One month into this baseball season, the American League has been dominated by a pair of rookies. Some might argue that they aren't technically "rookies" because they're actually seasoned veterans from other leagues, but I don't share this view. If they're eligible for the Rookie of the Year Award, they're rookies in my book. And Masahiro Tanaka and Jose Abreu are two of the most impressive rookies I've seen in quite a long time.
Tanaka was the first Japanese player to come over under the new posting system that allowed him to pick his own team. Most assumed, when the old system was still in place, that the Yankees would simply outbid everybody to land Tanaka. Well, they are paying him handsomely, but Tanaka chose to be a Yankee. And what they're paying him has, so far, proved to be a bargain.
The Yankees went after Tanaka hard because they knew they badly needed to upgrade their rotation. But I bet there was still some level of uncertainty. Sure, he went 24-0 in Japan last year and was dominant in the 2013 World Baseball Classic, but how would he handle the transition to the Major Leagues? Pretty well it turns out. He's absolutely worth every penny.
Of course, there are the critics who point to the fact that Daisuke Matsuzaka was just as amazing when he first came over in 2007. Or they could point to Hideo Nomo's Rookie of the Year season in 1995. Whether or not Tanaka continues to be this impressive or ends up like one of those guys remains to be seen. But it also doesn't matter. We're not talking about five years from now. We're talking about the first month of 2014. And the Masahiro Tanaka of April 2014 is pretty damn good. That success in Japan wasn't a fluke. He's the real deal.
While there aren't many people who are surprised about Tanaka's success, Jose Abreu's is a little more unexpected. Although, I think that can be attributed to the fact that very people know about Jose Abreu. The only information teams had to go by with him was his performances with the Cuban National Team. Well, the White Sox took a risk, and they were rewarded for it.
After signing him to that big contract, the White Sox were going to have to find a way to get Abreu into a lineup that already included Adam Dunn and Paul Konerko. Well, as it turns out, they can't take him out of the lineup. Not unless they want to go without the American League leader in home runs and RBIs, their first legitimate middle-of-the-order power threat since newly-elected Hall of Famer Frank Thomas.
Abreu is the latest in the line of Cuban players who've made the jump to the Majors without missing a beat. In the past three seasons alone, there's been Yoenis Cespedes, Yasiel Puig and Jose Fernandez, to name just a few. Their success is an indication that Cuban free agents are just as worth the risk as Japanese free agents.
I'm glad we've still got five months for these two to settle out the Rookie of the Year race. Because right now it's too close to call. Especially since Tanaka is one of the leading contenders for the Cy Young right now. In fact, I'd say he's probably THE leading candidate for the AL Cy Young after a month.
If I had a vote and I had to cast it today, it would probably go to Abreu. Most people expected Tanaka to put up these type of numbers, but I don't think anyone thought Jose Abreu would be this good. He's the most important hitter in that White Sox lineup. They've both been fabulous, but in this case, I've got to go with the everyday player. Especially since he's the difference-maker for a White Sox team that finished last in 2013, but is just two games out of first at the end of April in 2014.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Not Sterling Behavior
The allegations against Clippers owner Donald Sterling are truly disgusting. There's no other way to put it. There's no place for that type of behavior in sports. And if they are able to prove that it is Sterling's voice on that tape, then I don't think NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has any other recourse. Sterling should no longer be allowed to have any association with the NBA, yet alone own a team.
Of course, these are still just allegations at this point. It's important not to jump to conclusions. Because, for argument's sake, if that wasn't him, Sterling would have pretty good grounds for a lawsuit. Although, I think his silence since this all broke speaks volumes. He hasn't said anything. No immediate damage control press conference seeking to clarify the remarks. Nothing.
All of the residual effects of this scandal have been plenty damaging as well. Sponsors are disassociating themselves with the Clippers left and right. And more are likely to follow unless/until Sterling sells the team. What happened is completely unacceptable. I don't blame them for one second for wanting to take their business elsewhere. It's LA. There are plenty of sponsorship opportunities available.
It's also telling that the Clippers players and coach Doc Rivers want nothing to do with Donald Sterling right now, either. Rivers, who is black, refused a meeting with Sterling, and he's now contemplating whether he wants to return to the team. But what the players did is even more remarkable. They wore their alternate "Los Angeles" road jerseys for Sunday night's game at Golden State, and they refused to wear any Clippers gear during warmups, instead wearing their shirts inside out. They also wore black socks, and were joined in this sign of solidarity by members of the Blazers and Rockets.
The players union is very definitive in its stance. They want Sterling out of the league. As soon as possible. Same thing with a bunch of other owners. I can't say I disagree with them. Unfortunately, though, it's not that simple. They can't just make him sell the team. Although, the other 29 owners, the league office and the players union could provide enough pressure that they'd leave him with very little choice. Nobody will want to be in business with someone who can make comments like that in 2014.
Even if they do make him sell, I'd imagine that Sterling will stubbornly hold onto the Clippers for dear life until the last possible moment, when they forcibly drag him away kicking and screaming. This is the same city where Frank McCourt drove the Dodgers into the ground, yet refused to sell until ordered to by a judge.
I'm not exactly sure how the process works, but I think we're more likely to see a George Steinbrenner-type situation here. Steinbrenner was suspended for two years in the mid-90s because of, well, a lot of things, but mainly because he hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield.
Donald Sterling has been bad for the NBA for a long time. Remember, the Clippers were awful for a very long time because he simply showed no interest in fielding a competitive team. He was making money anyway, and without having to shell it out to the players, Sterling was able to pocket more. This isn't even the first time race has come up with him. Sterling allegedly made racial remarks towards Lakers legend Elgin Baylor while Baylor was the Clippers' GM.
If Donald Sterling indeed made these remarks, and all signs point towards that being the case, the NBA needs to come down on him hard. This type of behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. They need to make an example of Donald Sterling. He can't get away with it. Fortunately, he's not going to.
Of course, these are still just allegations at this point. It's important not to jump to conclusions. Because, for argument's sake, if that wasn't him, Sterling would have pretty good grounds for a lawsuit. Although, I think his silence since this all broke speaks volumes. He hasn't said anything. No immediate damage control press conference seeking to clarify the remarks. Nothing.
All of the residual effects of this scandal have been plenty damaging as well. Sponsors are disassociating themselves with the Clippers left and right. And more are likely to follow unless/until Sterling sells the team. What happened is completely unacceptable. I don't blame them for one second for wanting to take their business elsewhere. It's LA. There are plenty of sponsorship opportunities available.
It's also telling that the Clippers players and coach Doc Rivers want nothing to do with Donald Sterling right now, either. Rivers, who is black, refused a meeting with Sterling, and he's now contemplating whether he wants to return to the team. But what the players did is even more remarkable. They wore their alternate "Los Angeles" road jerseys for Sunday night's game at Golden State, and they refused to wear any Clippers gear during warmups, instead wearing their shirts inside out. They also wore black socks, and were joined in this sign of solidarity by members of the Blazers and Rockets.
The players union is very definitive in its stance. They want Sterling out of the league. As soon as possible. Same thing with a bunch of other owners. I can't say I disagree with them. Unfortunately, though, it's not that simple. They can't just make him sell the team. Although, the other 29 owners, the league office and the players union could provide enough pressure that they'd leave him with very little choice. Nobody will want to be in business with someone who can make comments like that in 2014.
Even if they do make him sell, I'd imagine that Sterling will stubbornly hold onto the Clippers for dear life until the last possible moment, when they forcibly drag him away kicking and screaming. This is the same city where Frank McCourt drove the Dodgers into the ground, yet refused to sell until ordered to by a judge.
I'm not exactly sure how the process works, but I think we're more likely to see a George Steinbrenner-type situation here. Steinbrenner was suspended for two years in the mid-90s because of, well, a lot of things, but mainly because he hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield.
Donald Sterling has been bad for the NBA for a long time. Remember, the Clippers were awful for a very long time because he simply showed no interest in fielding a competitive team. He was making money anyway, and without having to shell it out to the players, Sterling was able to pocket more. This isn't even the first time race has come up with him. Sterling allegedly made racial remarks towards Lakers legend Elgin Baylor while Baylor was the Clippers' GM.
If Donald Sterling indeed made these remarks, and all signs point towards that being the case, the NBA needs to come down on him hard. This type of behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. They need to make an example of Donald Sterling. He can't get away with it. Fortunately, he's not going to.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
A Tommy John Epidemic
Along with the debut of replay, the other big story that has dominated the start of this baseball season has been the abundance of elbow injuries by pitchers. The list of pitchers that have had to have Tommy John surgery this season is alarmingly high. It's somewhere around 15 right now, and we aren't even through April yet!
And that doesn't even include guys like Matt Harvey who currently aren't playing while they rehab from a Tommy John. Or your Stephen Strasburgs, the guys who've had TJ at some point. No, I'm talking specifically about the sheer number of serious elbow injuries that have required Tommy John surgery since the start of Spring Training 2014 alone. And it's not just the exorbitant number. Some of these guys are having a second Tommy John surgery!
Of course, Tommy John surgery is a good thing. Before it became commonplace, the only real options that pitchers had were to pitch through the pain or retire. During the Yankee game the other day, when Al Leiter and David Cone were the analysts, they were talking about Ivan Nova (who's having Tommy John surgery on Tuesday). Leiter and Cone basically came to that conclusion. There obviously were elbow injuries in the '50s and '60s. There was just not really anything that could be done about them. And without guaranteed contracts, the options were fairly limited.
But Al Leiter also made a really good point. He noted that pitchers tear ligaments in their arm every time they take the mound. It makes sense. Those ligaments are so small that you'd imagine it's probably fairly easy to tear one. In fact, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to say that you don't even need to be a pitcher to tear these tiny ligaments. They're so minute, regular people can probably tear them simply by going about their everyday routine. Basically, what Leiter was saying is that it's not surprising to hear pitchers tear these arm ligaments. That's one of the reasons starters are given five days off before pitching again.
Tommy John himself wants to organize a "class picture" of all the pitchers who've had the surgery. Dr. Frank Jobe, the doctor who saved John's career with what was then a revolutionary procedure, passed away a few months ago. This is also the 40th anniversary of that first procedure. That's what makes this year's trend even freakier. I'm sure it's just coincidence, but it's weird all the same.
John's career was the first of many that have been extended as a result of the surgery, but even John is alarmed by the current trend. The rate seems disproportionate. Every time you hear about a pitcher going on the DL, you have a feeling you know the reason. You might hope it's something else. Or that rehab can do the trick. But you also know that once they start wondering "if" it might require surgery, the "when" becomes inevitable.
There are plenty of theories as to why this trend is developing, and I think the one John suggested makes a lot of sense. (When it comes to Tommy John surgery, I'm listening to Tommy John.) He insinuated that it wasn't the act of throwing pitches in the Major Leagues that screws up your elbow. It's doing that act repeatedly on your way to the Major Leagues. Your arm is not designed to make the motion of throwing a baseball overhand over and over again. Yet you have these baseball academies and travel teams and private coaches that make it possible to play the game year-round. Well, you know what? Pitching year-round year after year is going to take its toll, especially if you start that routine at an early age.
I agree with Tommy John. Once these guys get to the Majors, their elbows have simply had enough. That's why, for the most part, you end up seeing young, in their prime pitchers suffering these kind of injuries instead of veterans. That might even help explain why so many pitchers end up having Tommy John surgery more than once.
People also know that Tommy John surgery works. Most pitchers who have the procedure end up coming back even stronger than they were before. That might be part of the problem, too, though. Why do you think guys who might need to have it again don't hesitate at all? Even those who contemplate whether or not they should have TJ usually end up having it. I'm not saying these injuries aren't serious. They wouldn't be discussing Tommy John surgery if they weren't. What I'm saying is that the decision whether or not to have Tommy John surgery is usually an easy one. Whether that's good or bad, I'm not sure.
The thing that I do know is this trend is disturbing. Not because of the number of Major League pitchers that end up missing a year-plus while they rehab from Tommy John. Injuries are a part of the game. But the age of these pitchers and the number of college/high school pitchers having the same problems is the really disturbing part.
Until something's done to actually let these guys rest their arms and not play baseball 24/7/365, the trend's only going to continue. Rest. At a young age. That's the only way to curb the abundance of Tommy John surgeries.
And that doesn't even include guys like Matt Harvey who currently aren't playing while they rehab from a Tommy John. Or your Stephen Strasburgs, the guys who've had TJ at some point. No, I'm talking specifically about the sheer number of serious elbow injuries that have required Tommy John surgery since the start of Spring Training 2014 alone. And it's not just the exorbitant number. Some of these guys are having a second Tommy John surgery!
Of course, Tommy John surgery is a good thing. Before it became commonplace, the only real options that pitchers had were to pitch through the pain or retire. During the Yankee game the other day, when Al Leiter and David Cone were the analysts, they were talking about Ivan Nova (who's having Tommy John surgery on Tuesday). Leiter and Cone basically came to that conclusion. There obviously were elbow injuries in the '50s and '60s. There was just not really anything that could be done about them. And without guaranteed contracts, the options were fairly limited.
But Al Leiter also made a really good point. He noted that pitchers tear ligaments in their arm every time they take the mound. It makes sense. Those ligaments are so small that you'd imagine it's probably fairly easy to tear one. In fact, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to say that you don't even need to be a pitcher to tear these tiny ligaments. They're so minute, regular people can probably tear them simply by going about their everyday routine. Basically, what Leiter was saying is that it's not surprising to hear pitchers tear these arm ligaments. That's one of the reasons starters are given five days off before pitching again.
Tommy John himself wants to organize a "class picture" of all the pitchers who've had the surgery. Dr. Frank Jobe, the doctor who saved John's career with what was then a revolutionary procedure, passed away a few months ago. This is also the 40th anniversary of that first procedure. That's what makes this year's trend even freakier. I'm sure it's just coincidence, but it's weird all the same.
John's career was the first of many that have been extended as a result of the surgery, but even John is alarmed by the current trend. The rate seems disproportionate. Every time you hear about a pitcher going on the DL, you have a feeling you know the reason. You might hope it's something else. Or that rehab can do the trick. But you also know that once they start wondering "if" it might require surgery, the "when" becomes inevitable.
There are plenty of theories as to why this trend is developing, and I think the one John suggested makes a lot of sense. (When it comes to Tommy John surgery, I'm listening to Tommy John.) He insinuated that it wasn't the act of throwing pitches in the Major Leagues that screws up your elbow. It's doing that act repeatedly on your way to the Major Leagues. Your arm is not designed to make the motion of throwing a baseball overhand over and over again. Yet you have these baseball academies and travel teams and private coaches that make it possible to play the game year-round. Well, you know what? Pitching year-round year after year is going to take its toll, especially if you start that routine at an early age.
I agree with Tommy John. Once these guys get to the Majors, their elbows have simply had enough. That's why, for the most part, you end up seeing young, in their prime pitchers suffering these kind of injuries instead of veterans. That might even help explain why so many pitchers end up having Tommy John surgery more than once.
People also know that Tommy John surgery works. Most pitchers who have the procedure end up coming back even stronger than they were before. That might be part of the problem, too, though. Why do you think guys who might need to have it again don't hesitate at all? Even those who contemplate whether or not they should have TJ usually end up having it. I'm not saying these injuries aren't serious. They wouldn't be discussing Tommy John surgery if they weren't. What I'm saying is that the decision whether or not to have Tommy John surgery is usually an easy one. Whether that's good or bad, I'm not sure.
The thing that I do know is this trend is disturbing. Not because of the number of Major League pitchers that end up missing a year-plus while they rehab from Tommy John. Injuries are a part of the game. But the age of these pitchers and the number of college/high school pitchers having the same problems is the really disturbing part.
Until something's done to actually let these guys rest their arms and not play baseball 24/7/365, the trend's only going to continue. Rest. At a young age. That's the only way to curb the abundance of Tommy John surgeries.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
The Whole NFL Schedule
Yesterday I took a look at the Giants' 2014 schedule. Today it's time to break down the entire 2014 NFL slate. Of course, they threw some wrinkles into it this year. Three London games, half the Thursday schedule on CBS, Saturday games are back. And we still don't know whether it's six or seven teams making the playoffs in each conference. That's a potentially huge change. I'm curious to see if the owners decide to do it this year or wait until next year (which they should).
Week 1: The Seahawks play the traditional Super Bowl champion Thursday night opener against the Packers. Most people probably figured they'd be playing San Francisco, but Green Bay's a fine choice. Especially since the last time Green Bay played in Seattle was that Monday night game where they got screwed by the replacement refs, which brought an end to the lockout at the very least. The other Super Bowl team will also open on NBC. NBC loves its Peyton Manning opener, and they're going to start with Round II of Peyton vs. the Colts, this time in Denver. After last season's Colts win, Indy is still the only team Peyton has never beaten. The Monday night doubleheader is Giants-Lions and Chargers-Cardinals, while FOX has the national late game because of the US Open, and it's Cowboys-49ers. Something else I noticed...despite being in Chicago, the Bills-Bears game is on FOX. That balances out the afternoon games at 6 and 6, which is probably part of the reason they have that new "cross-flex" thing in the schedule.
Week 2: The first CBS-NFL Network joint venture is a primetime staple: Steelers at Ravens. Monday night, we've got a pair of 2013 division winners--Philadelphia and Indianapolis. Back-to-back primetime games for the Colts to start the season. The Sunday night game is also a good one between the Bears and 49ers. It's the first CBS doubleheader week, and they've got Chiefs-Broncos in the late game. Not a bad pair of games for Jim and Phil. There's also a good one between Seattle and San Diego.
Week 3: The most surprising thing on this year's schedule, to me, is that the Super Bowl rematch is not in primetime. Instead, Broncos at Seahawks is a fantastic CBS doubleheader game. FOX gets a good one, too, as DeSean Jackson returns to Philly for the first time as a member of the Redskins. The theory that they'd frontload all the best Thursday night games proved to be incorrect, since this week's offering is Tampa Bay-Atlanta. The Sunday and Monday night games aren't much better. Steelers-Panthers and Bears-Jets.
Week 4: Our first week of byes gives us six teams off. The standard NFC East national game is Giants-Redskins on Thursday night, while my early guess for Thanksgiving, New Orleans at Dallas, is the Sunday night game. We don't get all four NFC East teams in primetime, though. The Eagles are the national doubleheader game in San Francisco. Meanwhile, the Raiders play a "home" game against Miami in London. Monday night is New England-Kansas City. Another network crossover here, too, with the Panthers at Ravens game on CBS instead of FOX.
Week 5: With Miami and Oakland coming back from London, they're the only teams with byes. Another division rivalry is renewed on Thursday night, as the Vikings head to Lambeau. It's the Packers' second Thursday night game in the first five weeks of the season. Other good ones include Bengals-Patriots on Sunday night, Chiefs at 49ers in Alex Smith's return to San Francisco, and Ravens at Colts. The Seahawks have to fly cross country and play a Monday night game in the other Washington, while the Bills play a road game against an NFC team on FOX for the second straight time.
Week 6: Colts-Texans is either a really good Thursday night game or a really crappy one. My guess is the NFL wants to feature the No. 1 pick, whether that be Johnny Manziel or Jadaveon Clowney or someone else. Division games all over the place. Giants-Eagles fun on Sunday night, with 49ers-Rams on Monday night. The national doubleheader game is also yummy, Dallas at Seattle. Denver, meanwhile, returns to the scene of the crime with a game at MetLife Stadium against the Jets.
Week 7: The Jets and Patriots renew acquaintances in a Thursday night game everybody saw coming. San Francisco and Denver on Sunday night. The Monday night game's not that good, though. Houston at Pittsburgh. I'm more intrigued by the Panthers-Packers, Chiefs-Chargers and Bengals-Colts afternoon games that make me glad I have Red Zone. Only one Giants-Cowboys game per year is scheduled to be in primetime, so this is the one FOX gets.
Week 8: An unfair short week for the Broncos, as they go from Sunday night to Thursday night. At least they won't have to travel, as they host the Chargers. Two teams that will have to travel a lot are the Lions and Falcons, who have that 9:30 am kickoff in London. Meanwhile, the Ravens play the Bengals and the Bears play the Patriots in regular early games, and Colts-Steelers is the national late game. Packers at Saints on Sunday night, Washington at Dallas on Monday night.
Week 9: Another Sunday night to Thursday night, this time for New Orleans, which goes to Carolina for the final CBS-NFL Network simulcast. The Ravens-Steelers rivalry gets primetime treatment twice, this time on Sunday night. Manning vs. Brady is a CBS late game, so I can see that one getting flexed. Speaking of Manning, Eli's facing the Colts without Peyton for the first time on Monday night.
Week 10: Cleveland-Cincinnati is the first NFL Network-only Thursday night game. Dallas is the visiting team in Jacksonville's annual London home game, the third and final installment of this season's ventures across the pond. Just like Ravens-Steelers, the Bears-Packers rivalry is featured in primetime twice. They're in Lambeau on Sunday night. Lots of good NFC games this week: San Francisco at New Orleans early, Giants at Seattle late, Carolina at Philadelphia on Monday.
Week 11: Thursday Night Rivalry continues with Buffalo at Miami. They didn't take New England-Denver for Sunday night, but they did take New England-Indy. Although, I can see that game getting replaced by Green Bay-Philly. Two other matchups of playoff teams, too--Cincinnati at New Orleans and Seattle at Kansas City. For a team that missed the playoffs, Pittsburgh's playing in primetime a lot. They've got the Week 11 Monday nighter in Tennessee.
Week 12: Here's my problem with Week 12: the Cowboys should NOT be forced to play the Sunday night game right before Thanksgiving. Yet they are, at the Giants. The Monday night game is really good: Baltimore at New Orleans. As for Thursday night, the rivalry trend continues, as it's Kansas City at Oakland. For some reason, the Redskins-49ers game is on CBS, even though CBS already had a Miami-Denver late game.
Week 13: It's the Lions' year to be on CBS on Thanksgiving...so of course they're playing the Bears. I'm not a fan of this entirely NFC Thanksgiving thing, and I'm sure it wouldn't have happened if Detroit was hosting instead of at New England and the Jets. At the very least, they should've given the AFC the night game, although I get why they wanted to put Seattle-San Francisco in that spot. Philadelphia at Dallas isn't a problem with me at all. Neither is New England-Green Bay as a full national broadcast in the late game. Broncos-Chiefs is the Sunday night game, at least for now, and Dolphins-Jets is the Monday night game.
Week 14: The NFL did something very interesting, and I like it. Dallas and Chicago aren't getting the automatic long week after playing on Thanksgiving. Instead, they're playing on consecutive Thursdays. Pittsburgh-Cincinnati and Carolina-New Orleans early, Seahawks-Eagles in a good national late game. And the fun of 49ers-Raiders, who don't meet in the preseason anymore because the fans hate each other so much. New England at San Diego on Sunday night should be fun, and Atlanta visits Green Bay on Monday night.
Week 15: All four NFC West teams face each other. Arizona at St. Louis on Thursday, 49ers-Seahawks for the second time in three weeks in an exclusive national late game. Another Thanksgiving rematch just two weeks later is the second Cowboys-Eagles game, which is on Sunday night (and Dallas' third straight national game). Ditto for Chicago, which hosts New Orleans on Monday night. Denver and San Diego's rematch is in Week 15, as well.
Week 16: I'm a little confused about the return of the Saturday games. They're both listed as 4:30 starts, and they both have both the NFL Network and CBS logos next to them on the NFL.com schedule. Does that mean one's on one network and the other's on the other? Anyway, one of those games is Eagles-Redskins, so I figure that means that one'll be on CBS and San Francisco-San Diego will be on NFL Network. The final Thursday night game is Titans-Jaguars, and the final Monday night game is Broncos-Bengals. Seahawks-Cardinals is tentatively scheduled for Sunday night, but with Patriots-Jets, Chiefs-Steelers and Colts-Cowboys also on the schedule, that might change.
Week 17: Early guesses for Sunday night possibilities: Dallas at Washington, San Diego at Kansas City, Philadelphia at Giants and Cincinnati at Pittsburgh. I guess there's an outside shot it could be Indy-Tennessee, as well. Safe bets as to games that won't be on Sunday night: Buffalo at New England, Jets at Miami, Jacksonville at Tennessee, Oakland at Denver.
Week 1: The Seahawks play the traditional Super Bowl champion Thursday night opener against the Packers. Most people probably figured they'd be playing San Francisco, but Green Bay's a fine choice. Especially since the last time Green Bay played in Seattle was that Monday night game where they got screwed by the replacement refs, which brought an end to the lockout at the very least. The other Super Bowl team will also open on NBC. NBC loves its Peyton Manning opener, and they're going to start with Round II of Peyton vs. the Colts, this time in Denver. After last season's Colts win, Indy is still the only team Peyton has never beaten. The Monday night doubleheader is Giants-Lions and Chargers-Cardinals, while FOX has the national late game because of the US Open, and it's Cowboys-49ers. Something else I noticed...despite being in Chicago, the Bills-Bears game is on FOX. That balances out the afternoon games at 6 and 6, which is probably part of the reason they have that new "cross-flex" thing in the schedule.
Week 2: The first CBS-NFL Network joint venture is a primetime staple: Steelers at Ravens. Monday night, we've got a pair of 2013 division winners--Philadelphia and Indianapolis. Back-to-back primetime games for the Colts to start the season. The Sunday night game is also a good one between the Bears and 49ers. It's the first CBS doubleheader week, and they've got Chiefs-Broncos in the late game. Not a bad pair of games for Jim and Phil. There's also a good one between Seattle and San Diego.
Week 3: The most surprising thing on this year's schedule, to me, is that the Super Bowl rematch is not in primetime. Instead, Broncos at Seahawks is a fantastic CBS doubleheader game. FOX gets a good one, too, as DeSean Jackson returns to Philly for the first time as a member of the Redskins. The theory that they'd frontload all the best Thursday night games proved to be incorrect, since this week's offering is Tampa Bay-Atlanta. The Sunday and Monday night games aren't much better. Steelers-Panthers and Bears-Jets.
Week 4: Our first week of byes gives us six teams off. The standard NFC East national game is Giants-Redskins on Thursday night, while my early guess for Thanksgiving, New Orleans at Dallas, is the Sunday night game. We don't get all four NFC East teams in primetime, though. The Eagles are the national doubleheader game in San Francisco. Meanwhile, the Raiders play a "home" game against Miami in London. Monday night is New England-Kansas City. Another network crossover here, too, with the Panthers at Ravens game on CBS instead of FOX.
Week 5: With Miami and Oakland coming back from London, they're the only teams with byes. Another division rivalry is renewed on Thursday night, as the Vikings head to Lambeau. It's the Packers' second Thursday night game in the first five weeks of the season. Other good ones include Bengals-Patriots on Sunday night, Chiefs at 49ers in Alex Smith's return to San Francisco, and Ravens at Colts. The Seahawks have to fly cross country and play a Monday night game in the other Washington, while the Bills play a road game against an NFC team on FOX for the second straight time.
Week 6: Colts-Texans is either a really good Thursday night game or a really crappy one. My guess is the NFL wants to feature the No. 1 pick, whether that be Johnny Manziel or Jadaveon Clowney or someone else. Division games all over the place. Giants-Eagles fun on Sunday night, with 49ers-Rams on Monday night. The national doubleheader game is also yummy, Dallas at Seattle. Denver, meanwhile, returns to the scene of the crime with a game at MetLife Stadium against the Jets.
Week 7: The Jets and Patriots renew acquaintances in a Thursday night game everybody saw coming. San Francisco and Denver on Sunday night. The Monday night game's not that good, though. Houston at Pittsburgh. I'm more intrigued by the Panthers-Packers, Chiefs-Chargers and Bengals-Colts afternoon games that make me glad I have Red Zone. Only one Giants-Cowboys game per year is scheduled to be in primetime, so this is the one FOX gets.
Week 8: An unfair short week for the Broncos, as they go from Sunday night to Thursday night. At least they won't have to travel, as they host the Chargers. Two teams that will have to travel a lot are the Lions and Falcons, who have that 9:30 am kickoff in London. Meanwhile, the Ravens play the Bengals and the Bears play the Patriots in regular early games, and Colts-Steelers is the national late game. Packers at Saints on Sunday night, Washington at Dallas on Monday night.
Week 9: Another Sunday night to Thursday night, this time for New Orleans, which goes to Carolina for the final CBS-NFL Network simulcast. The Ravens-Steelers rivalry gets primetime treatment twice, this time on Sunday night. Manning vs. Brady is a CBS late game, so I can see that one getting flexed. Speaking of Manning, Eli's facing the Colts without Peyton for the first time on Monday night.
Week 10: Cleveland-Cincinnati is the first NFL Network-only Thursday night game. Dallas is the visiting team in Jacksonville's annual London home game, the third and final installment of this season's ventures across the pond. Just like Ravens-Steelers, the Bears-Packers rivalry is featured in primetime twice. They're in Lambeau on Sunday night. Lots of good NFC games this week: San Francisco at New Orleans early, Giants at Seattle late, Carolina at Philadelphia on Monday.
Week 11: Thursday Night Rivalry continues with Buffalo at Miami. They didn't take New England-Denver for Sunday night, but they did take New England-Indy. Although, I can see that game getting replaced by Green Bay-Philly. Two other matchups of playoff teams, too--Cincinnati at New Orleans and Seattle at Kansas City. For a team that missed the playoffs, Pittsburgh's playing in primetime a lot. They've got the Week 11 Monday nighter in Tennessee.
Week 12: Here's my problem with Week 12: the Cowboys should NOT be forced to play the Sunday night game right before Thanksgiving. Yet they are, at the Giants. The Monday night game is really good: Baltimore at New Orleans. As for Thursday night, the rivalry trend continues, as it's Kansas City at Oakland. For some reason, the Redskins-49ers game is on CBS, even though CBS already had a Miami-Denver late game.
Week 13: It's the Lions' year to be on CBS on Thanksgiving...so of course they're playing the Bears. I'm not a fan of this entirely NFC Thanksgiving thing, and I'm sure it wouldn't have happened if Detroit was hosting instead of at New England and the Jets. At the very least, they should've given the AFC the night game, although I get why they wanted to put Seattle-San Francisco in that spot. Philadelphia at Dallas isn't a problem with me at all. Neither is New England-Green Bay as a full national broadcast in the late game. Broncos-Chiefs is the Sunday night game, at least for now, and Dolphins-Jets is the Monday night game.
Week 14: The NFL did something very interesting, and I like it. Dallas and Chicago aren't getting the automatic long week after playing on Thanksgiving. Instead, they're playing on consecutive Thursdays. Pittsburgh-Cincinnati and Carolina-New Orleans early, Seahawks-Eagles in a good national late game. And the fun of 49ers-Raiders, who don't meet in the preseason anymore because the fans hate each other so much. New England at San Diego on Sunday night should be fun, and Atlanta visits Green Bay on Monday night.
Week 15: All four NFC West teams face each other. Arizona at St. Louis on Thursday, 49ers-Seahawks for the second time in three weeks in an exclusive national late game. Another Thanksgiving rematch just two weeks later is the second Cowboys-Eagles game, which is on Sunday night (and Dallas' third straight national game). Ditto for Chicago, which hosts New Orleans on Monday night. Denver and San Diego's rematch is in Week 15, as well.
Week 16: I'm a little confused about the return of the Saturday games. They're both listed as 4:30 starts, and they both have both the NFL Network and CBS logos next to them on the NFL.com schedule. Does that mean one's on one network and the other's on the other? Anyway, one of those games is Eagles-Redskins, so I figure that means that one'll be on CBS and San Francisco-San Diego will be on NFL Network. The final Thursday night game is Titans-Jaguars, and the final Monday night game is Broncos-Bengals. Seahawks-Cardinals is tentatively scheduled for Sunday night, but with Patriots-Jets, Chiefs-Steelers and Colts-Cowboys also on the schedule, that might change.
Week 17: Early guesses for Sunday night possibilities: Dallas at Washington, San Diego at Kansas City, Philadelphia at Giants and Cincinnati at Pittsburgh. I guess there's an outside shot it could be Indy-Tennessee, as well. Safe bets as to games that won't be on Sunday night: Buffalo at New England, Jets at Miami, Jacksonville at Tennessee, Oakland at Denver.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Giants Schedule Breakdown
The NFL schedule is out. The semi-national holiday that is NFL Schedule Release Day has now come and passed, and football fans across the country can now plan their road trips or map out their Sundays for the entire fall. The schedule always provides some interesting analysis, and, after I've gotten a chance to examine it a little more closely, I'll give you my thoughts on the entire 2014 slate. But, for today, we'll just take a look at the schedule the NFL has devised for the New York Football Giants.
Week 1: at Lions (Monday Night)
They get the first half of the season-opening Monday night doubleheader. The Giants haven't opened on Monday night since 2001. That game is significant because of what happened a few hours later. They played the Broncos on Monday night, September 10, 2001. As we all know, the world changed a few hours later, shortly after the Giants landed in New York. Anyway, the Giants beat the Lions in Detroit in overtime in Week 16, then played their last game of the 2013 season at home, so they're actually playing back-to-back road games in Detroit. It's a very interesting matchup between two teams that underachieved last season. This is also the first time in three years the Giants aren't opening against Dallas.
Week 2: vs. Cardinals
Arizona in the home opener. It's the first time the Cardinals will ever play in MetLife Stadium. I like the fact that this is a 1:00 start. Those traditionally give the West Coast teams trouble.
Week 3: vs. Texans
Getting Houston this early could be a very good thing. Because I have a feeling the Texans are better than 2-14. But I also think it'll take them a while to get going, especially if they take a quarterback with the No. 1 pick. Either way, this will be Giants' fans chance to see that No. 1 pick in action. It's also a chance to boost that record to 3-0 before starting division play.
Week 4: at Redskins (Thursday Night)
You knew when CBS bought the first half of the Thursday night package that they'd put some good Thursday night games earlier in the season. And you also had to figure there'd probably be an NFC East game included in there somewhere. Sure enough, it's Giants at Redskins in Week 4. Week 4 is kind of late for the first division game, and the Redskins are probably going to be very tough on the road in a short week. Tougher than usual.
Week 5: vs. Falcons
The early schedule is very kind. This is another chance to bulk up that record before getting into the meat of the schedule. This matchup is sandwiched between all three of the division road games, making it even more important. I'm not going to say a Week 5 game is a must-win, but this is one that could end up costing the Giants later in the year if they don't take it.
Week 6: at Eagles (Sunday Night)
Flex scheduling starts ridiculously early this year, but I think it's safe to say Giants-Eagles isn't going anywhere. The Giants won in Philly last year, but it was the Eagles that went on to win the division title. This is the start of a brutal stretch that continues the next week in Dallas. Getting one of the two has to be the hope. Getting both would be a bonus.
Week 7: vs. Cowboys
After two straight years of meeting in the opener, the Giants and Cowboys don't play until Week 7 this season. It's also weird that they're going to be done with their division road games in mid-October. Anyway, for some reason, they always play well in Jerry's World. Last year was the first time the Giants ever lost there.
Week 8: Bye
They deserve a break after playing all three of their division road games in a four-week period. I, personally, think the Week 8-9-10 byes are the best ones. Directly in the middle of the season.
Week 9: vs. Colts (Monday Night)
OK, this matchup isn't anywhere near as fun now that Peyton's on the Broncos. Eli vs. Luck simply doesn't have the same cache. This, in fact, is the first Giants-Colts game since 2002 that doesn't feature both of the Brothers Manning. It should be an entertaining game nonetheless, as Eli doesn't have to worry about being in his brother's shadow anymore and can just worry about the Indianapolis defense.
Week 10: at Seahawks
The Seahawks have some fond memories of their trips to MetLife Stadium in 2013. First, they beat the Giants 23-0 in Week 15, then returned two months later and clobbered Denver 40-8 in the Super Bowl. So, they probably wish this game was in New York. It's not like that matters too much, though. The Seahawks are the defending champions and they never lose at home. This one'll be tough.
Week 11: vs. 49ers
After flying to the West Coast to meet the Super Bowl champions, the Giants return home to face the team Seattle beat in the NFC title game. It's their third straight game against a 2013 playoff team. This is actually the first time they're meeting in New York in quite some time. And once again, the 1:00 game against a West Coast team is a good thing.
Week 12: vs. Cowboys (Sunday Night)
The annual Giants-Cowboys Sunday night game, although I don't think it's right that Dallas has to play a Sunday night road game right before Thanksgiving. The weird thing about this series is that the Giants always win in Dallas, but the Cowboys always win in New York. Will the trend continue?
Week 13: at Jaguars
Four straight pressure cookers after the bye before the Giants finally catch a break. Tom Coughlin returns to Jacksonville for the second time as Giants coach. Assuming the Jaguars continue their recent tradition of barely resembling an NFL team, this looks like a win for the taking.
Week 14: at Titans
The second straight AFC South road game, which wraps up the Giants' interconference slate. Believe it or not, the Giants have lost five straight to the Oilers/Titans and haven't beaten the franchise in 20 years. That's entirely too long. Time to change that. If they don't do it this year, that streak will reach 24 years before they have a chance at snapping it.
Week 15: vs. Redskins
This is the third straight year in which Washington's visit doesn't come until December. Last year it was Week 17, this year it's Week 15. Assuming they're still in the division race this late in the season, the Giants will be in a great position to control their own fate. Their final two home games are against Washington and Philadelphia.
Week 16: at Rams
The final road game of the season is in St. Louis. I had this one happening earlier in the season, so I guess I didn't win the Rams' $1 billion prize. This one has the danger of being a trap game. The Rams aren't bad, and they've been known to give good teams a difficult time late in the season. If St. Louis is still in the race, I'd expect that to once again be the case. Even if they're out of it, the Rams will be a tough test.
Week 17: vs. Eagles
They played the Redskins in the finale last year and the Eagles the year before that, so following the rotation would've led you to think it'd be Dallas in Week 17. But instead it's the Eagles, and I can easily see this one being flexed into the Sunday night spot that seems to be reserved for the NFC East (although, I think it's actually reserved for Dallas). My early guess is that this one's for the division title.
Week 1: at Lions (Monday Night)
They get the first half of the season-opening Monday night doubleheader. The Giants haven't opened on Monday night since 2001. That game is significant because of what happened a few hours later. They played the Broncos on Monday night, September 10, 2001. As we all know, the world changed a few hours later, shortly after the Giants landed in New York. Anyway, the Giants beat the Lions in Detroit in overtime in Week 16, then played their last game of the 2013 season at home, so they're actually playing back-to-back road games in Detroit. It's a very interesting matchup between two teams that underachieved last season. This is also the first time in three years the Giants aren't opening against Dallas.
Week 2: vs. Cardinals
Arizona in the home opener. It's the first time the Cardinals will ever play in MetLife Stadium. I like the fact that this is a 1:00 start. Those traditionally give the West Coast teams trouble.
Week 3: vs. Texans
Getting Houston this early could be a very good thing. Because I have a feeling the Texans are better than 2-14. But I also think it'll take them a while to get going, especially if they take a quarterback with the No. 1 pick. Either way, this will be Giants' fans chance to see that No. 1 pick in action. It's also a chance to boost that record to 3-0 before starting division play.
Week 4: at Redskins (Thursday Night)
You knew when CBS bought the first half of the Thursday night package that they'd put some good Thursday night games earlier in the season. And you also had to figure there'd probably be an NFC East game included in there somewhere. Sure enough, it's Giants at Redskins in Week 4. Week 4 is kind of late for the first division game, and the Redskins are probably going to be very tough on the road in a short week. Tougher than usual.
Week 5: vs. Falcons
The early schedule is very kind. This is another chance to bulk up that record before getting into the meat of the schedule. This matchup is sandwiched between all three of the division road games, making it even more important. I'm not going to say a Week 5 game is a must-win, but this is one that could end up costing the Giants later in the year if they don't take it.
Week 6: at Eagles (Sunday Night)
Flex scheduling starts ridiculously early this year, but I think it's safe to say Giants-Eagles isn't going anywhere. The Giants won in Philly last year, but it was the Eagles that went on to win the division title. This is the start of a brutal stretch that continues the next week in Dallas. Getting one of the two has to be the hope. Getting both would be a bonus.
Week 7: vs. Cowboys
After two straight years of meeting in the opener, the Giants and Cowboys don't play until Week 7 this season. It's also weird that they're going to be done with their division road games in mid-October. Anyway, for some reason, they always play well in Jerry's World. Last year was the first time the Giants ever lost there.
Week 8: Bye
They deserve a break after playing all three of their division road games in a four-week period. I, personally, think the Week 8-9-10 byes are the best ones. Directly in the middle of the season.
Week 9: vs. Colts (Monday Night)
OK, this matchup isn't anywhere near as fun now that Peyton's on the Broncos. Eli vs. Luck simply doesn't have the same cache. This, in fact, is the first Giants-Colts game since 2002 that doesn't feature both of the Brothers Manning. It should be an entertaining game nonetheless, as Eli doesn't have to worry about being in his brother's shadow anymore and can just worry about the Indianapolis defense.
Week 10: at Seahawks
The Seahawks have some fond memories of their trips to MetLife Stadium in 2013. First, they beat the Giants 23-0 in Week 15, then returned two months later and clobbered Denver 40-8 in the Super Bowl. So, they probably wish this game was in New York. It's not like that matters too much, though. The Seahawks are the defending champions and they never lose at home. This one'll be tough.
Week 11: vs. 49ers
After flying to the West Coast to meet the Super Bowl champions, the Giants return home to face the team Seattle beat in the NFC title game. It's their third straight game against a 2013 playoff team. This is actually the first time they're meeting in New York in quite some time. And once again, the 1:00 game against a West Coast team is a good thing.
Week 12: vs. Cowboys (Sunday Night)
The annual Giants-Cowboys Sunday night game, although I don't think it's right that Dallas has to play a Sunday night road game right before Thanksgiving. The weird thing about this series is that the Giants always win in Dallas, but the Cowboys always win in New York. Will the trend continue?
Week 13: at Jaguars
Four straight pressure cookers after the bye before the Giants finally catch a break. Tom Coughlin returns to Jacksonville for the second time as Giants coach. Assuming the Jaguars continue their recent tradition of barely resembling an NFL team, this looks like a win for the taking.
Week 14: at Titans
The second straight AFC South road game, which wraps up the Giants' interconference slate. Believe it or not, the Giants have lost five straight to the Oilers/Titans and haven't beaten the franchise in 20 years. That's entirely too long. Time to change that. If they don't do it this year, that streak will reach 24 years before they have a chance at snapping it.
Week 15: vs. Redskins
This is the third straight year in which Washington's visit doesn't come until December. Last year it was Week 17, this year it's Week 15. Assuming they're still in the division race this late in the season, the Giants will be in a great position to control their own fate. Their final two home games are against Washington and Philadelphia.
Week 16: at Rams
The final road game of the season is in St. Louis. I had this one happening earlier in the season, so I guess I didn't win the Rams' $1 billion prize. This one has the danger of being a trap game. The Rams aren't bad, and they've been known to give good teams a difficult time late in the season. If St. Louis is still in the race, I'd expect that to once again be the case. Even if they're out of it, the Rams will be a tough test.
Week 17: vs. Eagles
They played the Redskins in the finale last year and the Eagles the year before that, so following the rotation would've led you to think it'd be Dallas in Week 17. But instead it's the Eagles, and I can easily see this one being flexed into the Sunday night spot that seems to be reserved for the NFC East (although, I think it's actually reserved for Dallas). My early guess is that this one's for the division title.
Monday, April 21, 2014
The Bills' Future
Ever since the death of Ralph Wilson last month, the future of the Buffalo Bills has been in question. Mr. Wilson, who had owned the team since its inception in 1959, had always made it clear that he didn't intend to keep the team in the family after his death. In keeping with his wishes, the Bills are in the process of being sold.
I have no idea who's going to buy the Bills. Or what's going to happen when they're sold. It's no secret the NFL wants a team in LA, and with expansion currently off the table, relocation seems to be the only option to get a team there. And I'm sure there's got to be a potential buyer or two who sees the money that can be made in the country's second-largest media market, especially compared to Buffalo. Well, I can speak for Bills fans everywhere when I say moving to LA (or anywhere else) would be a mistake.
The Bills ARE Buffalo. I know this from experience. I lived in Buffalo for six years and have plenty of friends who still live there. Even if they aren't football fans, they love their Bills. The Bills are as much a part of Buffalo as chicken wings. Moving the team would take away a big part of the Buffalonian identity. Especially if you move them to LA, where the people flat out do not care.
Buffalo might be a small market with a small stadium that they have trouble selling out, but there are no fans in the NFL that are more passionate than Buffalo Bills fans. (And that stadium can get rockin', especially when there's lake-effect snow in October or that wind gets going. Why do you think the Bills always want to play their home game against the Dolphins late in the season?)
Fortunately, there are plenty of people who understand the importance of the BUFFALO Bills. Not least of which are the members of the Wilson family. Mary Wilson (a lovely woman) inherited her husband's controlling interest, so she'll ultimately make the final decision on who to sell to. And I'd be shocked if she decided to sell the team to someone who wasn't committed to keeping the team where it belongs. In Western New York.
All the names that have already been mentioned as potential buyers have guaranteed that they won't move the team. And that list has some star-studded names. Bruins owner Jim Jacobs. Hall of Fame Bills quarterback Jim Kelly. A group headlined by Jon Bon Jovi. Donald Trump.
If it were up to me, The Donald would be the Bills' new owner. He's committed to the market and has already reached out to both the NFL and the Wilson family. And we all know he's got plenty of money, which he'd be more than willing to spend. For the Bills to get back to relevance in the AFC East (they're the only team in the NFL that hasn't made the playoffs this century), Donald Trump might be exactly what they need. He wouldn't be getting into this just for the prestige of being an NFL owner. That would be part of it certainly, but The Donald would also do everything within his power to put a winning team on the field. Including spending a butt-load of his own money to lure free agents.
Of course, there are plenty of potential pitfalls to his ownership, the biggest of which is the USFL lawsuit. He was the owner of the USFL's New Jersey Generals 28 years ago when that league sued the NFL (and won that famous $3 settlement). There are 17 NFL teams that are still owned by the same person or family. Trump would need 24 votes for the sale to be approved, and NFL owners are like elephants. They don't forget anything. Would that block Trump's path to buying the Bills?
Trump's got plenty of friends in the NFL, too. It's well-known that Trump and Patriots owner Robert Kraft are very good friends. Kraft is very influential within NFL circles. Would his advocacy work in Trump's favor? There's also a possibility that the NFL owners respect Trump as a businessman. After all, the lawsuit against the NFL proved his dedication to the USFL, which was not going to survive.
Whether it's Donald Trump or Bon Jovi or Jim Kelly, I don't really care. What I do care about is the Buffalo Bills remaining in Buffalo. Bills fans have already had to endure one devastating loss--the death of their beloved owner. The only loss that could be any more devastating would be losing the team entirely. This is a team that lost the Super Bowl four straight times, but for Bills fans, those losses would pale in comparison to the though of their not being the Bills at all. Or, even worse, seeing their beloved Bills become the Los Angeles Bills.
For the sake of the Bills and their fans, please find a buyer who'll keep the team in Buffalo. Because that loss would be impossible for anyone who loves or cares about this team to bear.
I have no idea who's going to buy the Bills. Or what's going to happen when they're sold. It's no secret the NFL wants a team in LA, and with expansion currently off the table, relocation seems to be the only option to get a team there. And I'm sure there's got to be a potential buyer or two who sees the money that can be made in the country's second-largest media market, especially compared to Buffalo. Well, I can speak for Bills fans everywhere when I say moving to LA (or anywhere else) would be a mistake.
The Bills ARE Buffalo. I know this from experience. I lived in Buffalo for six years and have plenty of friends who still live there. Even if they aren't football fans, they love their Bills. The Bills are as much a part of Buffalo as chicken wings. Moving the team would take away a big part of the Buffalonian identity. Especially if you move them to LA, where the people flat out do not care.
Buffalo might be a small market with a small stadium that they have trouble selling out, but there are no fans in the NFL that are more passionate than Buffalo Bills fans. (And that stadium can get rockin', especially when there's lake-effect snow in October or that wind gets going. Why do you think the Bills always want to play their home game against the Dolphins late in the season?)
Fortunately, there are plenty of people who understand the importance of the BUFFALO Bills. Not least of which are the members of the Wilson family. Mary Wilson (a lovely woman) inherited her husband's controlling interest, so she'll ultimately make the final decision on who to sell to. And I'd be shocked if she decided to sell the team to someone who wasn't committed to keeping the team where it belongs. In Western New York.
All the names that have already been mentioned as potential buyers have guaranteed that they won't move the team. And that list has some star-studded names. Bruins owner Jim Jacobs. Hall of Fame Bills quarterback Jim Kelly. A group headlined by Jon Bon Jovi. Donald Trump.
If it were up to me, The Donald would be the Bills' new owner. He's committed to the market and has already reached out to both the NFL and the Wilson family. And we all know he's got plenty of money, which he'd be more than willing to spend. For the Bills to get back to relevance in the AFC East (they're the only team in the NFL that hasn't made the playoffs this century), Donald Trump might be exactly what they need. He wouldn't be getting into this just for the prestige of being an NFL owner. That would be part of it certainly, but The Donald would also do everything within his power to put a winning team on the field. Including spending a butt-load of his own money to lure free agents.
Of course, there are plenty of potential pitfalls to his ownership, the biggest of which is the USFL lawsuit. He was the owner of the USFL's New Jersey Generals 28 years ago when that league sued the NFL (and won that famous $3 settlement). There are 17 NFL teams that are still owned by the same person or family. Trump would need 24 votes for the sale to be approved, and NFL owners are like elephants. They don't forget anything. Would that block Trump's path to buying the Bills?
Trump's got plenty of friends in the NFL, too. It's well-known that Trump and Patriots owner Robert Kraft are very good friends. Kraft is very influential within NFL circles. Would his advocacy work in Trump's favor? There's also a possibility that the NFL owners respect Trump as a businessman. After all, the lawsuit against the NFL proved his dedication to the USFL, which was not going to survive.
Whether it's Donald Trump or Bon Jovi or Jim Kelly, I don't really care. What I do care about is the Buffalo Bills remaining in Buffalo. Bills fans have already had to endure one devastating loss--the death of their beloved owner. The only loss that could be any more devastating would be losing the team entirely. This is a team that lost the Super Bowl four straight times, but for Bills fans, those losses would pale in comparison to the though of their not being the Bills at all. Or, even worse, seeing their beloved Bills become the Los Angeles Bills.
For the sake of the Bills and their fans, please find a buyer who'll keep the team in Buffalo. Because that loss would be impossible for anyone who loves or cares about this team to bear.
Friday, April 18, 2014
Separate Leagues, Separate Awards
A week or so ago, Sports Illustrated posted a question on social media, the responses to which were included in the letters section of this week's issue. The question is fairly simple and straightforward, but it's a very dumb question all the same: Should MLB get rid of the separate awards for the AL and NL and instead only present one Cy Young, Rookie of the Year and MVP per season?
My answer to that question is a resounding "No!" I know the question was posed solely as a topic for discussion/debate, but that debate should be a short one. For starters, they're not going to change it. There's going to remain separate awards for the American League and National League. And there should be.
The argument that one guy made as to why there should only be one award is because they only have one MVP, etc., in each of the other sports. Well, that may be true, but each of the other sports has always operated as one league with two separate conferences. Major League Baseball has always been two completely separate leagues. Interconference matchups have always been the norm in the NFL, NHL and NBA (in the latter two, you face every other team at least twice each season). In Baseball, interleague play, like it or not, has become an accepted part of the schedule. But it's also only existed since 1997. That's not even 20 years.
Before the existence of interleague play, when teams from the AL and NL never faced each other except for the All*Star Game and World Series, having separate awards for the two leagues made complete sense. It wouldn't have been fair to compare players from one league against the other when they were facing completely different opponents. Some would argue that since there's now interleague play, that distinction no longer needs to be made. Well, interleague play has been integrated into the schedule, but it's not a big enough part of the schedule to render AL vs. AL or NL vs. NL games insignificant.
Furthermore, the NFL, NBA and NHL maintain only one set of league statistics. It's the NFL rushing leader, the NBA scoring leader, etc. In Major League Baseball, they still keep separate league leaders for both the American and National Leagues. Sure, it's easy enough to figure out the Major League leader in a given category, but they still deem how you do within your league more important.
Part of the reason for that is the sample size. In the NFL, they play four interconference games. That's 25 percent of the schedule. In the NBA, it's 30, which amounts to 36.6 percent of the schedule. In the NHL, there are more teams in the Eastern Conference, so the amount of crossover games varies. It's either 28 or 32 depending on which conference you're in. For the Eastern Conference teams, that's 34.1 percent of the schedule. In the West, it's 39 percent.
Major League Baseball, of course, has a season that's twice as long as the others. They have that brutal grind of 162 games in 180 days. Of those 162 games, only 20 are interleague. Or, 12.3 percent of the season. You can't discount the fact that for almost 90 percent of the season, the two leagues are completely independent of each other. You play 142 games against only half of the available competition, yet you're going to be compared against that other half when it comes to awards season? How's that fair?
Then there's the elephant in the room anytime there's any discussion about Major League Baseball and interleague play. I'm, of course, talking about the DH. Baseball's the only sport where they play by different rules. And the DH makes it impossible to compare the American League with the National League statistically. National League pitchers have to hit, but they also don't have to face a DH. That's why offensive numbers are generally higher in the AL. That's also one of the reasons interleague play is so much fun.
When they first started the Rookie of the Year and Cy Young Awards, they did only have one for the two leagues combined. That only lasted a couple years before they separated the awards, which they have been ever since. And there's no rush on anyone's part to change it back.
It seems silly to even think about having one award for the two leagues. There's no difference between AFC football and NFC football, and a hockey game is a hockey game, regardless if it's Kings-Blackhawks or Rangers-Bruins. That's why it makes sense to only have one set of awards in each of those sports. The same can't be said about Major League Baseball. A Yankee game and a Met game are very different. And those differences are very abundant. You know whether you're watching the American League or the National League. Until that's not the case anymore, there's no reason not to have separate awards for the two leagues.
Discussion over. It ain't changin'. If you want to make the case for a "Player of the Year" award, then I might be willing to listen. But when it comes to whether or not there should be two different MVPs each year, that's not a debate.
My answer to that question is a resounding "No!" I know the question was posed solely as a topic for discussion/debate, but that debate should be a short one. For starters, they're not going to change it. There's going to remain separate awards for the American League and National League. And there should be.
The argument that one guy made as to why there should only be one award is because they only have one MVP, etc., in each of the other sports. Well, that may be true, but each of the other sports has always operated as one league with two separate conferences. Major League Baseball has always been two completely separate leagues. Interconference matchups have always been the norm in the NFL, NHL and NBA (in the latter two, you face every other team at least twice each season). In Baseball, interleague play, like it or not, has become an accepted part of the schedule. But it's also only existed since 1997. That's not even 20 years.
Before the existence of interleague play, when teams from the AL and NL never faced each other except for the All*Star Game and World Series, having separate awards for the two leagues made complete sense. It wouldn't have been fair to compare players from one league against the other when they were facing completely different opponents. Some would argue that since there's now interleague play, that distinction no longer needs to be made. Well, interleague play has been integrated into the schedule, but it's not a big enough part of the schedule to render AL vs. AL or NL vs. NL games insignificant.
Furthermore, the NFL, NBA and NHL maintain only one set of league statistics. It's the NFL rushing leader, the NBA scoring leader, etc. In Major League Baseball, they still keep separate league leaders for both the American and National Leagues. Sure, it's easy enough to figure out the Major League leader in a given category, but they still deem how you do within your league more important.
Part of the reason for that is the sample size. In the NFL, they play four interconference games. That's 25 percent of the schedule. In the NBA, it's 30, which amounts to 36.6 percent of the schedule. In the NHL, there are more teams in the Eastern Conference, so the amount of crossover games varies. It's either 28 or 32 depending on which conference you're in. For the Eastern Conference teams, that's 34.1 percent of the schedule. In the West, it's 39 percent.
Major League Baseball, of course, has a season that's twice as long as the others. They have that brutal grind of 162 games in 180 days. Of those 162 games, only 20 are interleague. Or, 12.3 percent of the season. You can't discount the fact that for almost 90 percent of the season, the two leagues are completely independent of each other. You play 142 games against only half of the available competition, yet you're going to be compared against that other half when it comes to awards season? How's that fair?
Then there's the elephant in the room anytime there's any discussion about Major League Baseball and interleague play. I'm, of course, talking about the DH. Baseball's the only sport where they play by different rules. And the DH makes it impossible to compare the American League with the National League statistically. National League pitchers have to hit, but they also don't have to face a DH. That's why offensive numbers are generally higher in the AL. That's also one of the reasons interleague play is so much fun.
When they first started the Rookie of the Year and Cy Young Awards, they did only have one for the two leagues combined. That only lasted a couple years before they separated the awards, which they have been ever since. And there's no rush on anyone's part to change it back.
It seems silly to even think about having one award for the two leagues. There's no difference between AFC football and NFC football, and a hockey game is a hockey game, regardless if it's Kings-Blackhawks or Rangers-Bruins. That's why it makes sense to only have one set of awards in each of those sports. The same can't be said about Major League Baseball. A Yankee game and a Met game are very different. And those differences are very abundant. You know whether you're watching the American League or the National League. Until that's not the case anymore, there's no reason not to have separate awards for the two leagues.
Discussion over. It ain't changin'. If you want to make the case for a "Player of the Year" award, then I might be willing to listen. But when it comes to whether or not there should be two different MVPs each year, that's not a debate.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
2014 Stanley Cup Playoff Preview
Starting Wednesday, we get to see the NHL's new playoff format in action. For the first time since they moved away from the strict division-based playoff structure 20 years ago, they went back to a format that's mostly division-based this season. As a result, there's a set bracket for the first time since 1993.
But setting up the playoffs this way has plenty of flaws, and they've already been exposed. For starters, Tampa Bay and Montreal were the third- and fourth-best teams in the East on points, yet they finished second and third in their own division, which means they're playing in the first round and one will get knocked out. Meanwhile, the Rangers (fifth overall) have home ice for their series against the Flyers (sixth overall), and one of them will definitely advance. It's also impossible to have the top two teams in the same division meet in the conference finals. This is especially a problem out West, where Anaheim and San Jose are arguably the two best teams.
This is the system we've got for at least the next three seasons, though, so we might as well embrace it. Making predictions, though, as usual, is a tough proposition. It's a little easier in the East, where it'll be a surprise to see a team that doesn't wear black and gold in the Final, but there are any of six teams in the Western Conference capable of playing for the Cup, and four of those six could win the whole thing.
Bruins vs. Red Wings: They're making a big deal about the fact that these two haven't met in the playoffs since 1957, but seeing as Detroit was in the Western Conference for so long (and still should be), it's not really that surprising. The Red Wings switch conferences, going to the easier one, and barely make the playoffs. Detroit did keep its streak going, though, so I'll give them that. But the Red Wings are a flawed team that will be exposed by the President's Cup-winning Bruins. Boston's simply too good and too deep. Bruins in five.
Lightning vs. Canadiens: I will give the new format this: the four 2 vs. 3 series all have the makings of being incredibly entertaining. None more so than Tampa Bay-Montreal. These two are very evenly matched, and it's a shame one of them has to go home in the first round. The Lighting set themselves up nicely to make a run, just like they did three years ago. And their having home ice for Game 7 could prove to be the key to the series. It's also incredible to think that there are seven Canadian teams in the league, yet Montreal was the only one to take the playoffs. This series is a coin flip, but I want to see a Bruins-Canadiens series in round two. Canadiens in six.
Penguins vs. Blue Jackets: Columbus did an outstanding job to make the playoffs in its first year as an Eastern Conference team, and I have a feeling the Blue Jackets are only going to get better as the years go on. The Penguins, meanwhile, want to make up for last year's embarrassing sweep in the Conference Final. Pittsburgh's not as good as last year, but still ran away with the Metropolitan Division. Last year, I made the mistake of underestimating the Islanders and assumed the Penguins would cruise right by them. I'm not going to do the same with Columbus this year. Pittsburgh will win, but it won't be easy. Penguins in six.
Rangers vs. Flyers: These two rivals do not like each other, and it's the first time they're meeting in the playoffs since 1997 (it's also very weird to know the Rangers can't play their annual playoff series against Washington this season). Every time they play, it's a battle, and I expect a best-of-seven playoff series to be no different. The Rangers have a knack of making any series they play in go seven, so there's no reason to expect this series won't go the distance. Where the Rangers' X-factor will once again prove to be the difference. Henrik Lundqvist is one of the best goalies in the NHL. And at the end of playoff series, he shows everyone why. Rangers in seven.
Avalanche vs. Wild: Patrick Roy probably sealed up the Adams Award once Colorado clinched the Central Division. Especially since the Blues and Blackhawks are probably both better teams. Anyway, playoff hockey returns to Denver for the first time in four years (this is a team that finished last last season, by the way). Both of these teams are on the rise, and Minnesota's the most dangerous of the four wild card teams. I can easily see the Wild winning this series. Ultimately, though, I think Colorado will pull it out. Avalanche in six.
Blues vs. Blackhawks: Prediction: the winner of this series beats the Avalanche in the second round. St. Louis is in a tailspin. After battling Anaheim for the top seed in the West for much of the season, they ended up not even winning the Central. And their prize for a season-ending five-game losing streak is a matchup with the defending champion Blackhawks. These are probably the two most evenly-matched teams meeting in the first round. Chicago is playoff-tested. That's obviously going to be a big factor in this series. So, the question now becomes: Can the Blues rebound from their horrible finish and avoid a first-round playoff exit? Well, that's what they got Ryan Miller for, isn't it? If they lose, that trade becomes a waste. St. Louis is the best team in the Central Division. A first-round playoff loss would be an incredible disappointment. Blues in seven.
Ducks vs. Stars: Dallas gets out of the Pacific Division and finally returns to the playoffs...only to face a Pacific Division team (then another if they win). It was a great job by Lindy Ruff to get Dallas into the field, but they've got the toughest draw of anybody. Anaheim is the most complete team and they're built to make a run at the Cup. Unfortunately for the Stars, this is just the opening act for the Ducks. Dallas is good, but also incredibly overmatched. Ducks in four.
Sharks vs. Kings: For the first time, all three California teams are good in the same season. Is this finally the year for the Sharks, or will they have their annual playoff letdown? You know one of these years, San Jose is finally going to finish the job and get to the Final. Meanwhile, the Kings were the 8-seed in the West two years ago and won the Cup, then went to the Conference Final last year as the 5-seed. So, they clearly don't need home ice to make a run in the playoffs. But you also have to wonder how long that can last. I see a very competitive, highly entertaining series here. It's a coin toss. Watching all seven games on NBCSN will be fun. Sharks in seven.
But setting up the playoffs this way has plenty of flaws, and they've already been exposed. For starters, Tampa Bay and Montreal were the third- and fourth-best teams in the East on points, yet they finished second and third in their own division, which means they're playing in the first round and one will get knocked out. Meanwhile, the Rangers (fifth overall) have home ice for their series against the Flyers (sixth overall), and one of them will definitely advance. It's also impossible to have the top two teams in the same division meet in the conference finals. This is especially a problem out West, where Anaheim and San Jose are arguably the two best teams.
This is the system we've got for at least the next three seasons, though, so we might as well embrace it. Making predictions, though, as usual, is a tough proposition. It's a little easier in the East, where it'll be a surprise to see a team that doesn't wear black and gold in the Final, but there are any of six teams in the Western Conference capable of playing for the Cup, and four of those six could win the whole thing.
Bruins vs. Red Wings: They're making a big deal about the fact that these two haven't met in the playoffs since 1957, but seeing as Detroit was in the Western Conference for so long (and still should be), it's not really that surprising. The Red Wings switch conferences, going to the easier one, and barely make the playoffs. Detroit did keep its streak going, though, so I'll give them that. But the Red Wings are a flawed team that will be exposed by the President's Cup-winning Bruins. Boston's simply too good and too deep. Bruins in five.
Lightning vs. Canadiens: I will give the new format this: the four 2 vs. 3 series all have the makings of being incredibly entertaining. None more so than Tampa Bay-Montreal. These two are very evenly matched, and it's a shame one of them has to go home in the first round. The Lighting set themselves up nicely to make a run, just like they did three years ago. And their having home ice for Game 7 could prove to be the key to the series. It's also incredible to think that there are seven Canadian teams in the league, yet Montreal was the only one to take the playoffs. This series is a coin flip, but I want to see a Bruins-Canadiens series in round two. Canadiens in six.
Penguins vs. Blue Jackets: Columbus did an outstanding job to make the playoffs in its first year as an Eastern Conference team, and I have a feeling the Blue Jackets are only going to get better as the years go on. The Penguins, meanwhile, want to make up for last year's embarrassing sweep in the Conference Final. Pittsburgh's not as good as last year, but still ran away with the Metropolitan Division. Last year, I made the mistake of underestimating the Islanders and assumed the Penguins would cruise right by them. I'm not going to do the same with Columbus this year. Pittsburgh will win, but it won't be easy. Penguins in six.
Rangers vs. Flyers: These two rivals do not like each other, and it's the first time they're meeting in the playoffs since 1997 (it's also very weird to know the Rangers can't play their annual playoff series against Washington this season). Every time they play, it's a battle, and I expect a best-of-seven playoff series to be no different. The Rangers have a knack of making any series they play in go seven, so there's no reason to expect this series won't go the distance. Where the Rangers' X-factor will once again prove to be the difference. Henrik Lundqvist is one of the best goalies in the NHL. And at the end of playoff series, he shows everyone why. Rangers in seven.
Avalanche vs. Wild: Patrick Roy probably sealed up the Adams Award once Colorado clinched the Central Division. Especially since the Blues and Blackhawks are probably both better teams. Anyway, playoff hockey returns to Denver for the first time in four years (this is a team that finished last last season, by the way). Both of these teams are on the rise, and Minnesota's the most dangerous of the four wild card teams. I can easily see the Wild winning this series. Ultimately, though, I think Colorado will pull it out. Avalanche in six.
Blues vs. Blackhawks: Prediction: the winner of this series beats the Avalanche in the second round. St. Louis is in a tailspin. After battling Anaheim for the top seed in the West for much of the season, they ended up not even winning the Central. And their prize for a season-ending five-game losing streak is a matchup with the defending champion Blackhawks. These are probably the two most evenly-matched teams meeting in the first round. Chicago is playoff-tested. That's obviously going to be a big factor in this series. So, the question now becomes: Can the Blues rebound from their horrible finish and avoid a first-round playoff exit? Well, that's what they got Ryan Miller for, isn't it? If they lose, that trade becomes a waste. St. Louis is the best team in the Central Division. A first-round playoff loss would be an incredible disappointment. Blues in seven.
Ducks vs. Stars: Dallas gets out of the Pacific Division and finally returns to the playoffs...only to face a Pacific Division team (then another if they win). It was a great job by Lindy Ruff to get Dallas into the field, but they've got the toughest draw of anybody. Anaheim is the most complete team and they're built to make a run at the Cup. Unfortunately for the Stars, this is just the opening act for the Ducks. Dallas is good, but also incredibly overmatched. Ducks in four.
Sharks vs. Kings: For the first time, all three California teams are good in the same season. Is this finally the year for the Sharks, or will they have their annual playoff letdown? You know one of these years, San Jose is finally going to finish the job and get to the Final. Meanwhile, the Kings were the 8-seed in the West two years ago and won the Cup, then went to the Conference Final last year as the 5-seed. So, they clearly don't need home ice to make a run in the playoffs. But you also have to wonder how long that can last. I see a very competitive, highly entertaining series here. It's a coin toss. Watching all seven games on NBCSN will be fun. Sharks in seven.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Upon Further Review
In my first game of the year, I got my first replay review. I'm, of course, talking about last night's Yankees-Red Sox game at the Stadium. In the fourth inning, Francisco Cervelli was called out at first on what would've been an inning-ending double play, but Joe Girardi challenged, the call was overturned, and the Yankees scored what ended up being the winning run in a 3-2 victory.
The reversal didn't set well with Red Sox manager John Farrell, who was immediately ejected for arguing the call, which is one of the replay rules that was established. I'm not sure if Farrell's interpreting the rules incorrectly or simply still upset about the blown replay review on Saturday, but his argument that there wasn't "clear, undisputable evidence" is simply wrong. (Although, if you ask the Red Sox fan who wrote this piece for Sports Illustrated, he wasn't wrong.) He saw the same replay I did. The ball's clearly not in Napoli's glove yet when Cervelli's foot hit the bag. I'll tell you what, here's what we saw on the video board. You make the call:
Farrell's comments were all the rage today, leading to a full-scale discussion about the pros and cons of the replay system, which has been in use for a grand total of two weeks. Tony La Russa is in charge of replay for Major League Baseball and he's just shrugged off any criticism of the process so far. As La Russa pointed out, it's "premature" to question the integrity of the system. After all, Baseball has had instant replay for two weeks after going without it for 185 years. With such a drastic change, there were bound to be some hiccups.
Going into Monday, there had been 185 games played in the Majors this season. In those 185 games, 84 calls were reviewed. Of those 84, only 28 were reversed. That's a success rate of 33 percent, or slightly lower than the success rate of NFL coaches (and the NFL has had replay for years). More than anything, the use of replay has proven that the umpires actually get the call right most of the time. But sometimes they do get it wrong. That's the point of using replay in the first place.
Unfortunately, that's not what you hear about. You only hear about the controversial stuff. You only hear about John Farrell getting ejected because he thought he got screwed (the fact that this happened in a nationally-televised Sunday night game probably didn't help). Or the game on Saturday between the same two teams, where the umpires had replay at their disposal yet somehow managed to still get the call wrong even after using it. MLB even acknowledged that the umpires screwed up that one.
Or the play at first base in the Washington-Atlanta game on Saturday night. That was our second Nationals-Braves replay moment this season. In Washington's home opener on April 4, Ian Desmond hit what was ruled an inside-the-park home run on the field, then changed to a ground rule double after the review. Atlanta ended up winning the game 2-1, and Nationals manager Matt Williams wasn't happy afterwards. Once again, though, the play was correctly overturned. See for yourself:
The reversal didn't set well with Red Sox manager John Farrell, who was immediately ejected for arguing the call, which is one of the replay rules that was established. I'm not sure if Farrell's interpreting the rules incorrectly or simply still upset about the blown replay review on Saturday, but his argument that there wasn't "clear, undisputable evidence" is simply wrong. (Although, if you ask the Red Sox fan who wrote this piece for Sports Illustrated, he wasn't wrong.) He saw the same replay I did. The ball's clearly not in Napoli's glove yet when Cervelli's foot hit the bag. I'll tell you what, here's what we saw on the video board. You make the call:
Farrell's comments were all the rage today, leading to a full-scale discussion about the pros and cons of the replay system, which has been in use for a grand total of two weeks. Tony La Russa is in charge of replay for Major League Baseball and he's just shrugged off any criticism of the process so far. As La Russa pointed out, it's "premature" to question the integrity of the system. After all, Baseball has had instant replay for two weeks after going without it for 185 years. With such a drastic change, there were bound to be some hiccups.
Going into Monday, there had been 185 games played in the Majors this season. In those 185 games, 84 calls were reviewed. Of those 84, only 28 were reversed. That's a success rate of 33 percent, or slightly lower than the success rate of NFL coaches (and the NFL has had replay for years). More than anything, the use of replay has proven that the umpires actually get the call right most of the time. But sometimes they do get it wrong. That's the point of using replay in the first place.
Unfortunately, that's not what you hear about. You only hear about the controversial stuff. You only hear about John Farrell getting ejected because he thought he got screwed (the fact that this happened in a nationally-televised Sunday night game probably didn't help). Or the game on Saturday between the same two teams, where the umpires had replay at their disposal yet somehow managed to still get the call wrong even after using it. MLB even acknowledged that the umpires screwed up that one.
Or the play at first base in the Washington-Atlanta game on Saturday night. That was our second Nationals-Braves replay moment this season. In Washington's home opener on April 4, Ian Desmond hit what was ruled an inside-the-park home run on the field, then changed to a ground rule double after the review. Atlanta ended up winning the game 2-1, and Nationals manager Matt Williams wasn't happy afterwards. Once again, though, the play was correctly overturned. See for yourself:
Criticism is always going to be louder than support. That's just the way things go in our society. The funny thing is these critics are the same people that were yelling the loudest that MLB needed to adopt replay. Well, you can't have it both ways! Either you're a fan of replay or you aren't. You can't change that opinion just because a call went against your team.
Replay has come to Baseball and it's here to stay. The system isn't perfect. Nobody expected it to be. But it has achieved its purpose. They're getting calls right, and by doing so, the right teams are winning games. Isn't that what everyone wanted in the first place?
Friday, April 11, 2014
No Worry About Rio
All of the talk about the 2016 Olympics so far has been centered around the fact that the IOC is upset about construction delays. So much so that they're "monitoring the situation." There have also been some people that have suggested the IOC is considering moving the Games. That suggestion isn't just premature. It's stupid. Rest assured, the 2016 Olympics will be in Rio de Janeiro as planned.
There are plenty of reasons why the idea of moving an Olympics only two years out doesn't make any sense. For starters, where would you move them? They choose Olympic host cities seven years in advance for a reason. If they were to take the Games away from Rio, what city would possibly be able to organize and fund an Olympics on such short notice? And I'm not just talking about having available facilities, which is enough of a problem. I'm talking about all the logistics of scheduling, accommodations, security, etc. It takes a lot more than two years to prepare for an Olympics. That's why moving the Rio Games now would be virtually impossible. Even London, which staged those incredible 2012 Games, probably wouldn't be able to do it...and that's the most likely option for a replacement.
Not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars that has already been spent. There are already a number of Brazilians who are unhappy with the costs of both the Olympics and the World Cup. Imagine if the Olympics were to be taken away and all that spending truly became wasteful? Plus, you'd have all these unfinished venues in and around Rio that would just be sitting there. No chance to repurpose them for their post-Games use if they're never used in the first place.
This same thing happened in advance of the 2004 Athens Games. There were similar concerns about construction delays and organizational problems. They even fired the head of the organizing committee. Well you know what? Everything worked out OK, and the Games did return home. Athens has had some major problems since and is still paying for the 2004 Olympics a decade later, but that's a separate issue.
The thing the Brazilians really have to worry about is the World Cup. It's there where we've hit crunch time, and the potential of unfinished stadiums in some of the 12 World Cup host cities are definitely much more of a concern. And a more pressing one. From what it seems, though, all of the World Cup construction now seems to be on or close to schedule, so there shouldn't be any incomplete stadiums once the World Cup begins.
Of course, the final of the World Cup will be held at Rio's world-famous Maracana. Maracana had to be renovated for both events, and the World Cup is two years before the Olympics. Which one do you think they're worried about first? Maracana will host the Opening Ceremony. But they can't begin to turn it into an Olympic venue until the World Cup is over.
And maybe that's the root of all these delays. Maybe the Brazilians want to make sure the World Cup goes off without a hitch before they turn their focus to the Olympics. Let's not forget, this might be the sixth-largest country in the world, but it's still hosting the two biggest sporting events on the planet little more than two years apart. The second of which comes with the added pressure of being the first South American country ever to host the Olympics. They're both huge undertakings. Brazil has the resources to do both. If they didn't think they could, they never would've applied to host the Olympics.
We're still more than two years away from Rio. I'm sure the stadiums will be finished and whatever problems there are will get fixed with plenty of time to spare. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that by the time Pele lights the cauldron, we'll have forgot all about this. And that Rio will deliver a truly glorious Games.
There are plenty of reasons why the idea of moving an Olympics only two years out doesn't make any sense. For starters, where would you move them? They choose Olympic host cities seven years in advance for a reason. If they were to take the Games away from Rio, what city would possibly be able to organize and fund an Olympics on such short notice? And I'm not just talking about having available facilities, which is enough of a problem. I'm talking about all the logistics of scheduling, accommodations, security, etc. It takes a lot more than two years to prepare for an Olympics. That's why moving the Rio Games now would be virtually impossible. Even London, which staged those incredible 2012 Games, probably wouldn't be able to do it...and that's the most likely option for a replacement.
Not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars that has already been spent. There are already a number of Brazilians who are unhappy with the costs of both the Olympics and the World Cup. Imagine if the Olympics were to be taken away and all that spending truly became wasteful? Plus, you'd have all these unfinished venues in and around Rio that would just be sitting there. No chance to repurpose them for their post-Games use if they're never used in the first place.
This same thing happened in advance of the 2004 Athens Games. There were similar concerns about construction delays and organizational problems. They even fired the head of the organizing committee. Well you know what? Everything worked out OK, and the Games did return home. Athens has had some major problems since and is still paying for the 2004 Olympics a decade later, but that's a separate issue.
The thing the Brazilians really have to worry about is the World Cup. It's there where we've hit crunch time, and the potential of unfinished stadiums in some of the 12 World Cup host cities are definitely much more of a concern. And a more pressing one. From what it seems, though, all of the World Cup construction now seems to be on or close to schedule, so there shouldn't be any incomplete stadiums once the World Cup begins.
Of course, the final of the World Cup will be held at Rio's world-famous Maracana. Maracana had to be renovated for both events, and the World Cup is two years before the Olympics. Which one do you think they're worried about first? Maracana will host the Opening Ceremony. But they can't begin to turn it into an Olympic venue until the World Cup is over.
And maybe that's the root of all these delays. Maybe the Brazilians want to make sure the World Cup goes off without a hitch before they turn their focus to the Olympics. Let's not forget, this might be the sixth-largest country in the world, but it's still hosting the two biggest sporting events on the planet little more than two years apart. The second of which comes with the added pressure of being the first South American country ever to host the Olympics. They're both huge undertakings. Brazil has the resources to do both. If they didn't think they could, they never would've applied to host the Olympics.
We're still more than two years away from Rio. I'm sure the stadiums will be finished and whatever problems there are will get fixed with plenty of time to spare. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that by the time Pele lights the cauldron, we'll have forgot all about this. And that Rio will deliver a truly glorious Games.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Not Employees=No Union
Ever since that Chicago judge ruled last week that Northwestern football players were allowed to form a union, the reaction has been pretty universal. There isn't a single person out there who thinks this is a good idea. And it kind of makes me wonder why the judge let it move forward in the first place, especially since it's almost certainly going to get tossed on appeal.
Northwestern has already filed the appeal, and the players are set to vote by April 25. One player who'll be voting "No" is starting quarterback Trevor Siemian. That's pretty telling. It's an obvious sign that the players are far from unanimous in their feelings. Siemian's interview was pretty telling in a number of respects. He acknowledged that college football players actually have it pretty good and that whatever concerns the players had should've been brought to the head coach and athletic director first.
Not surprisingly, the NCAA is vehemently opposed to this. NCAA President Mark Emmert said during his Final Four press conference that this would "blow up everything about the collegiate model of athletics." He even called the idea "ridiculous" and "grossly inappropriate." And, you know what, he isn't wrong. The NCAA has problems. Emmert is the first to admit that. But this definitely isn't the answer.
There are so many reasons why this is a bad idea, and I've thought this ever since the players first announced their intention to unionize. For starters, it would only apply to private universities like Northwestern. So, football players at Ohio State and Texas and Florida State and all the other state-funded universities can't do the same. If unions are supposed to look out for the rights of everyone, how is that fair?
Likewise, who's covering things like insurance, union dues, etc.? I bet these players only saw the benefit of union backing without taking those costs into account. And why would they? That's a bigger picture item. No one ever looks at the big picture when it comes to these things. Once that reality hits, I'm sure the Northwestern players will be singing a different tune.
But here's the biggest reason why I think the Northwestern football team shouldn't be allowed to unionize. And it's perhaps the most obvious reason out there. They aren't employees! I know what the ruling said. I don't buy it. Do they draw a salary from the university? No. And if you don't draw a salary, you're not an employee. It's my understanding that labor unions represent employees. Well, if you're not an employee, how can you be represented by a labor union?
The players, as well as the judge who ruled in their favor, would argue that the players are employees. Well, I define being an employee as getting a salary. A scholarship is not a salary. And that scholarship, by the way, provides them with the opportunity to attend one of America's most prestigious academic institutions for free for four years. In return, the football players agree to represent that university on the field, which also means putting in the required time that being on said team entails. That's an agreement thousands of college athletes voluntarily make every year, without expecting anything else in return. Yet it's not enough for the Northwestern football team. Or, let me rephrase, certain members of the Northwestern football team.
I'm not anti-union. Unions aren't a bad thing. But they can be if they aren't used right. And that's what we're seeing here. This is an attempt to get attention. Congratulations. It worked. Letting this vote go through and actually letting the players unionize, though. That would be a tremendous mistake.
Northwestern has already filed the appeal, and the players are set to vote by April 25. One player who'll be voting "No" is starting quarterback Trevor Siemian. That's pretty telling. It's an obvious sign that the players are far from unanimous in their feelings. Siemian's interview was pretty telling in a number of respects. He acknowledged that college football players actually have it pretty good and that whatever concerns the players had should've been brought to the head coach and athletic director first.
Not surprisingly, the NCAA is vehemently opposed to this. NCAA President Mark Emmert said during his Final Four press conference that this would "blow up everything about the collegiate model of athletics." He even called the idea "ridiculous" and "grossly inappropriate." And, you know what, he isn't wrong. The NCAA has problems. Emmert is the first to admit that. But this definitely isn't the answer.
There are so many reasons why this is a bad idea, and I've thought this ever since the players first announced their intention to unionize. For starters, it would only apply to private universities like Northwestern. So, football players at Ohio State and Texas and Florida State and all the other state-funded universities can't do the same. If unions are supposed to look out for the rights of everyone, how is that fair?
Likewise, who's covering things like insurance, union dues, etc.? I bet these players only saw the benefit of union backing without taking those costs into account. And why would they? That's a bigger picture item. No one ever looks at the big picture when it comes to these things. Once that reality hits, I'm sure the Northwestern players will be singing a different tune.
But here's the biggest reason why I think the Northwestern football team shouldn't be allowed to unionize. And it's perhaps the most obvious reason out there. They aren't employees! I know what the ruling said. I don't buy it. Do they draw a salary from the university? No. And if you don't draw a salary, you're not an employee. It's my understanding that labor unions represent employees. Well, if you're not an employee, how can you be represented by a labor union?
The players, as well as the judge who ruled in their favor, would argue that the players are employees. Well, I define being an employee as getting a salary. A scholarship is not a salary. And that scholarship, by the way, provides them with the opportunity to attend one of America's most prestigious academic institutions for free for four years. In return, the football players agree to represent that university on the field, which also means putting in the required time that being on said team entails. That's an agreement thousands of college athletes voluntarily make every year, without expecting anything else in return. Yet it's not enough for the Northwestern football team. Or, let me rephrase, certain members of the Northwestern football team.
I'm not anti-union. Unions aren't a bad thing. But they can be if they aren't used right. And that's what we're seeing here. This is an attempt to get attention. Congratulations. It worked. Letting this vote go through and actually letting the players unionize, though. That would be a tremendous mistake.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
One-and-Dones vs. Veteran Leadership
I don't know of a single person who thinks this one-and-done thing is good for college basketball. But, like it or not, this is the era we're living in, and John Calipari has become the master of it. Kentucky has basically an entirely new team every year, and they've been to three Final Fours and won a national title in the past four seasons. The Wildcats almost did it again this year, riding five freshmen all the way to the title game. Although, it turns out there was something that could stop them. Make that someone. UConn senior point guard Shabazz Napier.
If there's a guy who deserved a National Championship as much as Shabazz Napier, I don't know who that is. UConn won the national title when he was a freshmen. Then they found out they were ineligible for the 2013 Tournament because of a poor academic record. Then Jim Calhoun retired. Then the Big East blew up and UConn was left without a home. He had so many opportunities to leave. Yet he stayed. And he was rewarded with a National Championship in his final collegiate game.
As incredible as some of these players that use college as simply a way to kill time before they're allowed to enter the NBA are, their teams aren't usually the ones playing on Monday night. There are a few exceptions. Anthony Davis and Kentucky won the title two years ago, and, of course, there was Carmelo Anthony and Syracuse a decade ago, before the One-and-Done Era began. But more often than not, it's the teams that actually have senior leaders that end up hoisting the trophy.
Take the last five National Champions. In 2009, North Carolina was led by senior Tyler Hansbrough. Duke won the title in 2010. Their best player? Arguably it might've been freshman Andre Dawkins. But who were their leaders? Jon Scheyer, Kyle Singler and Brian Zoubek, upperclassmen all. That 2011 UConn team when Shabazz was a freshman? That's the year Kemba Walker was a senior, as well as the year he decided he was going to win the National Championship. Kentucky's freshmen won in 2012, but last season it was Louisville, with senior point guard Peyton Siva and junior Russ Smith leading the way.
Nobody would've blamed Russ Smith if he had declared for the NBA Draft. He had nothing left to prove at Louisville. But he came back, won American Player of the Year, and was a consensus First Team All-American. The consensus National Player of the Year was another senior. Doug McDermott. McDermott easily would've been a high NBA draft pick last year. But he wanted to play in the Big East. Well, he didn't just play in the Big East. He led Creighton to the Big East title game and a No. 3 seed.
Creighton never would've been a No. 3 seed without Doug McDermott. Wisconsin made it to the Final Four. Their leading scorers were Frank Kaminsky (junior) and Ben Brust (senior). Florida was No. 1 most of the season. With seniors Scottie Wilbekin, Casey Prather, Will Yeguette and Patric Young. Are you beginning to sense a theme here?
The other trend that we've seen during the One-and-Done Era is one that I don't think is going to go away anytime soon. The Cinderella Final Four runs by the likes of Butler and VCU and Wichita State, and, to a lesser extent, runs like the one Dayton made this year are generally made by senior-laden, experienced teams. Same thing with your Mercers and your Florida Gulf Coasts. There's a reason for that. They're still upsets, but they aren't necessarily surprises. And until the big guys stop relying so much on freshmen, you're going to continue seeing high seeds lose in the first round in March.
Everyone knows that Duke is a better team than Mercer. But there's no denying the value of veteran leadership. Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker and Tyler Ennis are all dynamic players who were fun to watch during their college cameos. But what do their (presumably) only NCAA Tournament appearances have in common? They all ended early. And their teams all lost to teams that have been together longer.
Until there's a rules change that puts an end to the One-and-Done Era, we can expect more of the same. The big-name programs are still going to get the highly-touted recruits who are only going to college because they can't go to the NBA yet. Those stars will be as amazing as advertised, plenty of people will want to watch them, and they'll win plenty of games on talent alone. But when they get to March, they won't be sticking around long.
When it comes to winning a National Championship, experience matters. Just ask Shabazz Napier.
If there's a guy who deserved a National Championship as much as Shabazz Napier, I don't know who that is. UConn won the national title when he was a freshmen. Then they found out they were ineligible for the 2013 Tournament because of a poor academic record. Then Jim Calhoun retired. Then the Big East blew up and UConn was left without a home. He had so many opportunities to leave. Yet he stayed. And he was rewarded with a National Championship in his final collegiate game.
As incredible as some of these players that use college as simply a way to kill time before they're allowed to enter the NBA are, their teams aren't usually the ones playing on Monday night. There are a few exceptions. Anthony Davis and Kentucky won the title two years ago, and, of course, there was Carmelo Anthony and Syracuse a decade ago, before the One-and-Done Era began. But more often than not, it's the teams that actually have senior leaders that end up hoisting the trophy.
Take the last five National Champions. In 2009, North Carolina was led by senior Tyler Hansbrough. Duke won the title in 2010. Their best player? Arguably it might've been freshman Andre Dawkins. But who were their leaders? Jon Scheyer, Kyle Singler and Brian Zoubek, upperclassmen all. That 2011 UConn team when Shabazz was a freshman? That's the year Kemba Walker was a senior, as well as the year he decided he was going to win the National Championship. Kentucky's freshmen won in 2012, but last season it was Louisville, with senior point guard Peyton Siva and junior Russ Smith leading the way.
Nobody would've blamed Russ Smith if he had declared for the NBA Draft. He had nothing left to prove at Louisville. But he came back, won American Player of the Year, and was a consensus First Team All-American. The consensus National Player of the Year was another senior. Doug McDermott. McDermott easily would've been a high NBA draft pick last year. But he wanted to play in the Big East. Well, he didn't just play in the Big East. He led Creighton to the Big East title game and a No. 3 seed.
Creighton never would've been a No. 3 seed without Doug McDermott. Wisconsin made it to the Final Four. Their leading scorers were Frank Kaminsky (junior) and Ben Brust (senior). Florida was No. 1 most of the season. With seniors Scottie Wilbekin, Casey Prather, Will Yeguette and Patric Young. Are you beginning to sense a theme here?
The other trend that we've seen during the One-and-Done Era is one that I don't think is going to go away anytime soon. The Cinderella Final Four runs by the likes of Butler and VCU and Wichita State, and, to a lesser extent, runs like the one Dayton made this year are generally made by senior-laden, experienced teams. Same thing with your Mercers and your Florida Gulf Coasts. There's a reason for that. They're still upsets, but they aren't necessarily surprises. And until the big guys stop relying so much on freshmen, you're going to continue seeing high seeds lose in the first round in March.
Everyone knows that Duke is a better team than Mercer. But there's no denying the value of veteran leadership. Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker and Tyler Ennis are all dynamic players who were fun to watch during their college cameos. But what do their (presumably) only NCAA Tournament appearances have in common? They all ended early. And their teams all lost to teams that have been together longer.
Until there's a rules change that puts an end to the One-and-Done Era, we can expect more of the same. The big-name programs are still going to get the highly-touted recruits who are only going to college because they can't go to the NBA yet. Those stars will be as amazing as advertised, plenty of people will want to watch them, and they'll win plenty of games on talent alone. But when they get to March, they won't be sticking around long.
When it comes to winning a National Championship, experience matters. Just ask Shabazz Napier.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Revised Final Four Picks
How'd you do on your bracket? I was doing so well. Then Louisville lost in the Sweet 16 and two of my other three Final Four teams bowed out in the Elite Eight. As a result, I only got one of the four right...and that would be the one team everybody had, No. 1 overall seed Florida. But at least I still have my National Champion.
It's not like any of the other three teams in Dallas don't belong there, though. Let's start with Kentucky. This isn't an 8-seed. This is the team that was the preseason No. 1. And the Wildcats had by far the toughest road. They had to beat three of last year's Final Four teams (Wichita State, Louisville, Michigan), in a row, to get to the Final Four. In fact, should Kentucky beat Wisconsin, they'll have played five consecutive NCAA Tournament games against five of the other seven Final Four teams from the last two years.
Meanwhile, for the Wildcats' opponent, this is the culmination of a decade where they've been among the elite teams in college basketball. Yet, for all that success, this is Wisconsin's first Final Four under Bo Ryan. They're almost the forgotten team of the Big Ten, so it's nice to see them as the only one standing. The Big Ten, of course, had a chance to become just the second conference in history to land three teams in the Final Four in the same season. But with Michigan and Michigan State both going down on Sunday, the Badgers will be carrying the banner for the Big Ten in Dallas. And it's very well earned.
Then there's UConn. As soon as they won their second round game to advance to the Garden, I knew this team was going to the Final Four. UConn playing a Regional at Madison Square Garden was almost unfair. I was at the Michigan State game, and the Garden was at least 70 percent blue. But it was more than that. UConn isn't just comfortable at the Garden. They think of it as almost a second home. And since they're (sadly) not in the Big East anymore, they're never going to have the chance to win something significant at the Garden again. They weren't going home empty-handed. I also had a feeling Shabazz Napier was going to go all Kemba Walker on poor Iowa State and Michigan State, and it turns out that's exactly what happened.
However, the Final Four isn't at Madison Square Garden. UConn made history as the first No. 7 seed to make the Final Four in a 64-team tournament, but they're no match for Florida. Yes, the Huskies were the last team to beat the Gators. But that's why I don't think they're going to win. Florida's a much better team now than they were in early December, and they don't forget that loss. They're not gonna lose to UConn again, especially with the season on the line.
I think we're going to have an all-SEC final, which is quite a feat for a conference that only put three teams in the tournament. Florida's the best team, and Kentucky's playing the best. That's going to be a great game between Kentucky and Wisconsin, but the Wildcats are simply too talented. I'd be very surprised if they didn't win that semi. But they won't beat Florida in the final. Sure, they almost beat them in the SEC Championship Game. This is different, though. Florida's simply too good. Even for Kentucky. I stand by my pick for the National Champion.
On the women's side, my bracket's in much better shape. Granted, it wasn't hard to pick UConn, Notre Dame and Stanford. But Maryland knocked out Louisville on the Cardinals' home floor in the Elite Eight, so I ended up with three instead of four.
All season, people have been looking forward to that UConn-Notre Dame National Championship Game, and we're one game away from the showdown between the two undefeateds. But that's no longer the certainty it once seemed. Notre Dame's Natalie Achonwa tore her ACL against Baylor in the regional final, making the Fighting Irish susceptible to an upset from a very good Maryland team that pulled off upsets of both Tennessee and Louisville (on the Cardinals' home floor) in the regional. They only played once in the regular season...and Maryland gave Notre Dame its closest game of anybody. Maryland's definitely capable of pulling off another upset, but I think Notre Dame will still find a way to get it done. Even without Achonwa.
The other semi pits the other team in pursuit of perfection against a team that always plays it well. Stanford is very similar to UConn, which is why they prove to be such a tough matchup for the Huskies. And Stanford's the one opponent that actually has a post player that can matchup against Breana Stewart. Chiney Ogumwike is capable of winning a game by herself. Not against UConn, but against other teams. If they were playing anyone else, I'd like Stanford's chances much better. Unfortunately, they drew UConn. The Huskies are undefeated for a reason.
So, we'll get our dream final. UConn vs. Notre Dame. Of course, they were in the same conference until this year, so this is simply the renewal of their great rivalry. And two undefeated teams playing for the National Championship seems almost too good to be true. Notre Dame is eager to avenge that loss to UConn in last year's Final Four, but this is where the loss of Achonwa is really going to hurt. If she were healthy, Notre Dame would have a tough time, but would be much more capable of pulling off the upset. But without her, UConn is simply going to dominate inside. The Huskies are the better team. And they'll once again do something that should be hard, yet has become commonplace for them...go undefeated and win the National Championship. (Also, one interesting note: this is the third time UConn is in both Final Fours, and the women won the national title both previous times, including the unprecedented double championship in 2004.)
It's not like any of the other three teams in Dallas don't belong there, though. Let's start with Kentucky. This isn't an 8-seed. This is the team that was the preseason No. 1. And the Wildcats had by far the toughest road. They had to beat three of last year's Final Four teams (Wichita State, Louisville, Michigan), in a row, to get to the Final Four. In fact, should Kentucky beat Wisconsin, they'll have played five consecutive NCAA Tournament games against five of the other seven Final Four teams from the last two years.
Meanwhile, for the Wildcats' opponent, this is the culmination of a decade where they've been among the elite teams in college basketball. Yet, for all that success, this is Wisconsin's first Final Four under Bo Ryan. They're almost the forgotten team of the Big Ten, so it's nice to see them as the only one standing. The Big Ten, of course, had a chance to become just the second conference in history to land three teams in the Final Four in the same season. But with Michigan and Michigan State both going down on Sunday, the Badgers will be carrying the banner for the Big Ten in Dallas. And it's very well earned.
Then there's UConn. As soon as they won their second round game to advance to the Garden, I knew this team was going to the Final Four. UConn playing a Regional at Madison Square Garden was almost unfair. I was at the Michigan State game, and the Garden was at least 70 percent blue. But it was more than that. UConn isn't just comfortable at the Garden. They think of it as almost a second home. And since they're (sadly) not in the Big East anymore, they're never going to have the chance to win something significant at the Garden again. They weren't going home empty-handed. I also had a feeling Shabazz Napier was going to go all Kemba Walker on poor Iowa State and Michigan State, and it turns out that's exactly what happened.
However, the Final Four isn't at Madison Square Garden. UConn made history as the first No. 7 seed to make the Final Four in a 64-team tournament, but they're no match for Florida. Yes, the Huskies were the last team to beat the Gators. But that's why I don't think they're going to win. Florida's a much better team now than they were in early December, and they don't forget that loss. They're not gonna lose to UConn again, especially with the season on the line.
I think we're going to have an all-SEC final, which is quite a feat for a conference that only put three teams in the tournament. Florida's the best team, and Kentucky's playing the best. That's going to be a great game between Kentucky and Wisconsin, but the Wildcats are simply too talented. I'd be very surprised if they didn't win that semi. But they won't beat Florida in the final. Sure, they almost beat them in the SEC Championship Game. This is different, though. Florida's simply too good. Even for Kentucky. I stand by my pick for the National Champion.
On the women's side, my bracket's in much better shape. Granted, it wasn't hard to pick UConn, Notre Dame and Stanford. But Maryland knocked out Louisville on the Cardinals' home floor in the Elite Eight, so I ended up with three instead of four.
All season, people have been looking forward to that UConn-Notre Dame National Championship Game, and we're one game away from the showdown between the two undefeateds. But that's no longer the certainty it once seemed. Notre Dame's Natalie Achonwa tore her ACL against Baylor in the regional final, making the Fighting Irish susceptible to an upset from a very good Maryland team that pulled off upsets of both Tennessee and Louisville (on the Cardinals' home floor) in the regional. They only played once in the regular season...and Maryland gave Notre Dame its closest game of anybody. Maryland's definitely capable of pulling off another upset, but I think Notre Dame will still find a way to get it done. Even without Achonwa.
The other semi pits the other team in pursuit of perfection against a team that always plays it well. Stanford is very similar to UConn, which is why they prove to be such a tough matchup for the Huskies. And Stanford's the one opponent that actually has a post player that can matchup against Breana Stewart. Chiney Ogumwike is capable of winning a game by herself. Not against UConn, but against other teams. If they were playing anyone else, I'd like Stanford's chances much better. Unfortunately, they drew UConn. The Huskies are undefeated for a reason.
So, we'll get our dream final. UConn vs. Notre Dame. Of course, they were in the same conference until this year, so this is simply the renewal of their great rivalry. And two undefeated teams playing for the National Championship seems almost too good to be true. Notre Dame is eager to avenge that loss to UConn in last year's Final Four, but this is where the loss of Achonwa is really going to hurt. If she were healthy, Notre Dame would have a tough time, but would be much more capable of pulling off the upset. But without her, UConn is simply going to dominate inside. The Huskies are the better team. And they'll once again do something that should be hard, yet has become commonplace for them...go undefeated and win the National Championship. (Also, one interesting note: this is the third time UConn is in both Final Fours, and the women won the national title both previous times, including the unprecedented double championship in 2004.)
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Making the Same Logo Different
I don't know about you, but I hate the Super Bowl logo. And it's not just because the Super Bowl logo is boring. It's because the Super Bowl logo is exactly the same every year! The NFL did this because they wanted "consistent branding," but they did it in the wrong way. The unique logos were part of each Super Bowl's identity. A chance for the host to inject a little local flavor. (Imagine how cool it would've been if they'd worked the Statue of Liberty or a skyscraper or, perhaps most appropriately, a bridge into this year's Super Bowl logo?)
The only differences between the last four Super Bowl logos have been the number and the image of the stadium hosting the game in the background. And I bet you can guess what the Super Bowl XLIX logo looks like, too. Here's a great shot of the last four (since they began this standardized logo thing), along with a projection for next year's:
So why am I bringing this up now? Well, because that's an example of consistent branding that doesn't work. I can't think of a single person that likes having the same Super Bowl logo every year (and even fewer that think it's a good logo). I want to contrast that to an example of consistent branding that does work. Over the past few years, the NCAA has done a great job of rebranding the NCAA Tournament. Every floor used during the Tournament is the same, with the exception of the city and arena names along the baselines and the host team's logo in front of the benches.
But the best part is this. The NCAA has had the same logo template for the Final Four since 2007. Yet the Final Four logo in each of those years has been distinct.
It's a prime example of how you can have a consistent brand, but make the logo unique at the same time. The Final Four was in Detroit in 2009, so they incorporated a wheel and flames. In 2011, it was in Houston, so they made it look like the NASA patch. Since the Final Four was in Atlanta in 2013, they naturally had to include a peach. That spaceship that landed in Dallas (sorry, "North Texas") and Jerry Jones is so proud of is the star of this year's show. It makes sense that it's featured prominently in the Final Four logo.
The NCAA has even taken it a step further. The logo template used for the Men's Final Four is the same one they use for the Women's Final Four, as well as the Men's and Women's Frozen Fours.
That's the beauty of these logos, and where the NFL can learn from the NCAA. The brand message is consistent. You know it's an NCAA event. But they're also different enough to tell them apart. You're not going to confuse the 2011 Final Four logo with the 2014 Final Four logo. Even the colors are different. The same can't be said with the logos for Super Bowl XLV (Dallas) and Super Bowl XLVIII (New York). And that's the shame of it.
Hopefully the NFL eventually gets the hint and takes a page out of the NCAA's book. There's no problem with logos being similar or using the same template every year. There just needs to be some sort of variety to go with it. That's why the NCAA shines with the Final Four logo and the NFL fails with the Super Bowl logo.
The only differences between the last four Super Bowl logos have been the number and the image of the stadium hosting the game in the background. And I bet you can guess what the Super Bowl XLIX logo looks like, too. Here's a great shot of the last four (since they began this standardized logo thing), along with a projection for next year's:
I must say, the NFL gets major points for creativity. (Hopefully we're done with this for the 50th Anniversary, which deserves a gold logo, especially with the game being played in San Francisco.)So why am I bringing this up now? Well, because that's an example of consistent branding that doesn't work. I can't think of a single person that likes having the same Super Bowl logo every year (and even fewer that think it's a good logo). I want to contrast that to an example of consistent branding that does work. Over the past few years, the NCAA has done a great job of rebranding the NCAA Tournament. Every floor used during the Tournament is the same, with the exception of the city and arena names along the baselines and the host team's logo in front of the benches.
But the best part is this. The NCAA has had the same logo template for the Final Four since 2007. Yet the Final Four logo in each of those years has been distinct.
It's a prime example of how you can have a consistent brand, but make the logo unique at the same time. The Final Four was in Detroit in 2009, so they incorporated a wheel and flames. In 2011, it was in Houston, so they made it look like the NASA patch. Since the Final Four was in Atlanta in 2013, they naturally had to include a peach. That spaceship that landed in Dallas (sorry, "North Texas") and Jerry Jones is so proud of is the star of this year's show. It makes sense that it's featured prominently in the Final Four logo.
The NCAA has even taken it a step further. The logo template used for the Men's Final Four is the same one they use for the Women's Final Four, as well as the Men's and Women's Frozen Fours.
That's the beauty of these logos, and where the NFL can learn from the NCAA. The brand message is consistent. You know it's an NCAA event. But they're also different enough to tell them apart. You're not going to confuse the 2011 Final Four logo with the 2014 Final Four logo. Even the colors are different. The same can't be said with the logos for Super Bowl XLV (Dallas) and Super Bowl XLVIII (New York). And that's the shame of it.
Hopefully the NFL eventually gets the hint and takes a page out of the NCAA's book. There's no problem with logos being similar or using the same template every year. There just needs to be some sort of variety to go with it. That's why the NCAA shines with the Final Four logo and the NFL fails with the Super Bowl logo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)