).  Well, mission accomplished, Bud.  You have your Lance Armstrong.

Bud Selig is the most hypocritical one in all of this.  He's walking around with his chest puffed out, proud of his "victory."  They even made sure to end the 60 Minutes piece by pointing out that Baseball has the "best" drug program in all of sports.  But this is also the guy responsible for the abundance of PEDs in Baseball in the first place.  He turned a blind eye during the Steroid Era in the late 90s/early 2000s.  Yeah Bud, great job doing something about it 20 years later!

2014 Australian Open Preview

Don't worry, we'll talk about A-Rod.  Just not today.  First we've gotta preview the one event that sneaks up on you every single year.  It's time for the Australian Open, a tennis tournament played half a world away, where it's summer in the middle of January and where play starts in the afternoon, but it's actually the night before.  But it's still the first Grand Slam of the year, and it often sets the tone for what we can expect as the tennis season plays out.

As the first Grand Slam of the year, the Australian Open is the toughest to predict.  Many of the top players make their season debut here, so it's not like you can really use performance leading into the tournament as any sort of indicator.  And if you're basing it on how they ended last season, top-ranked Serena Williams and Rafael Nadal would have to be viewed as the favorites.  Although, the No. 2s, Victoria Azarenka and Novak Djokovic, have both won here two years in a row, so it would be a colossal mistake to count them out.

Since I always start by talking about the men, I figured I'd mix it up a little and discuss the women first.  On paper, there are probably three favorites.  Along with Serena and Vika, you've got Maria Sharapova, who's seeded third.  Azarenka and Sharapova are on the same side of the draw, but Serena's draw isn't exactly easy.  Her semifinal matchup would be against Li Na, who's made the finals here twice, including last year.

But I don't think Li will last to see Serena.  She's in a very competitive quarter that features Germans Angelique Kerber and Sabine Lisicki, the Wimbledon finalist who upset Serena in London.  Lisicki's my candidate for a breakout 2014, and I think that breakout starts here.  She knocks off Li in the round of 16, then beats Kerber in the quarters to set up that semifinal matchup with Serena, who's only real challenge will come in the fourth round against either Aussie favorite Sam Stosur, who beat her in the 2012 US Open final, or Ana Ivanovic, a former finalist here.  And by biggest challenge, I mean she might get taken to a tiebreak in one of the sets.

The bottom half of the draw is where things could get interesting, though.  In addition to Azarenka and Sharapova, you've got Aggie Radwanska, Caroline Wozniacki, Jelena Jankovic and last year's semifinalist Sloane Stephens.  Stephens had her big breakthrough by beating Serena here last year and has a lot of points to defend.  But she's got a round of 16 matchup with Azarenka, then a quarter against the Radwanska-Wozniacki winner.  That's a tough task to ask her to pull off.  Especially since I don't think she's beating Azarenka.

Sharapova will have an easier time reaching that semi, but Vika will be battle-tested.  For someone who hasn't lost in this tournament since 2011, I think battle-tested trumps rest.  Azarenka gets back to the final.  But who does she meet?  I'd be hard-pressed to go against Serena, setting the stage for another classic Grand Slam final between these two.  Expect this is Australia.  This is Vika's house.  A third straight title for Azarenka.

Speaking of third straight titles, Novak Djokovic always wins here in much the same way Rafael Nadal always wins the French Open.  And all the heavy-hitters on the men's side ended up in the top half of the draw, leaving Djokovic's path to another final very clear.  He's got some guys he'll have to worry about--guys like Tomas Berdych and David Ferrer and Stan Wawrinka.  But none of them are going to win three sets against Djokovic in the Melbourne heat.  His stamina and incredible fitness are two of the reasons why he always plays so well here.  As for the other semifinalist on the bottom half, I'll say Berdych.

Now to the loaded top half.  I thought it was some sort of rule that Federer and Nadal have to meet in the earliest round possible of every Grand Slam tournament.  So, I was taken by surprise that they can't meet until the semis here, despite Roger being all the way down at No. 6.  It's no secret that 2013 wasn't a good year for Roger Federer.  It's also no secret that his best tennis is behind him.  But as long as he continues to play, Roger Federer is a threat to make a deep run at any Grand Slam tournament he enters (and it's still going to be a surprise when he doesn't).

The other names on the top half include Andy Murray, a three-time finalist here (including last year), Juan Martin Del Potro, the ubertalented 2009 US Open champ, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who's back after missing the end of last season with an injury, and Lleyton Hewitt.  Hewitt's days as a threat at a Grand Slam are behind him, but he's an Aussie favorite and can always be counted on to win a few matches and provide plenty of excitement along the way.  We've got plenty of exciting potential matchups like Nadal-Hewitt, the winner of that vs. Del Potro, Tsonga-Federer and the winner of that vs. Murray.  But I've got to go with the two players who've been the most consistent.  The two players who've combined to win four of the last five Grand Slams.  Nadal and Murray.

So do we have another Nadal-Djokovic Grand Slam final in store?  I'd be hard-pressed to bet against it.  Nadal-Murray would be a fun semifinal to watch.  But just like it's hard to see somebody taking three sets off Djokovic, it's hard to see anybody taking three sets off Nadal.  Which means, "Yes."  We will have another Nadal-Djokovic Grand Slam final.  And it'll probably be another epic, just like the 2012 final.  This one will end the same way that one did.  This is Novak Djokovic's tournament.

NFL Divisional Picks

As I stated earlier this week, if the wild card games proved anything, it's that the NFL playoffs are fine just the way they are and we don't need a seventh team in each conference.  But that's an argument for another day.  And whatever they end up doing to Wild Card Weekend in the future, it doesn't look like they have any plans to change Divisional Playoffs Weekend anytime soon.  Which is a good thing.  Because this is often the weekend that produces some of the best football we'll see all season (as well as some of the worst when mediocre wild card teams manage to win).

This year is no exception.  Take for example, our two No. 1 seeds, who seem to be on a collision-course for the Meadowlands.  Except Denver's three losses this season were to New England, Indianapolis and San Diego.  The Broncos are going to have to beat two of them in order to get to the Super Bowl.  Same thing in the NFC.  The Seahawks lost to the 49ers and the Colts, as well as a Cardinals team that almost made the playoffs, and the four teams left have all played (and beaten) each other.  We're gonna have some fun rematches.

Saints (12-5) at Seahawks (13-3): Seattle-When these two met at Qwest Field on a Monday night a month ago, many figured it would be to determine who was going to be the 1-seed in the NFC.  And the Seahawks absolutely dominated the Saints, who ended up losing three of their last five to slip to a wild card.  As a result of that New Orleans wild card, the matchup that we all originally thought would take place in the NFC Championship Game is actually happening a round early...and that only thanks to the Saints' first road playoff win in franchise history.

What New Orleans did at the end of the game to beat Philadelphia was impressive, but that 12th Man in Seattle is a completely different animal.  As good as Drew Brees and the Saints offense are, they're not going to be a match for that Seahawks defense.  Or that crowd, which is going to be especially amped up knowing all they need is two home wins to get to the Super Bowl.  That week off is going to help the Seahawks, too.  Just as much as playing on two different coasts in back-to-back weekends is going to negatively impact the Saints.  And let's not forget the game's in Seattle.  The Cardinals proved that it's possible for the visiting team to win there, but it's still the most difficult place to visit in the entire NFL.  Especially if Seattle gets out to an early lead, I can see this one going the same way as the regular season meeting.  Either way, the Seahawks are the better team and should find a way to pull it out.

Colts (12-5) at Patriots (12-4): New England-Remember when these two met in the playoffs every year?  Well, believe it or not, this once-annual postseason showdown hasn't happened since the 2006 AFC Championship Game, the one with that ridiculous Colts comeback.  (It's also the only game this weekend that isn't a regular season rematch.)  Speaking of ridiculous Colts comebacks, "Wow!" is all I have to say about last week's game.  When Kansas City was up 44-38, I said to myself, "Watch the Colts drive down and score a touchdown here."  Sure enough, that's what happened, and Andrew Luck got his first playoff win.

Now Luck gets to write a new chapter in the Colts-Patriots playoff rivalry.  And I doubt he's intimidated by Tom Brady.  I can also guarantee that Indy's not intimidated one bit by New England.  This is what happens when you have wins over both of the top seeds and the defending NFC champions on your season resume.  I sense your typical Colts-Patriots playoff game will take place here.  Tough and physical with the quarterbacks on full display.  But it's going to be a cold night in New England, which I think will be the difference.  Brady's used to it.  Luck's used to his comfortable dome.  That's all the advantage the Patriots need to advance to their third straight AFC Championship Game (who would've thought we'd be saying that when the season started).

49ers (13-4) at Panthers (12-4): San Francisco-The most intriguing matchup of the weekend features a matchup of the two best defenses remaining.  And it was the regular season meeting between these two that proved once and for all that the Carolina Panthers are for real.  They went into San Francisco and held the defending NFC champs without a touchdown in a 10-9 victory.  That's what launched the Panthers into the position to earn a first-round bye and a home game in this weekend's rematch.

As good as the Panthers' defense is, though, Carolina's chances probably rest on Cam Newton.  How Newton performs against that San Francisco defense in his first-ever playoff game is the key.  If he plays well, the Panthers might have a trip to Seattle (where that defense gives them a pretty good shot) in their future.  But I'm not sure I can put that much confidence in Newton, who's never had this much weight on his shoulders.  Colin Kaepernick, on the other hand, has proven time-and-again that playoff pressure doesn't faze him.  Case in point, last weekend's game-winning drive in Green Bay.  Sure the 49ers are traveling for the second straight week, and this time they have to fly cross-country.  But the 49ers are more than capable of handling that.  They're also out to atone for their performance the first time they played Carolina.  I think this'll be the most competitive game of the four.  In the end, though, San Francisco wins the battle of the defenses.

Chargers (10-7) at Broncos (13-3): Denver-Show of hands, who else is pissed that the Chargers won and ruined Peyton vs. the Colts in the playoffs?  I'm sure Denver's more than OK with that, though, because San Diego's a much more favorable matchup.  I say this even though the Chargers beat the Broncos--in Denver--in Week 15 and are the hottest team in football right now.  They also had perhaps the most impressive performance of the entire Wild Card Weekend, going into Cincinnati and easily beating a very good Bengals team.

Denver's a different story, though.  The Broncos might've split with the Chargers this season, but everyone knows Denver is the far superior team.  Last year, of course, the Broncos had the No. 1 seed and lost in double overtime to a Ravens team that went on to win the Super Bowl (and, if the Eagles rule holds, San Diego will win this year's Super Bowl).  They don't forget that, and they know that anything less than a Super Bowl appearance will spoil Peyton Manning's magical season.  Denver has some flaws on the defensive end, but the week off is really going to come into play here.  The Broncos are an older team, any rest they can get is a benefit.  When the Chargers beat them, it was on a Thursday night, so they were coming off a short week.  It's a different story this time.  Great job by the Chargers to get into the playoffs, and to come away with the win last week, but like the Tebow Broncos two years ago, they'll get blown out in the Divisional round by a much stronger division champ that had the week off.

Last Week: 2-2
Playoffs: 2-2
Season: 169-90-1

Cooperstown Voting Day

It's that time of the year once again.  We'll find out the results of the Baseball Hall of Fame vote tomorrow and, unlike last year, we know the writers are at least going to elect someone this year.  The "will it be unanimous?" question has also been answered.  We know that Greg Maddux won't be the first unanimous selection, thanks to that guy who only voted for Jack Morris.  We also know that, at the very least, Maddux will be on the podium with the three managers in July, ensuring a memorable induction weekend to make up for last year.  Now the question becomes "Who joins them?"

As a result of last year's shutout, we've got a loaded, overcrowded ballot chock-full of worthwhile candidates (and that's not going to change anytime soon).  Combining that with the 10-vote limit, that's why I'm worried Maddux will be the only guy elected.  I'm also worried that some guys who deserve another look (like Jeff Kent or Moises Alou) won't get the required 5 percent needed to stay on the ballot.

I, obviously, don't have an actual vote of my own.  But if I did, I'd be a 10-vote guy.  Especially with this ridiculously loaded field.  Counting newcomers and guys who I've put on my hypothetical ballot in the past, there are 18 players I would've voted for.  Since the limit's 10, that meant I had to leave off these eight, all of whom I believe have Hall of Fame credentials, and all of whom I wouldn't begrudge the actual voters voting for: Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, Sammy Sosa, Larry Walker, Jeff Kent, Don Mattingly, Tim Raines, Edgar Martinez.

Now on to my actual fake ballot, where I rank the players in order:

1. Greg Maddux, Pitcher (1986-92 Cubs, 1993-2003 Braves, 2004-06 Cubs, 2006 Dodgers, 2007-08 Padres, 2008 Dodgers)-If there's ever been a more no-brainer selection, I don't know who it is.  Where do we start?  How about my favorite stat, the 17 consecutive years with 15 wins?  Or how about the 18 Gold Gloves?  Four straight Cy Youngs?  Need I go on?  He has 355 career wins, which is eighth all-time and more than any right-handed pitcher since Walter Johnson.  And he did it all with class.  Anyone who ever saw this guy pitch knows he belongs in Cooperstown.  It's with obvious comfort that we know Greg Maddux is going to cruise into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot.

2. Frank Thomas, First Baseman (1990-2005 White Sox, 2006 Athletics, 2007-08 Blue Jays, 2008 Athletics)-It's a shame that injuries derailed Frank Thomas's career in the end, and that he earned his only World Series ring when he wasn't even able to participate.  But in his prime, the Big Hurt was one of the most fearsome hitters in all of baseball.  Back-to-back MVPs in 1993-94, four Silver Slugger Awards and 521 home runs, all of which were hit without any sort of "enhancement," something he took great pride in and made sure everyone else was aware of.  There's no question that Frank Thomas was clean in an era when a lot of guys were dirty.  It'll be a shame if he's kept out simply because he was a big, power hitter playing when he played.

3. Barry Bonds, Outfielder (1986-92 Pirates, 1993-2007 Giants)-Barry Bonds isn't going to be elected to the Hall of Fame this year or any time soon.  He knows this.  I know this.  And everyone knows the reason why.  But my opinion on Barry Bonds and whether or not he deserves a place in the Hall of Fame hasn't changed.  He was the best, most dominant player of the 1990s and 2000s.  He's the all-time leader in home runs.  He won seven MVP awards.  Sure he was an arrogant prick that most people hated and he most likely did some stuff that he'll never be forgiven for.  Some voters will hold that against him forever and never vote for him as a result.  Which is a shame.  Because what's the point of having a Hall of Fame if one of the greatest players ever to play the game can only get in if he buys a ticket?

4. Roger Clemens, Pitcher (1984-96 Red Sox, 1997-98 Blue Jays, 1999-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007 Yankees)-It's ironic that the two greatest right-handed starting pitchers of their generation are both on the ballot this year.  Because one is going to get elected overwhelmingly and the other has absolutely no shot.  Which makes no sense.  Because Clemens might've been the better pitcher.  I know why he's not going to get in, but my argument with Clemens is the same as my argument with Bonds.  Seven Cy Youngs, one MVP, 4,672 strikeouts (third-most in history), 354 wins.  There are only two other pitchers in the Live-Ball Era with 350 career wins.  One is Warren Spahn.  The other is Greg Maddux.  Anyone who saw Roger Clemens pitch knew they were watching one of the all-time greats.  The Hall of Fame is where all-time greats belong.

5. Tom Glavine, Pitcher (1987-2002 Braves, 2003-07 Mets, 2008 Braves)-One of the stats that I saw among the many Hall of Fame articles I read today is that two starting pitchers who were teammates have never been elected to the Hall of Fame together.  We have a chance for that to change this year (we've actually got two shots at it, since John Smoltz becomes eligible next year).  And it would be incredibly fitting for Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Bobby Cox to all enter Cooperstown together.  I bet there's already a lot of people from Atlanta booking hotel rooms in Central New York for July.  Even though Maddux was the better pitcher, there's not much that separates him from Glavine.  Glavine won 305 games and two Cy Youngs.  And who can forget Game 6 of the 1995 World Series?  I'm OK with Glavine having to wait a year, but he'd better be joining one of his rotation-mates in Cooperstown.  If not Maddux this year, Smoltz next year.

6. Jack Morris, Pitcher (1977-90 Tigers, 1991 Twins, 1992-93 Blue Jays, 1994 Indians)-It's his final time on the ballot, so the annual Jack Morris debate will end one way or another this year.  The fact that he's even still on the ballot is completely absurd!  He won more games than any pitcher during the 1980s, started 14 consecutive Opening Days (for three different teams), and was the ace of three different championship teams.  I'm tired of hearing about Jack Morris' ERA or that he wasn't "dominant."  If he wasn't "dominant," why did his managers keep handing him the ball on Opening Day year-after-year?  Or why did they always let him finish what he started?  These writers think they know something those managers didn't, but I think it's actually the other way around.  Hopefully the final time's the charm for a guy who deserved a plaque a long time ago.

7. Craig Biggio, Second Baseman (1988-2007 Astros)-He came the closest last year and will probably come close again this year.  Why some people think Craig Biggio isn't a Hall of Famer boggles my mind.  Was it the disgusting pile of pine tar on the top of his helmet they didn't like?  Is it guilt by association because of who they suspect might've done something?  Because if you ask me, Craig Biggio's a no-brainer.  He spent his entire career with the Astros (which should get him bonus points in the era of free agency), is the franchise's all-time leader in virtually every offensive category, and finished with 3,060 total hits.  He also played Gold Glove-quality defense at three different premium positions (second base, catcher, center field).  That's a Hall of Famer in my book.

8. Jeff Bagwell, First Baseman (1991-2005 Astros)-If Maddux and Glavine go in together this year, I hope Biggio and Bagwell go in together at some point, too.  There are some people who are absolutely convinced Jeff Bagwell had to have done something, despite having no evidence, simply because he had trees for arms.  Bagwell's career was cut short by injuries, which is probably what kept him from the 500-home run mark.  And if you want to talk awards, I think Jayson Stark put it best.  As Stark said, Bagwell won virtually everything he possibly could short of a Grammy.  His vote total went up last year from his first year on the ballot, so maybe the voters are starting to come around.  He won't get in this year, but hopefully he will eventually.

9. Mike Piazza, Catcher (1992-98 Dodgers, 1999 Marlins, 1999-2005 Mets, 2006 Padres, 2007 Athletics)-Another guy unfairly being victimized by unfounded steroid suspicions is Mike Piazza.  As much as I couldn't stand him when he was playing (and still can't), I can objectively look at Mike Piazza's career and say "Yes, He's a Hall of Famer."  He's the greatest-hitting catcher in history, finishing with 427 home runs and a career batting average of .308.  Throw in 12 All-Star appearances, 10 Silver Slugger Awards and the 1993 NL Rookie of the Year.  How much fun would it be if, at some hypothetical point in the future, Roger Clemens and Mike Piazza went into the Hall of Fame together?  Although, I do think Piazza will eventually get in.  It won't be this year, though.

10. Mark McGwire, First Baseman (1986-97 Athletics, 1997-2001 Cardinals)-This was the toughest call of them all, which is why McGwire's in the 10-spot.  But if I'm being consistent, I have to view McGwire the same way I view Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.  The only difference is that McGwire has admitted to his steroid use, which he understands and accepts is the reason the writers will never vote him into the Hall of Fame.  (Quick sidebar, how hypocritical is the double-standard that McGwire can't come anywhere close to election, but Tony La Russa, his manager in both Oakland and St. Louis who had to have known what was going on, gets in unanimously?)  Anyway, no hitter was as feared as McGwire in his prime, and the 1998 home run chase brought baseball back.  And he didn't just hit 583 home runs.  He hit one every 10.61 at-bats, a ratio better than even Babe Ruth's.  Sure all he did was hit home runs.  But he hit a lot of them.  At a historic rate.  If not for his PED use, he'd be in the Hall of Fame already.

So, that's how I would vote.  I've seen predictions that range from just Maddux to as many as four players getting in.  I don't think it'll be that many.  With a ballot this loaded, the votes will be spread out, which could result in Maddux going in alone.  I wouldn't bet on that, though.  My gut says three.  Thomas and Glavine get in, too, with Biggio and Morris once again coming agonizingly close.  Have fun in Cooperstown, Braves fans.

Perfect Just the Way They Are

We just finished a Wild Card Weekend that featured a ridiculous 28-point comeback, two games decided on last-second field goals, and three road teams (including both six seeds) win.  In other words, the NFL playoffs began just the way we all have come to expect.  It also offered further proof that the NFL playoffs are pretty freakin' awesome just the way they are.

In the week leading up to the Green Bay-San Francisco game, most of the talk situated around how unfair it was that the 8-7-1 Packers were hosting the 12-4 49ers.  Evidently, those people think that winning your division should only guarantee you a playoff spot.  Not a playoff home game.  That's utterly ridiculous.  Why have divisions then?  You win your division, you earn the right to play a playoff game in front of your own fans.  You'll occasionally have a situation like the one we had on Sunday, but having a wild card team with a record that good is rare.  The 49ers just caught the unfortunate break of being in the same division as Seattle this season.  Besides, if the wild card team is that much better, they should be able to win on the road, which San Francisco, New Orleans and San Diego did.

Fortunately, that idea has only gotten traction amongst members of the media (who then have the platform to talk about it).  The owners don't seem to be on board with that plan, probably because they rightly feel that the emphasis should be placed on winning the division and division winners deserve to be rewarded as such.  (That's one of the reasons baseball added a playoff team in each league.)  However, the owners have discussed another idea that seems to have a growing amount of support.  They want to add a playoff team in each conference.  Jerry Jones has even advocated adding two in each to make it eight, but Jerry Jones likes to hear himself talk.  No one takes him seriously when he says stupid things like that.

They're very serious about the seventh team, though.  And I think that would be a mistake.  If the wild card games showed us anything, it's that six is the perfect number.  Sure, Arizona missed the playoffs at 10-6.  But that only happens once every few years.  And the seventh-place team in the AFC was 8-8 Pittsburgh.  Is there anybody who actually thinks the 2013 Steelers would've had a chance at winning the Super Bowl?

Sure, we've seen a team that played on Wild Card Weekend win the Super Bowl in each of the past four seasons.  But all that indicates is that there's very little difference between the good teams.  Adding another team to the playoffs, though, wouldn't add another good team.  It would add a "good" team that finished 9-7 or 8-8 and water-down the field in the process.  Instead of creating more games like we had in the weekend that just finished, we'd have less.  Because the disparity between the two teams would be that much more drastic.  (How do you think Arizona at Carolina or Pittsburgh at New England would've gone?)

To illustrate that last point, here's what the 2-7 games would've been in each of the past five seasons, with the record of the third wild card team in parentheses: 2013-Pittsburgh (8-8) at New England, Arizona (10-6) at Carolina; 2012-Pittsburgh (8-8) at New England, Chicago (10-6) at San Francisco; 2011-Tennessee (9-7) at Baltimore, Chicago (8-8) at San Francisco; 2010-San Diego (9-7) at Pittsburgh, N.Y. Giants (10-6) at Chicago; 2009-Houston (9-7) at San Diego, Atlanta (9-7) at Minnesota.

Furthermore, a playoff field of seven teams per conference gives the 1-seed too much of an advantage.  I know some would say that's a good thing, especially with the lack of No. 1 seeds even making it to the Super Bowl in recent years, but it's not.  The difference between No. 1 and 2 usually isn't that great, and they often finish with the same record, only to have the seeds determined by tiebreakers.  Now imagine if that tiebreaker (between two 13-3 teams) meant one of them had to win two home games before going on the road for a Conference Championship Game against an opponent that only had to play once.  Talk about a major advantage, especially if it's over an evenly-matched team, just because you won a tiebreaker.  (Sure, we have the possibility of that now, but the only way you have to play three in a row is by winning at least one on the road.  That's the difference.)

This being the NFL, more specifically, NFL owners and their never-ending quest for more of the American public's money, it seems likely that a seventh playoff team in each conference is inevitable.  It's not that they can't do it.  Adding a 1:00 game on Saturday and an 8:00 game on Sunday during Wild Card Weekend is easy enough.  It's that they shouldn't.

There are a lot of reasons why the NFL is King.  The playoffs, which are compelling and competitive every year, are one of them.  And the playoffs work so well because of the way they're structured.  Don't mess with that structure just because.  Whatever argument expanded playoff advocates might want to make for why it's a good idea, they're not going to convince me.  Two extra playoff teams (especially ones that would be mediocre compared to the rest of the field) is not something the NFL needs.

If given my choice between 14-team playoffs and an 18-game schedule, I'll take the two extra playoff games.  Although, my preference would be (c) None of the above.  Hopefully common sense prevails and the NFL playoffs stay the way they are.  Which is about as perfect as they can get.

NFL Wild Card Picks

We've reached the first weekend in January and the start of the NFL playoffs.  In my opinion, Seattle and Denver are far-and-away the two best teams, and they seem on a collision course for MetLife Stadium, but we always get a couple of surprises.  It wouldn't shock me at all to see one of the teams playing this weekend also playing on February 2.  Especially if that team is San Francisco, Philadelphia or Cincinnati.

This week's picks will start in the AFC, where a crazy Week 17 almost resulted in the Pittsburgh Steelers somehow making the playoffs.  In fact, considering the officiating mistakes in San Diego, they probably should've.  We also lost the defending champion Ravens, which is a good thing for the four division champs.  Because they would've been tough.

Chiefs (11-5) at Colts (11-5): Indianapolis-The Chiefs lost five of their last seven games, but had built such a comfortable cushion after that 9-0 start that they were locked into the No. 5 position last week, so they rested their starters.  And still almost won!  Well, Tamba Hali, Dwayne Bowe and all the rest will be in action for the Chiefs against Indy.  The Colts are an odd team.  They went "just" 11-5 and lost some games they had no business losing, but they also beat the Broncos, Seahawks, 49ers and, most significantly (at least for this week), the Chiefs.  That game was just two weeks ago in Kansas City, one of the toughest places for a visiting team to play anywhere in the NFL.  I think that's an indicator of what we can see here. 

Indy won the weakest division in football, but they're by no means a weak team.  All those wins over the better teams prove it.  If that win over the Chiefs had been earlier in the year, it wouldn't be as significant, but both teams went into that game knowing it was probably a playoff preview, and it was all Indy.  Now they're meeting again at Lucas Oil Stadium.  I simply don't see it going any differently.  Besides, there's a part of me that really wants to see Peyton beat the Colts next week.  The only way that can happen is if the Colts knock off Kansas City first.

Chargers (9-7) at Bengals (11-5): Cincinnati-All week, people have been dumping on the Chargers, calling them the "worst" of the 12 playoff teams.  While I agree that they're the weakest team in either field, and that they had a playoff berth handed to them on a silver platter and almost gave it away against the Chiefs' backups, they still deserve credit for getting here.  San Diego was 5-7 on December 1.  Then they won their last four games to clinch a playoff berth, over the defending champs and a very good Miami team.  The turning point?  That December 1 game.  A 17-10 loss to Cincinnati.

I see this regular season rematch going much the same way as the Indianapolis-San Diego rematch.  The Bengals aren't just better than the Chargers, they're significantly better.  It wouldn't surprise me if they won on the road in New England next week.  If this game was being played in sunny San Diego, I'd like the Chargers' chances at keeping the game at least competitive, but the most underrated team in the NFL has the added advantage of playing at home in frigid Cincinnati.  It would be the upset of the week if the Bengals don't get their first playoff win since 1990.

Moving on to the NFC, we've got a pair of intriguing matchups.  The Packers and Eagles both won winner-take-all games on the road last week to clinch their respective divisions.  And as a prize, they get to host the two best wild card teams of the entire bunch.  The Packers won three road games and the Super Bowl a few years ago, so they know it can be done.  Especially when it's San Francisco and New Orleans that have the chance to do it.

Saints (11-5) at Eagles (10-6): Philadelphia-The Saints aren't going to do it, though.  By not winning the NFC South, they lost the biggest advantage they have.  Instead of playing one game at the Superdome and hoping for a Seahawks loss, now they're going to have to win three times on the road in order to get to the Super Bowl.  And the difference between home and away is like night and day for this team.  They went 8-0 at home and 3-5 on the road, including losses to the Jets and Patriots when the weather in the Northeast was much more friendly than it will be on a Saturday night in January.

Let's not forget, too, that New Orleans is playing one of the hottest teams in football.  The Eagles were 3-5 at the midway point.  They're 7-1 since and flat scary.  Nobody wants to play the Eagles right now, especially in Philadelphia.  That team, those fans and the weather are not a good trifecta for a Saints team that likes its comfortable dome down South.  This has all the makings of Philly's third straight primetime victory on NBC.  I wonder if they're going to petition the NFL to play the Panther game on Saturday night instead of Sunday afternoon next week.  (Or, at the very least, see if Al and Cris can call it.)

49ers (12-4) at Packers (8-7-1): San Francisco-For all this talk about how San Diego doesn't belong in the playoffs, how about Green Bay?  The only reason people are OK with it is because they're the Green Bay Packers.  But they're by far the weakest team of the 12.  If the Lions and Bears hadn't pissed away the month of December, the Packers wouldn't have even been in that position last week.  I give them credit for pulling it off, and Aaron Rodgers coming back is certainly a huge help, but they're playing a very good 49ers team in the Game of the Week, and they haven't had much success against San Francisco in the past year-and-a-half (2012 Week 1: 49ers 30-22 in Green Bay, 2012 Divisional Playoffs: 49ers 45-31 in San Francisco, 2013 Week 1: 49ers 34-28 in San Francisco).

I don't see the annual 49ers-Packers playoff game going any differently this time.  The weather will likely be a factor (which is why some people are back on that whole "the team with the better record should get the home game" bandwagon), but not enough to make Green Bay the favorite.  San Francisco's plenty capable of running the ball, and isn't completely inexperienced in late-season cold-weather games (they won in New England on a Sunday night in Week 15 last season and on a Monday night in Washington in Week 12 this year).  The Packers did a great job to go from 5-6-1 to their annual NFC North title and home playoff game at Lambeau, but New Orleans would've been the better matchup.  They'll learn the importance of getting the 3-seed as opposed to the 4.  Because third-seeded Philly's going to win.  Green Bay won't.

Divisional Playoff matchups: Indianapolis at Denver, Cincinnati at New England, San Francisco at Seattle, Philadelphia at Carolina

Last Week: 13-3
Regular Season: 167-88-1

Looking at the Hockey Team

As has become custom, the U.S. Olympic hockey team was announced following the Winter Classic on Wednesday afternoon.  Frankly, there weren't that many surprises, and, considering the number of returners from the silver medal-winning Vancouver team, there weren't that many spots available.  But that doesn't mean there weren't deserving guys left off the roster.  That's what happens when you've got such a large talent pool and only 25 places on the team.

The silver in Vancouver was considered a surprise, and it was won almost single-handedly by Ryan Miller.  As a result of that finish, expectations for the U.S. are unreasonably high heading into Sochi.  I'm not saying they'll fail as spectacularly as the 2006 squad, but they aren't (and shouldn't be among the favorites).  The U.S. is seeded seventh and in the same pool as the top-seeded, gold medal-favored, Russian hosts.  Throw in teams like Canada, Sweden, the Czech Republic and the larger ice surface, and it's not going to be smooth sailing for the Americans. 

With that being said, however, it's not at all unreasonable to think they're capable of repeating what they did in Vancouver.  This is a talented bunch that's Olympic and playoff tested.  Plus, the U.S. team might boast the strongest goaltending corps in the tournament with Ryan Miller and Jonathan Quick as 1 and 1A in whatever order.  Since the goalies are once again going to be the stars of the team, that's as good a place as any to start breaking down the roster:

Goalies: Jimmy Howard, Ryan Miller, Jonathan Quick
When NBC kept putting up that poll question asking who should be the Team USA goalie during the Winter Classic, it was driving me crazy.  Why were Ryan Miller and Jonathan Quick included?  There was absolutely no possible way either one wasn't making the team.  The question should've been "Who'll be the third goalie?"  I'm fine with the selection on Jimmy Howard there.  Howard hasn't put up great numbers this season, but he has the name recognition and the pedigree to have earned the spot.  (Besides, they were announcing the team in Detroit.)  After all, the third goalie on this team is merely decoration.  The real question is whether you start Miller or Quick.

Heading into the season, I thought it was a no-brainer that Jonathan Quick deserved to be the Olympic starter.  He's won a Stanley Cup and a Conn Smythe Trophy and been a Vezina finalist.  Without question, Quick has had the best past couple seasons of any American goalie.  But it was Ryan Miller, of course, who was MVP of the Vancouver Olympics.  While his NHL numbers haven't been great (mainly due to being on a terrible Buffalo team), that alone was almost enough to guarantee his place in net, even after Quick's emergence.  Quick has been injured this season, so I'd start Miller in the opener against Slovakia.  I'd then go with Quick in the second game against Slovenia, and then decide who the No. 1 goalie is after that game.  That's who starts against Russia.

Defensemen: John Carlson, Justin Faulk, Cam Fowler, Paul Martin, Ryan McDonagh, Brooks Orpik, Kevin Shattenkirk, Ryan Suter
People were discussing Predators rookie Seth Jones as a potential selection, but I really would've been surprised had he made it.  Jones will likely be among the defensive stalwarts for the 2018 team, but he's not among the top-eight American-born defensemen in the NHL, and he's got plenty of time to gain international experience.  Taking up an Olympic roster spot that had been earned by others wasn't the place to do that.

After all, Jack and Erik Johnson both didn't make the team, either.  I'm somewhat surprised Jack didn't.  His play was solid in Vancouver, and he stacks up favorably with the group of defensemen that made it.  I maybe would've taken him over Shattenkirk or Faulk.  Although, I think it's likely Jack Johnson is the first guy to get a call as an injury replacement.  That same argument could be made for Erik Johnson, as well.  They're the only 2010 Olympians who were invited to the Team USA training camp that won't be going to Sochi.

As for the defensemen actually headed to Russia, the USA's very strong at the top.  Brooks Orpik and Ryan Suter were both on the team in Vancouver, and they'll likely be the defensive anchors this time.  Some might question Orpik's selection, but he plays for Team USA Coach Dan Bylsma in Pittsburgh.  I don't think there was ever any doubt Orpik would be on the team.  The other two guys that were considered virtual locks were Ryan McDonagh of the Rangers and the ubertalented John Carlson of the Capitals.  Paul Martin also seemed like a lock, which is well-deserved after injury kept him out of Vancouver.  Overall, this is a strong defensive corps that should help keep the pressure off Miller/Quick.  If I were Bylsma, I'd set up my pairings this way: McDonagh/Suter, Orpik/Carlson, Martin/Fowler.

Forwards: David Backes, Dustin Brown, Ryan Callahan, Patrick Kane, Ryan Kesler, Phil Kessel, T.J. Oshie, Max Pacioretty, Zach Parise, Joe Pavelski, Paul Stastny, Derek Stepan, James van Riemsdyk, Blake Wheeler
With nine of the 14 forward spots being taken by returning Olympians, there's not really much arguing you can do with these selections.  Sure, convincing arguments could've been made for the inclusion of a Kyle Okposo or a Brandon Dubinsky or a Jason Pominville, there are really only two omissions that surprised me.  One is 2010 Olympian Bobby Ryan, who leads Ottawa in goals.  I thought Ryan was a virtual lock.  Likewise, I'm surprised Brandon Saad of the Blackhawks isn't on the team.  Sure he's young, but he was also a major part of a Stanley Cup winner as a rookie last season, and it would've made sense for him to play on the same line as Kane in Vancouver.  However, like Jones, Saad will have plenty of Olympic teams in his future, starting in Korea in 2018.

Among the five newcomers to the Olympic roster, I can't argue with any of them.  James Van Riemsdyk has been clutch in both Philadelphia and Toronto over the past couple seasons.  He was an easy one.  Montreal's Max Pacioretty is perhaps best known as the recipient of that nasty open-ice hit against Boston a couple years ago, but he's a solid fourth-line forward for this team.  I'm not sure how much he'll play, but I'm glad Derek Stepan made it.  That shows the power (and importance) of having NHL teammates as Olympic teammates.  Stepan and Ryan Callahan play on the same line a lot of the time.  That had to have been taken into consideration.  In my opinion, T.J. Oshie and Blake Wheeler were probably the last two guys to make the cut, and Oshie's being a teammate of David Backes had to help.

Injury concerns are the real issue among the Team USA forwards.  Ryan Callahan has been out for a while, so whether or not he'll be able to play is up in the air.  Same thing about Zach Parise, although he's back now for Minnesota and looks good to go for Sochi.  Not having Parise available would be a big loss.  Along with Kane and Kessel, he's the most dynamic scorer of the bunch.

There's plenty of leadership on this roster, as well.  Backes, Brown and Callahan are all captains of their NHL teams, and there are more assistant captains than I can count.  The biggest problem Bylsma's going to have with this group of forwards will be figuring out lines and how to divide ice time.  As for the lines, I'm willing to help him out.  Here are my suggestions: Kane/Kesler/Parise, Backes/Brown/Pavelski, Kessel/van Riemsdyk/Stastny, Callahan/Stepan/Pacioretty.