Striking Similarities, Drastic Differences

On the 20-year anniversary of their memorable Cup run, the New York Rangers are back in the Stanley Cup Finals!  That 1994 team seemed destined to win the Cup.  They were the best team in the league and bludgeoned everybody, including the Islanders and Capitals in the first two rounds of the playoffs.  This year?  Different story.  They were terrible at the start of the year and for a while it looked like they might not even make the playoffs.  There are plenty of other differences between the 1994 Rangers and the 2014 Rangers.  But there are an alarming number of similarities, too.

In 1992, the Rangers won the President's Cup before losing to Pittsburgh in the Patrick Division Finals.  Everybody thought that was the team that was going to break the Curse.  Two years later, they did.  Two years ago, the Rangers were the best team in hockey.  They finished with the most points (Vancouver got the President's Cup on a tiebreaker) and had home ice throughout the Eastern Conference playoffs, but lost to the Devils in the Conference Finals.

The Head Coach of the 1994 Rangers was Mike Keenan, who was in his first season after replacing the fired Roger Neilson.  Current Rangers coach Alain Vigneaut is in his first season.  After replacing the fired John Tortorella.

Now on to the differences, the most obvious of which is that those Rangers had a captain.  Perhaps the best captain in franchise history.  These Rangers haven't had a captain since the trade deadline, when Ryan Callahan was sent to Tampa Bay for Martin St. Louis.

That brings me to another similarity.  In 1994, the Rangers traded Hall of Famer Mike Gartner to Toronto at the deadline for Glenn Anderson, who was one of the many former Oilers on that squad.  Gartner never got his name on the Cup.  That's the closest he came.  Anderson, meanwhile, like Messier and Kevin Lowe, won the Cup six times, five in Edmonton, one in New York.  Callahan, a career Ranger until the trade, has never won a Cup.  St. Louis was the captain of the 2004 Lightning, where he was a teammate of Brad Richards.

Richards is one of the many stars on this Rangers roster.  There are eight 2014 Olympians on the roster, including four guys who played in the gold medal game (Rick Nash, Martin St. Louis, Carl Hagelin, Henrik Lundqvist).  The 1994 Rangers had some legendary names, four of whose jerseys now hang in the Garden rafters.  The best defenseman on the team 20 years ago?  American Brian Leetch.  The best defenseman now?  American Ryan McDonagh.

Another American, Mike Richter, is widely considered the greatest goalie in franchise history.  At least he was until Henrik Lundqvist came around.  Richter won the Rangers a Stanley Cup.  He also won an Olympic silver medal (2002) and a World Cup of Hockey (1996) for the United States.  Now Lundqvist has a chance to get his Cup to go along with an Olympic gold (2006) and silver (2014) for Sweden.

When the Rangers had a chance to close out the Canadiens in Game 5, I thought it was an omen.  The game was played on May 27, 20 years to the day of Stephane Matteau's double-overtime winner in Game 7 against the Devils.  Well, that obviously wasn't the Rangers' destiny that day.  And neither is winning the Cup on June 14, the 20-year anniversary of their Game 7 win over the Canucks.  Even though the NHL usually goes with a Monday-Wednesday-Saturday schedule for the Stanley Cup Finals, Game 5 is on Friday, June 13 instead (I'm assuming this is because of U.S. Open golf, but I'm not 100 sure).

And lastly, to tie it all together.  Eddie Olczyk was a little-used forward who only saw action in one playoff game for the 1994 Rangers.  In 2014, he'll once again be watching the Rangers in the Stanley Cup Finals from the press box.  As NBC's analyst.  The backup goalie from that Rangers team 20 years ago will also have a similar seat for this year's Finals.  Glenn Healy is that guy next to Pierre McGuire between the boards, doing the same thing for CBC on Hockey Night in Canada.

I obviously have no idea how the Stanley Cup Finals are going to play out.  The Rangers won't even find out who they play until tomorrow night.  But if that 1994 Cup run seemed predestined, this one certainly came as much more of a surprise.  And no matter what happens, we've enjoyed the ride.  Hopefully we get to enjoy it all the way until that parade down the Canyon of Heroes.  Just like the one 20 years ago.

Very Early All-Star Voting Results

The first results of All-Star voting have been released, and it's safe to say people in Colorado are stuffing the ballot box.  There's no problem with Troy Tulowitzki leading, but who are those other two guys?  Why are they the leading vote getters at their position?  Those aren't the only surprises from these Week 1 results, but they're definitely the most glaring.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I haven't voted once yet.  I haven't been to a game since mid-April, and I generally save my online votes until the game is much closer.  (I have no idea how many home games each team has had since voting began, so maybe that's one way to explain the Rockies thing.)

Since the National League leaders were the ones that came out today, let's start there.  As you would expect, Yadier Molina and Buster Posey are 1-2 at catcher.  Yadi's got a healthy lead, as he probably should.  He's the best catcher in the game.  Likewise, Adrian Gonzalez leading at first base is no big surprise, even though the margin over Freddie Freeman is somewhat closer than you'd expect.  And Joey Votto will probably enter the discussion when he comes off the DL.  Chase Utley's not really that good anymore, but second base in the National League is incredibly weak and he's the most recognizable name, so that's not a problem.

Tulo's massive lead at shortstop is no surprise.  Again, I have no problem with Troy Tulowitzki leading All-Star voting.  He's popular everywhere and is a legitimate MVP candidate.  Plus, who else plays shortstop in the National League?  Well, Hanley Ramirez, but you get my point.  At third base, though, all I know about Nolan Arenado is that he plays for the Rockies and that he broke his finger sliding into a base the other day.  I'd make a "What are they smoking in Colorado?" joke here, but we all know the answer to that.  Anyway, the point remains.  Why is David Wright only in third place in the voting?

I have much less of a problem with Arenado than I do with the outfield, though.  If you told me a Rockies outfielder was on pace to start, I would've assumed it was Carlos Gonzalez.  Nope.  He's in 13th.  Instead, it's some guy named Charlie Blackmon who has the third-most overall votes in the National League.

But, you know what?  That's not even the biggest problem.  It's an absolute joke that Ryan Braun is currently third and on pace to start.  This guy took PEDs, lied about it, and served a 65-game suspension for it.  Yet people think he's worthy of starting the All-Star Game?!  You've got to be kidding me!  And I'm not even going to let people get away with the "Most Familiar Name" card.  There are plenty of outfielders in the National League.  I guarantee you've heard of three not named Ryan Braun.

In fact, I was almost taking it for granted that the National League outfield would be Bryce Harper, Yasiel Puig and Andrew McCutchen.  McCutchen's currently in second place, and I would imagine he'll remain pretty safely in the starting lineup.  Puig will probably end up starting, too, now that people have seen the fact that Blackmon and Braun are both among the leaders.  Harper, though, is only 12th in voting right now.  I'm not sure how he's had that dramatic a drop in one season, especially since, as far as I know, fans still love him.

Over in the American League, there are far fewer surprises.  People are acting like there's still a chance Derek Jeter won't start his final All-Star Game.  That's a highly laughable proposition.  As expected, he's already got a massive lead at shortstop.  All the third basemen are happy...because Miggy took his All-Star votes over to first base.  And David Ortiz will be the AL's starting DH until he retires (even if I proudly never have and never will vote for him).  The overall leading vote getter?  Also no surprise.  Mike Trout.

Joining Trout in the outfield is Jose Bautista, who has the second-highest vote total of anybody.  I still don't get it.  Does everyone in Canada simply vote for him just because he's on the Blue Jays?  He isn't that good.  Why is he so popular?  Anyway, I was wondering who the third outfielder might be, and it's currently Jacoby Ellsbury.  Trout's going to start.  Bautista most likely will, as well.  But that third spot's going to be up for grabs from now until the All-Star Game.

My big problem with American League All-Star voting was always going to be at second base.  On principle, I can't vote for Robinson Cano.  And seeing as I like Dustin Pedroia almost as much as I like Rafael Nadal, you know there's no chance I'm voting for him either.  That leaves Ian Kinsler.  I've been a Kinsler fan since he got screwed out of starting the All-Star Game at Yankee Stadium (and didn't even make the team!), so this is a perfectly acceptable alternative.  Well, the rest of baseball fans have been helping me out.  The three of them have already distanced the field, but Kinsler's currently the leader.

Rounding out the AL leaders are Matt Wieters behind the plate and Josh Donaldson at third.  The Twins really would've been wise to wait a year on this whole moving Joe Mauer to first plan.  Because if he was still a catcher, he'd easily be leading the voting and they'd know that they'd likely have a virtual guaranteed starter in their home All-Star Game, just like David Wright last year.  But he's not no chance of beating Cabrera at first base, and Minnesota likely won't have any starters.  Without Mauer, AL catcher lacks marquee names, so Wieters is fine.  He's currently on the DL, though, so that might change.

As for Donaldson, he could've (and some might say should've) been Oakland's representative last year, but ended up getting squeezed out because Miguel Cabrera was still playing third and Manny Machado had a ridiculous first half in 2013.  Donaldson's coming-out party to the rest of us was against the Tigers in the Division Series.  He's a good ballplayer, but it's still a surprise to see him leading the voting.  I kind of assumed it would end up being Evan Longoria that starts, and it still might be.

We've still got a long way to go, and these leaders likely will change.  It's always interesting to see where fans' heads are at when All-Star voting starts, though.  And it at least gives us something to talk about.  Even if it ends up being much ado about nothing.

Roland Garros 2014

The French Open has already begun.  I still don't understand why, but they do a Sunday start at Roland Garros.  They started doing it a couple years ago and it seems completely unnecessary, but I guess it's become their thing, so we've just to roll with it.  And since there were no major upsets in the 32 matches (16 men's, 16 women's) today, my expectations for what's going to happen in the tournament haven't been altered at all.

This is the French Open we're talking about anyway.  We should just work under the assumption Rafael Nadal is going to win and be surprised if he doesn't (even though he'll be Taylor Swift "surprised" when he inevitably wins again).  Dude, you've won eight times in the last nine years!  Stop acting like you didn't expect you were going to win.

Anyway, because of a certain left-handed Spaniard, this is my least favorite Slam.  There is hope for everyone else this year, though.  Nadal has lost twice on clay this year, and both of those guys are in his section of the draw.  Of course, those were best-of-three and best-of-five is a completely different animal.  Especially when you're talking about winning three sets against Rafael Nadal on clay.  And, is if he didn't need any more of an advantage, Djokovic and Federer would play each other in the semis.  So, those two will be in a dogfight while Rafa sits there and wins his easy three-setter.  Guess who'll be fresher two days later?

Nadal only has one loss in the French Open during his career.  In 2009 against Robin Soderling.  Soderling ended up going to the finals five years ago, losing to Federer, as Roger finally got his French Open title to complete a career Grand Slam.  Djokovic is still looking for his.  Novak Djokovic isn't the reigning champion at any of the four Grand Slam tournaments, and he wants this one the most.  This is the tournament that has been circled on his calendar.  If there's one other player who I'd say might (and I stress might) win this tournament, Novak Djokovic's the guy.

Before they run into each other in the semis, Djokovic will have to beat native son Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, while Federer gets his own personal foil, Tomas Berdych.  Meanwhile, Nadal would play Ferrer in what could be a very interesting quarter.  This was the final last year, and Ferrer handed Rafa one of those two losses.  If seeds hold, the fourth quarterfinal would be between the two guys who've had their Grand Slam breakthroughs in the past calendar year.  Stan Wawrinka beat Nadal in the Aussie Open final and is now ranked No. 3 (he's the top-ranked Swiss player, ahead of Federer).  Wimbledon champ Murray is down to No. 7.  Clay's not his surface, but he has been a semifinalist here before.

So how do I see this playing out?  Obviously, I think Nadal's going to make the finals.  In the semis, he'll beat another Frenchman, Richard Gasquet.  I just like that draw for Gasquet, and I think we'll see either Murray or Wawrinka (or both) be the victim of an early upset.  Djokovic beats Federer in four in the other semi, then is totally worn down by Nadal in the finals once again.  There's eventually going to be a point when Rafael Nadal doesn't automatically win the French Open every year.  Until that happens, though, it would be stupid to pick against him.

On the women's side, there is actually a chance somebody else might win.  Serena Williams is the favorite, but that's by no means a guarantee.  Last year was only her second French Open title, and we could get a finals rematch between her and Maria in the quarters.  Then there's Li Na.  She's won here before (in 2011), and has moved to No. 2 in the world with her Australian Open title.  Li's a very real threat for the title.  So is No. 3 Aggie Radwanska, who's still looking for that elusive first Grand Slam title.

Then there are the other former champs.  Francesca Schiavone lost today, but she wouldn't have been a contender anyway.  The woman she beat in the 2012 final, though, Sam Stosur is somebody nobody wants to see.  Ana Ivanovic, meanwhile, is playing some of her best tennis in years, and so is Jelena Jankovic.  Her quarterfinal opponent would be Sara Errani, who lost to Sharapova in the finals two years ago and has been a Top 10 player ever since.  And let's not forget the two Germans, Sabine Lisicki and Angelique Kerber.  Unlike the men's field, the women's tournament is wide open.

I usually end up being surprised by someone in the French Open women's tournament.  Not necessarily by who wins, but somebody you wouldn't expect is going to go deep into the second week.  It might be Caroline Wozniacki.  She went from No. 1 to No. 13 while she was with Rory McIlroy, so let's see if their breakup effects her game at all (positively or negatively).  Flavia Pennetta, the No. 12 seed, seems like a sleeper candidate, too.  I have no idea how Simona Halep got to No. 4 in the world, but she is.  And that means her draw is favorable to get to the semifinals.

Before she even gets to Maria, Serena will have to play Venus in the third round, then her nemesis, Sabine Lisicki in the fourth round.  How difficult will they make life for her, and will that have an impact during the later rounds?  If it does, that works in Radwanska's favor, but she's got to worry about Kerber first.  All of this plays right into Li's (or whoever comes out of the bottom's) hands.  Because the top half of the draw definitely looks tougher.

As has often been said, the only player who can beat Serena Williams is Serena Williams.  Serena has the talent to win on talent alone until she needs to, then she'll step up her game against Lisicki and Sharapova to get to the semis.  Where she'll be upset by Angelique Kerber.  On the bottom half, I think Ivanovic is primed to make a run.  She was the next big thing for a while, then fell on some hard times and dropped out of the Top 10.  Here's where she announces she's back with a vengeance.  With a semifinal appearance at the French Open, where she falls to Li Na.  And at the end of the fortnight, it'll be Li Na who's halfway to the Grand Slam.

It's Indy 500 Time!

I love the Indy 500!  It's so weird.  I don't watch IndyCar racing for much of the year, yet I get so excited for the 500 every time.  I can't explain it.  There's just something about this race.  I guess that's why they call it the "Greatest Spectacle In Racing."

We've got some extra fun at Indy this year, too.  There are six! former champions in the field, including Tony Kanaan, who finally got to sip the milk last year.  Also among those six former champions are Jacques Villeneuve, who's raced here twice before, finishing second in 1994 and winning in 1995.  He hasn't been back at Indy in 20 years.  I don't know where he was, but it's nice to have him back.  It's also nice to have back Juan Pablo Montoya, who you can chalk up as another IndyCar turned NASCAR turned failed NASCAR and went back to IndyCar driver.

Speaking of NASCAR, one of the six rookies in this year's race is some guy named Kurt Busch.  He's gonna try to pull off the double.  Indy, then Charlotte.  Nobody's done it since Tony Stewart in 2001.  Busch is obviously a NASCAR guy, and you've gotta think his top priority is the Coca-Cola 600.  He's probably not going to win Indy.  In fact, he had a practice crash earlier in the week.  But I love that he's making the attempt.  Maybe if he completes all 1100 miles, others will realize it can be done and try it also.  For that reason alone, I hope Busch finishes both races.  Not just finishes, but completes every lap.

One guy who sadly won't be in the field is Dario Franchitti.  Mr. Ashley Judd has won here twice in the last four years, but he had to retire after last season because of a back injury.  Don't worry, though.  He'll still be at the Brickyard.  He's driving the pace car.

The guy who'll be behind that pace car when the race begins is local guy Ed Carpenter, who's on the pole for the second straight year.  He carried that to a 10th-place finish last year.  It was an impressive performance by Carpenter to qualify on the pole again.  He's the first driver to grab the pole in back-to-back years since Helio Castroneves in 2009-10.  But I don't think he's going to win from the pole the way Helio did five years ago.  The field behind him is simply too deep.

Now that Kanaan's finally won, the title of "Best Driver Never to Win Indy" probably goes to either Will Power or Marco Andretti.  Power's in a great spot, starting on the outside of Row 1.  He's never finished higher than fifth, but I think at the very least, he breaks through that threshold.  Marco Andretti, meanwhile, came agonizingly close to winning as a rookie in 2006, and when he doesn't crash, he's usually a factor.  But there's that Andretti Curse.  It's been 45 years since Mario's win, the only one for that family of racing royalty.  They say that at Indy, the track decides who wins.  She finally let Tony Kanaan break through.  Is Marco Andretti next?  (After all, does anyone even remember anymore how long it took Dale Earnhardt to win Daytona?)

Then there's James Hinchcliffe, the other front-row starter.  He started second two years ago and finished sixth.  And how about Carlos Munoz?  As a rookie last year, he started second and finished second.  Is he the next guy destined for Indy glory?  Inside Row 3's not a bad starting position, either.  Starting on the outside of that row is J.R. Hildebrand, who had his own Indy heartbreak in 2011, when he crashed on the final turn of the final lap, allowing the late Dan Wheldon one last moment of triumph before he was tragically taken from us much too soon.

For some reason, I really like Ryan Hunter-Reay's chances despite his terrible starting position.  And you can never count out Kanaan or Scott Dixon either.  This race has gotten incredibly deep over the past couple years.  There are legitimately 10 guys who have a realistic chance of winning this race.

As for my pick, I've gotten remarkably lucky in recent years.  I picked the winner correctly in two of the last three years (Dan Wheldon in 2011 and Tony Kanaan last year).  So will my luck continue this year?  Well, let's give it a shot. 

Helio Castroneves is the gold standard at the Indy 500.  This is his 14th race.  He's won three times, and also has a second, a third and a fourth.  He's finished in the Top 10 in 11 of his previous 13 attempts.  Every year, you know he's going to be a factor.  And ever since his win in 2009, people have been wondering when and if he'll become the fourth four-time winner in Indy history.  Everything seems to be in his favor this year.  He's starting fourth and won the pit competition on Carb Day.  Starting fourth.  That's a significant number.  Because at the end of the day, Helio Castroneves will become the fourth driver to have his head placed on the Borg-Warner Trophy for the fourth time.

No Donovan, No Problem

I'm not going to pretend I know enough about the U.S. soccer team to feign outrage over Landon Donovan's omission from the World Cup roster.  Is it surprising?  Certainly.  Donovan has been the face of U.S. soccer for a decade and has played in more World Cup games than anybody.  But am I shocked?  Not completely.  Him not being on the squad is unexpected, but I don't think his presence (or lack thereof) will be what ultimately determines Team USA's fate next month in Brazil.

There are plenty of factors that need to considered here, not the least of which was Donovan's self-imposed sabbatical from the National Team in 2012.  Jurgen Klinsmann wasn't going to make him play if he didn't want to, so Klinsmann moved on without Donovan.  And the team he was putting out there in the Red, White and Blue did just fine.  Is Landon Donovan better than the players who replaced him?  Yes.  But in his absence, they got the valuable opportunity to play (and actually see time) with the National Team that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten.  And that will only make the team better in the long run.

When he was ready to come back, Klinsmann told Donovan that he'd have to earn back his spot on the "A" squad.  He was perfectly justified in doing that.  And he was right.  A spot on the "A" squad isn't anybody's birthright.  For his part, Donovan didn't sulk.  He went out and earned that spot back, and he was a big reason why the U.S. won the Gold Cup last year.  And when World Cup qualifying resumed last fall, Donovan was back in the starting lineup.

But Klinsmann also views Donovan as more of a forward than a midfielder, which has always been his position.  He's always been a scorer, so making that his primary focus probably wasn't a problem.  But Donovan's not a natural forward.  Maybe that was part of Klinsmann's decision-making process.  The guys he is taking to Brazil are all natural forwards.  And Clint Dempsey's the captain.

Speaking of Dempsey, he's one of the veterans that will be back.  This World Cup squad is kind of like the Olympic hockey team.  Plenty of familiar faces, with some new guys mixed in.  Maybe Donovan is the soccer version of Bobby Ryan.  The core of that 2010 team is still in tact.  It's not just Dempsey that'll be back.  So will Michael Bradley.  And Jozy Altidore.  And DaMarcus Beasley.  And, most importantly, Tim Howard. 

Whether or not Donovan was going to join them doesn't change the fact that this team has its work cut out for it.  Germany's Germany, Portugal has Cristiano Ronaldo, and Ghana has knocked them out of the last two World Cups.  Getting out of the group didn't suddenly become more difficult just because Landon Donovan's not on the team.  If they don't advance, Donovan not being there won't be the reason.

Landon Donovan has been responsible for plenty of memorable U.S. World Cup moments over the past 12 years.  Probably more than anyone else in history.  Who can ever forget the extra-time goal against Algeria that clinched the group four years ago?  Or his performance against Mexico in 2002?
In Brazil, it'll be someone else's chance to shine.  And who knows, maybe the next Landon Donovan will emerge.  After all, somebody's going to be wearing No. 10. 

The other guys stepped up when Donovan was away from the national team during the run up to the World Cup.  Now's their chance to do it again.  But if they don't, Jurgen Klinsmann better be ready for the second-guessing.

Busy Day In the NFL

For a day in mid-May, four months before the season starts, today was sure an eventful one in the NFL.  They talked about Bill Belichick's ridiculous extra point thing and the ridiculous extra playoff teams thing, as well as doing something actually important--choosing the site of Super Bowl LII.

Let's start with the stupidest one.  The owners voted to try out, for the first two weeks of the preseason, moving extra points from the 2-yard line to the 20.  Why we need to turn extra points into field goals I'm not exactly sure, so I hope this is the end of the discussion about this.  This, of course, is nothing that anyone ever considered a "problem" until Bill Belichick mentioned it.  So, I figure trying it is a way to shut Belichick up.  And when it doesn't work (because it doesn't make any sense), they can say, "at least we tried it."

Now moving on to the business of Super Bowl LII.  The candidates were New Orleans, Indianapolis and Minnesota.  And the winner is...Minnesota.  Good call.  New Orleans and Indianapolis both just hosted the Super Bowl, and the Vikings are building a new stadium.  This one's going to have a retractable roof, so the cold weather thing isn't going to be an issue.  The NFL likes new stadiums, especially ones that the teams build themselves.  This is the Vikings' reward for doing just that.  It also gives the NFL a chance to go somewhere different.  It's good to see other cities breaking into that New Orleans-Miami-Phoenix rotation.

And it looks like Super Bowl LII will be the culmination of a 14-team tournament.  Does the NFL need expanded playoffs?  No.  Are expanded playoffs inevitable?  Yes.  But, fortunately, it's not happening until next year at the earliest.

Delaying the playoff increase is the right call.  When Bud Selig added the wild card games in 2012, the MLB schedule was already made.  But he badly wanted those wild card games, so instead of waiting a year like he should've, he shoehorned them into the schedule.  And the result was disastrous.  You had the top seed starting the Division Series on the road, and the Yankees ended up having home games on five consecutive days.  In the playoffs!  Last year, when they were actually able to build the wild card games into the schedule, everything worked much better.  Whether or not MLB's wild card games are necessary is a different issue.

As I already noted, the extra two playoff games are inevitable.  They'll put a lot more money in the owners' pockets.  And the owners really like money.  The players won't budge on the 18-game schedule, so this is the trade-off.  Jerry Jones seems to think the owners can simply decide to do this without the union's approval, but you'd have to think that Mr. Brilliant Commissioner isn't dumb enough to make this move without running it by the players.  For their part, the players don't seem to have much of an issue with an extra wild card team in each conference anyway.  Especially if it means they can get a week chopped off the preseason.

Most football fans would probably say they're against expanded playoffs, but at the same time, you know people are going to gobble up two extra football games to watch.  Especially in January.  One of the problems that needs to be figured out is when to schedule these two extra games.  There's an open slot at 1:00 on Saturday and an open slot on Sunday night.  You know one's going to be a Sunday night game.  So, that leaves us with the other extra wild card game.  Saturday at 1:00 seems too obvious, but they might make a push to put that second game on Monday night.  If you ask me, though, it seems incredibly unfair to make two teams play a Monday night playoff game then presumably travel for what would have to be a Sunday Divisional game.  Especially if their opponent played on Saturday.  That's one of the reasons they did away with the Monday night game in Week 17 in the first place.

Expanded playoffs are definitely happening, so I've made my peace with them.  It's like the expanded NCAA Tournament, which ended up not being as bad as we all made it out to be.  And I'm sure they'll figure out a schedule that works for everybody, including the TV networks.  Three Saturday, three Sunday makes the most sense and would be the most fair, but which networks get those other two games is the big question.  My guess...CBS and FOX each get two afternoon games, NBC gets the Sunday night game, and the Saturday/Monday night game is on ESPN (basically, an extra week of the regular schedule TV-wise), then they each get one in the Divisional Playoffs.

The concerns about diluting the playoff field by adding two wild card teams do seem a little silly.  Every year in the NFL, there's very little difference between the second wild card team in each conference and the team that just missed getting in.  And while it does increase the likelihood of an 8-8 playoff team, it also serves to almost guarantee that a 10-6 team (like this year's Cardinals) doesn't end up missing out.  We've had so many 9-7/10-6 teams end up in the Super Bowl in recent years, too, that it's clear the difference between these teams isn't that great.  I don't think adding an extra team in each conference will change that.

There's one last element of the expanded playoffs that nobody has really mentioned, but is very significant, and might be one of the reasons for the discussions.  If there's an extra team in each conference, that means only one team gets a bye.  So, the No. 1 seed doesn't just get home field advantage.  They're the only team that doesn't have to play on Wild Card Weekend.

Teams should be rewarded for having the best record in their conference, and they are.  But that advantage isn't as significant as it should be.  That's why everybody made such a big deal about the Seattle-Denver matchup.  It was just the second time in 20 years that both No. 1 seeds made it to the Super Bowl.  So, you can bet, that it was in the back of the owners' minds to make that 1-seed a little more valuable.

That's not why they're expanding the playoffs.  The owner of the 7-seed isn't worried about getting the 1-seed to the Super Bowl.  Especially since he thinks his team has just as good a shot.  Ultimately, though, this is about money.  There's more to be had, and who's gonna say no to that?

An Old School Doubleheader

The Yankees and Pirates turned back the clock on Sunday.  They played a doubleheader at Yankee Stadium.  Teams playing a doubleheader, of course, isn't that rare.  Most play one or two a season.  But what made Sunday's so unique was that it wasn't a doubleheader of the day-night variety that we've become accustomed to.  Instead they went old school, playing two games for the price of one with only about a half-hour in between.

Of course, the increase in doubleheaders can be directly attributed to the existence of year-round interleague play.  Interleague opponents don't return, so the easiest way to make up games is to play two.  Either that or hoping you have a common off day, and that both teams are willing/able to make it up then.  With so few off days during the course of the season, and with most of them being travel days, you don't want to give one up unless you absolutely have to.

It's the whole idea of losing off days to play makeups that got Michael Kay and Paul O'Neill talking during today's twinbill.  Kay suggested that, as a way of giving teams more off days, they should give everybody a regularly scheduled doubleheader or two on a Sunday.

They even posed that as a social media question, and the one answer they shared was from a guy in favor of it.  This dude's argument was that it would keep players fresher.  I'm not sure he actually knows what he's talking about.  How exactly does a doubleheader help keep players fresher if they're playing 18 innings in one day instead of nine?  Why do you think starters are only playing one of the two games, or starting one in the field and DHing the other?

Then there's the pitching.  The most obvious problem with doubleheaders is that you need two starting pitchers.  That means you've got to adjust your rotation.  And if there's no off day immediately following the doubleheader, one of those guys would presumably have to make his next start on three-days' rest.  Or, if there hasn't been an off day beforehand, one of the two might have to start one of the doubleheader games on short rest.  That's why you see so many teams calling up a guy from the minors to start one of the games of a doubleheader.  Just so they don't mess up the rotation.

When teams played doubleheaders regularly, they generally used a four-man rotation, so starters were pitching every fourth day anyway.  As a result, the doubleheader was no big deal.  Starters were also more apt to throw complete games back then.  If you've got your starter going 7-8, even nine innings, you're not taxing your bullpen.

Speaking of bullpens, managers have to be careful how to work them.  For the most part, you're probably not going to ask a reliever to pitch in two games in the same day.  Not even your closer.  (The LOOGYs, who are most likely only going to pitch to one or two hitters, might be the exception to this rule.)  So, in addition to figuring out what you're going to do about your starting staff, you've got to figure out what you're going to do with the bullpen.  Who's working what game?  If he pitches in game one, can I use him in game two?  And for how long?  What about extra innings?  There are plenty of reasons why managers hate doubleheaders.

If you were to poll the players, they'd probably say they don't like doubleheaders either.  That's a looooooong day.  And again, it's a lot to ask of them to play 18 innings in a day.  Playing one game takes a pretty big toll physically.  They might not get that many days off, but at least they're mentally and physically prepared to play a game every single day.  It's completely different, both physically and psychologically, to get ready for that second one.

And how about the owners?  Well, they aren't going to give up a gate that easily.  That's the main reason why we're not seeing the return of the regular doubleheader anytime soon.  A straight doubleheader is one ticket, so you're losing one of your 81 home dates.  If you're a team like the Marlins or the Astros and you're only drawing 25-30,000 a game, that's not that big deal.  If you're the Yankees or the Red Sox (or you're playing one of those teams), that's a huge difference.  You're losing an attendance of 40,000 or more.  That's how the whole day-night doubleheader thing became commonplace in the first place.  An afternoon game and a night game on the same day is two separate tickets.  No lost revenue.

Another reason why the doubleheader has become nothing more than the solution for rainouts is because the schedule is set up differently now.  Back when doubleheaders were a regular part of each team's schedule, they traveled by train.  They needed the extra off days to give them more time to get from one city to another.  Now that teams fly everywhere, on private charters, getting places is less of an issue.  You can get from New York to Seattle in just a few hours.  You can leave after a Thursday night game and be playing somewhere else on Friday night.  Since you can play every night, you don't have to account for travel by building doubleheaders into the schedule.

Doubleheaders have been a part of baseball as long as anyone can remember.  And they're not going away anytime soon.  But I don't think there's any need to start scheduling them regularly.  The way they do things now is fine.  The doubleheader is the way to make up the rainouts that every team is inevitably going to have during the season.  Doubleheaders are a way of preventing teams from losing off days.  There's no reason for teams to start playing more of them just so they can have more of them.

Stanley Cup Conference Finals

I'd imagine the NHL has got to be happy with the Stanley Cup Playoffs so far.  Thursday was the only night since the playoffs started that there wasn't a game, every series has had at least one overtime game, and there's been six Game 7's (incredibly, the road team is 5-1 in those games, including the Kings twice).

And now we're left with four teams that people probably thought had an outside chance for the Cup, but probably wouldn't have been considered favorites when the playoffs began.  Well, one of them is going to win it.  It's Blackhawks vs. Kings in the West for the second straight year, while it's Rangers-Canadiens in the East.  You know NBC's gotta be happy.  It's the three biggest media markets in the U.S. and the most famous hockey team in the world.  It's also crazy that the Canadiens were the only Canadian team to make the playoffs, and they're still alive in the conference finals. 

We've also got a chance for our second straight all-Original Six Final.  When we got Boston-Chicago last year (for the first one since 1979, when it was Rangers-Canadiens), we knew the chances of another one were going to drop considerably, since the realignment was putting five of the six in the East.  Yet here we are, in the first year of this format, and we can get it in back-to-back years.  It's guaranteed in the East.  Blackhawks, it's on you.  No pressure though.

Eastern Conference: Canadiens-Rangers: These two are meeting in the playoffs for the 15th time, and the first time since 1996.  And one is guaranteed its first Final appearance in 20 years.  This is also the series that both of these teams wanted.  Because the Rangers weren't going to beat Boston and the Canadiens weren't going to beat Pittsburgh.  Instead they'll face each other, and these teams are so evenly-matched it's funny.

Let's start with the goalies.  When's the last time Carey Price and Henrik Lundqvist squared off?  Oh, that's right.  It was the Olympic gold medal game.  That's when Price led a different group of Canadians to their second straight gold medal over Lundqvist and the Swedes.  So, unlike the last series, the Rangers' advantage in goal isn't as distinct.  Some might even argue that the two goalies are equal, although I give Lundqvist the slight edge.

Offensively, though, the matchup is about as even as can be.  This is going to be a different series than Rangers-Pittsburgh, and certainly different than Montreal-Boston.  Both of these teams are fast, and the action is going to be back-and-forth, up-and-down the ice.  Two years ago when they lost to the Devils in the conference finals, the Rangers looked incredibly fatigued after playing the maximum 14 games in the first two rounds.  Well, they've played 14 again this season.  Montreal has only played 11.  The Rangers did get an extra day of rest because they finished their series first, but I'm curious to see if the overall fresher legs for Montreal will become a factor as the series wears on.

If the Canadiens are going to win this series, they can't let it go seven.  If the last three seasons have proved anything, it's that you don't want to go against Henrik Lundqvist in Game 7 of a playoff series.  So, if Montreal has a 3-2 lead, they'd better get it done at Madison Square Garden in Game 6.  Otherwise, there will probably be Stanley Cup Final games on Broadway.

Unfortunately for both teams, I don't think we're looking at a quick series here.  It's going to be a grind, and the little things are going to make the difference.  The Rangers have been doing the little things well since they went down 3-1 against Pittsburgh.  They've had unfinished business for two years.  They're not going to get to this point only to fall short again.  Rangers in six.

Western Conference: Blackhawks-Kings: You want to talk about resilient?  How about the Los Angeles Kings?  This team simply refuses to go away.  They're 6-0 in elimination games this postseason.  I think a lot of the comeback against the Sharks was San Jose choking, but they went and BEAT Anaheim, and the Ducks were the prohibitive Cup favorites.  The lesson here is that when you have the chance to put the Kings away, you'd better do it.  Because otherwise you'll be the team that's in trouble.

Anyway, we had all those good teams out West this season.  But Anaheim, San Jose, St. Louis and Colorado are all sitting at home.  What we've got instead is a familiar script.  A rematch of last year's West Final, as well as a matchup of the last two Stanley Cup champions.

The Blackhawks and Kings know each other well, and they're the two teams with more playoff experience than anybody over the past three years.  That's important, because both of these teams have drawn on that experience to get them through the tough times in these playoffs.  But they won't be able to draw on it against somebody else that's been there before.  Of the 46 players dressing for each game of this series, there will only be a handful that haven't had their name etched on the Cup in the last two years.

When these two met last year, it was no contest.  The Blackhawks were the better team in every way and won the series in five games.  I think that overall, Chicago is still the better team.  There's another factor working in the Blackhawks' favor that I don't think a lot of people have considered yet.  The Kings haven't left California in a month, and they had no travel at all for two weeks.  That travel to Chicago (especially for an afternoon game tomorrow) is going to feel weird on their bodies.  I know their bodies are used to that travel by this point in the season, but I don't see how that time change won't have an effect after spending so long in the Pacific time zone.

I've been looking for something to give one team the edge over the other, and I think that might be it.  The Kings have gotten lucky.  San Jose and Anaheim weren't able to put them away.  For Chicago, delivering that knockout punch won't be a problem.  Blackhawks in six. 

And how cool would a Rangers-Blackhawks matchup be?  Well, out of the 15 possible matchups between Original Six teams, it's the only one that has never happened in the Stanley Cup Final.  That's about to change.  Give it two weeks.

World Relays Set to Debut

When the calendar flips to May, that marks the beginning of the international track & field "regular season."  Yes, they have indoor track, and this year they had the World Indoor Championships, but everybody thinks of track as an outdoor sport.  It is, after all, the marquee sport of the Summer Olympics.

For Americans, this is the off year in the four-year cycle.  No Olympics.  No World Championships.  Europeans always have something (they have Euros in the even years, even when there is an Olympics), but this is the year for American athletes to focus on things other than peaking at Nationals just so they can make the team before peaking again at the Worlds/Olympics.  For most, that means making some money in the Diamond League meets.

But this year, there's a new wrinkle.  An event has been added to the international calendar.  Next week in the Bahamas will be the debut of the IAAF World Relays.  I'm excited for the World Relays.  It's an interesting concept that I hope will catch on.  The best part is that it's more than just the traditional 4x100 and 4x400 that you see in the Olympics.  Distance runners will finally get their chance to get in on the relay fun.

There are five events at the World Relays.  The 4x100 and 4x400, of course, will be run, along with the 4x200, 4x800 and 4x1500.  That's fine for now.  Those are the five distances you'll generally see relays in.  It would be silly to include a shuttle hurdles or something like that, and there obviously aren't relays in field events.  I would like to see the sprint medley and distance medley included too, though.  The distance medley is an indoor staple, and they have the sprint medley in the Youth Olympics and other lower-level international meets, so the athletes are familiar enough with it.

It's not that foreign a concept to include them in a relay carnival, either.  They have every type of relay you can think of at the Penn Relays (hence the name), including both the SMR and DMR, which are included as part of the USA vs. the World portion.  Speaking of the Penn Relays, until the World Relays came into existence, that was really the only opportunity to see professional stars run relays other than the traditional 4x100 and 4x400.  Swimmers get to compete in all these different relays.  It's nice to see runners finally have the ability to do the same thing.

The three sprint relays and the two distance relays are all well and good, but the SMR and DMR are fun because they mix different races.  The SMR consists of one 400-meter leg, two 200-meter legs and an 800-meter anchor leg.  The 800's technically not a sprint (I'd love to see the SMR that's 200-100-100-400), but in order to have a good SMR you have to have a least a decent 800 runner.  You can't just throw four sprinters out there.  Same with the DMR, which throws a 400 in with the 800, 1200 and 1600.  You have to have a sprinter (or at least someone who can a reasonable time in the 400) in order to do well in the DMR.

We've gotten used to seeing those two races in the NCAA, and they're fun to watch.  Think about how fun they'd be at the international level.  We're talking the best of the best in the world.  And running the SMR and DMR at the World Relays would prove which nation is truly the best all-around.  That makes me wish there was some sort of way for them to work in field events.

Jamaica and the US will obviously be favored in the sprints, while Kenya is perhaps the top distance-running nation.  But where the other nations will fall will be interesting to see.  And the best part is they'll use the World Relays as a qualifier in the 4x100 and 4x400.  That's better than basing it strictly on times.  National teams don't really get many opportunities to run the 4x100 and 4x400 in a competitive setting like this, so those qualifying times often have to be taken with a grain of salt.

No matter how many teams go to the Olympics or World Championships, you know the US and Jamaica and Great Britain are going to qualify.  But those teams that might be ranked 12th-16th, the ones that have no chance to medal and would otherwise be borderline qualifiers, now have something to compete for.  That's going to be just as worthwhile to watch as the battle for the medals.

I hope the World Relays catch on.  The IAAF is committed to it, and I hope the athletes are just as on board.  Because this meet sounds like a lot of fun.  What's even better, though, is that it's making track & field a team sport.  That's something you don't see with this sport on the professional level.

Memorable Subway Series Moments

Counting the 2000 World Series, tonight's Mets-Yankees game is the 100th since the Subway Series began in 1997.  Whether or not you're a fan of interleague play, you've gotta admit Mets-Yankees is always fun.  Most people would agree that the idea of an annual Subway Series is one of the reasons interleague play came into existence in the first place.  (There's a reason why they always played a Sunday Night game against each other before they changed the schedule format last year.)

There's something special about the Subway Series, and it hasn't lost any of its luster even though the teams have been playing in the regular season for 18 years now.  I've been to my fair share of Subway Series games, although it's been a while since I've attended one (the weird thing is the visiting team always seems to win when I go to a Mets-Yankees game). 

I can remember most of the Subway Series games I've seen live pretty vividly.  The last time I went, I was watching the Wimbledon final when my brother-in-law asked me how long it would take me to get to Citi Field.  Two hours later, I was at the game, and they announced during the game that Carlos Beltran and Angel Pagan made the NL All-Star team.  Same thing happened when they played their two stadium day-night doubleheader in 2003.  One of my other sisters asked me while we were watching the first game if I wanted to go to the nightcap.  I was with my brother-in-law again the last time I saw a Subway Series game at the Old Stadium.  We sat in the bleachers and the final score was Jose Reyes 2, Roger Clemens 0.  And the only time I've been to the Subway Series at the New Stadium was in 2010, when friends of mine had an extra ticket.  Once again, the Mets won.

My memorable Subway Series moments probably aren't memorable to anyone else.  I understand that.  But there have been plenty of moments that have defined this rivalry.  Here are some of my other favorites:

• Mariano Rivera's first career RBI, which came on a bases loaded walk in the top of the ninth, and 500th career save coming during the same Sunday Night game at Citi Field in 2009.
• During the Yankee Stadium portion of the 2009 Subway Series, when Luis Castillo dropped A-Rod's popup for a walk-off error.
• Dwight Gooden's return to Shea Stadium, starting for the Yankees in Game 1 of the historic first two-stadium twinbill in 2000.
• In the most recent two-stadium doubleheader, in 2009, when the Mets' Carlos Delgado set the Major League record for RBIs by a DH (9).  That's right, the Major League record for RBIs by a DH is held by a National Leaguer.
• The first-ever game in 1997, which was a 6-0 shutout by Mets starter Dave Mlicki.
• Roger Clemens throwing the bat shards at Mike Piazza.
• But, of course, the most memorable moment in the history of the Mets-Yankees rivalry wasn't one game.  It was five.  The 2000 World Series.  The 12-innign opener, Derek Jeter's home run leading off Game 4, Luis Sojo's clinching grounder thru Al Leiter's legs, Bernie Williams clutching the final out for the Yankees' third straight championship, and all the moments in between.

That's just a small sampling of some of the best moments that the now-annual Subway Series has provided.  Part of what makes Mets-Yankees so much fun is that the fans are very clear in their allegiances.  Most of the time, New York baseball fans simply acknowledge the other's existence, but are generally just indifferent.  Not so during the Subway Series.  You're not allowed to be neutral when the Yankees and Mets are playing.

Even if the novelty has worn off, the appeal of the Subway Series never will.  New York is big enough for two baseball teams, and both fan bases are incredibly loyal.  And say what you want about the existence of the Subway Series and interleague play as a whole, but baseball is meant for the fans.  And the fans of one team love having the bragging rights over the fans of the other.

So what if they play every year?  The Subway Series has become the new normal.  And that's OK.  Because now that we're used to it, it would feel like something's missing if they didn't play. 

There have been plenty of memorable moments over the first 100 games.  Plenty more are sure to follow.  And you can bet one group of fans will enjoy each one of them significantly more than the other.  After all, that's part of the fun.

Number 6 Going On the Wall

When the Yankees announced at the beginning of the season that they were going to honor Joe Torre, everyone knew what that meant.  And today they made it official.  His No. 6 will takes its rightful place on the wall in Monument Park, leaving Derek Jeter as the last person in Yankees history who'll wear a single-digit number.

Torre's relationship with the Yankees when he left wasn't the best.  He didn't want to leave, but also knew that the Yankees didn't really want him back, even though they were going into the final season in the old Stadium.  Everybody knew this day was coming eventually, though.  It's much later than some would've liked (Tim McCarver, in another moment of brilliance, was campaigning for it right away, even though Torre was managing the Dodgers at the time), but I don't think this news comes as a surprise to anybody.  Enough time has passed.  And doing it this year, when he goes into the Hall of Fame as a Yankee, seems appropriate.

I don't think the timing is a coincidence either.  The Yankees have probably been waiting for Jeter and Rivera to retire to start retiring numbers from that late-90s dynasty.  In one of the most perfect farewells I've ever seen, Rivera had his number retired while he was technically still active.  That obviously had to happen because of the league-wide retirement of No. 42 for Jackie Robinson, but it was important for the Yankees to get Mo's No. 42 up there as quickly as possible.

Now that Jeter's retiring, it's probably a safe bet that No. 2 will go on the wall during his Stadium farewell.  But Jeter's big on Yankees history.  It's very important to him that he was even able to wear a single-digit number in pinstripes.  Everybody knew No. 6 was going to be retired for Torre, but having it technically be available would've disrespected Jeter in a small way.  By retiring Torre's No. 6 first, it leaves Jeter's No. 2 as the only remaining single-digit Yankee uniform number.  When it goes on the wall either at the end of this season or the beginning of next, that'll complete the circle.  Once No. 2 goes up, no single-digit number will ever be worn by a Yankee again.  It's a small thing, but that's one last tribute to Jeter's legacy.

The Yankees also announced that there will be a "Bernie Williams Day" next season.  We all know what that means.  They haven't given out 51 since Bernie retired for a reason (and if anyone was going to wear it, it would've been Ichiro).  And again, the only reason they haven't retired 51 yet was because they were probably waiting to do Rivera, Torre and Jeter first.  After all, those are the three Hall of Famers from that dynasty.  They deserve to have their numbers retired first, so I don't think anyone has had a problem with Bernie Williams waiting his turn.  Including Bernie Williams.

Along with the Torre and Bernie announcements, the Yankees announced that Goose Gossage, Tino Martinez and Paul O'Neill will get plaques in Monument Park.  Gossage and Tino I have no problem with.  But I'm disappointed that Paul O'Neill is getting a plaque.  Or, I should say, I'm disappointed that Paul O'Neill is only getting a plaque.  Because his number belongs on the wall, as well. 

After all, the Yankees haven't given out No. 21 since he retired, except for that two-week lapse in judgment when they actually let LaTroy Hawkins wear it (and Jeter and Rivera needed to tell him why the fans hated him and should probably change his number).  One of the reasons for that is because the fans won't allow it.  Paul O'Neill is such a beloved Yankee that No. 21 has been untouchable, even if not officially retired.  The fans want and expect Paul O'Neill's number to be retired.  It would be a travesty if it isn't.

They've been waiting for Jeter and Torre to retire the rest, which is fine.  But there are four other players who deserve that honor.  Bernie's day is coming next year, and I hope Paulie gets his.  So, who are the other two?  I'm obviously talking about Andy Pettitte and Jorge Posada.  I don't think there's any doubt Pettitte's No. 46 will be the next one to be retired after 51.  Then there's Posada's 20.  On paper, he probably deserves a plaque.  But he's the other member of the Core Four.  You can't retire the other three and not his.

Sure, they're out of room on the retired number wall in Monument Park.  Torre's No. 6 will take the last available spot (and that spot was only made available because they moved them closer together during the winter).  But I have no doubt they'll find room for No. 2.  And No. 51.  And No. 46.  And, hopefully, Nos. 20 and 21, as well.  Because they belong on the wall as much as the rest.

Two More Decades of NBC Olympics

For those of you who don't like NBC's tape-delayed primetime Olympic coverage, I've got some bad news for you.  You'd better get used to it.  Because NBC and the IOC made an unprecedented deal today that will keep the Olympics on NBC until at least the 2032 Summer Games.  That'll run NBC's streak to 11 straight Summer Olympics dating back to 1988, as well as marking 32 consecutive years as America's exclusive Olympic home.

This deal is somewhat shocking.  Not because it happened, but because it came completely out of the blue.  NBC most recently renewed its rights only three years ago, keeping the Olympics on the Peacock until the 2020 Tokyo Games.  That time, they faced an incredible bidding war from ESPN and FOX, and most people assumed that they'd face another bidding war when it came time to renegotiate the U.S. rights again in a couple years.  I guess that ain't happening now.

Part of the reason the U.S. hasn't hosted an Olympics since Salt Lake City was because the USOC and IOC couldn't come to a revenue-sharing agreement.  That's finally been settled, the USOC and IOC are back in each other's good graces, and a U.S. Games looks likely within this three-Olympic cycle that NBC just locked up. 

They probably wanted to make sure that they had the rights locked up before a U.S. city won the right to host, when EVERYBODY would want the Games and would've been willing to pay above market-value for them.  That's exactly what happened in Canada.  In Canada, the Olympics have been on CBC for as long as anybody can remember...until rival CTV swooped in and got the rights for 2010 and 2012, meaning they'd get the Vancouver Games.  With Canada not hosting again anytime in the near future (although, I think Toronto does have a pretty good shot), CTV has no interest in showing the Olympics, so the rights went back to CBC in Sochi.

As for the IOC, it was almost a no-brainer to lock up a long-term U.S. broadcast deal.  Something like 95 percent of the IOC's entire budget comes from broadcast rights fees, with a majority of that paid by NBC.  This deal keeps the revenue coming in steadily for the next two decades, while also giving them the flexibility to do some long-term planning.

And say what you want about their coverage, but there's no denying NBC has shown a commitment to the Olympics.  They cross-promote like you wouldn't believe, and the existence of NBCSN has resulted in plenty of Olympic Trials coverage in the lead up to the London and Sochi Games.  They even showed the Sochi Paralympics live, a first, and will likely continue to do so.

If the IOC wasn't pleased with NBC, they wouldn't have extended the relationship this early.  Or for so long.  In fact, if they wanted to get out, they had the chance to in 2011.  So, it's clear that the IOC appreciates the work started oh-so-many-years ago by Dick Ebersol and has been carried on in recent years by Gary Zenkel and Mark Lazarus.  It's not just because NBC has the deepest pockets.

Meanwhile, the criticism of NBC's Olympic coverage, which some people enjoy more than actually watching the Olympics and is, for the most part, unwarranted, hasn't stopped people from watching.  London was the most-watched event in TV history, and the Sochi ratings were significantly higher than those from Vancouver.  Add in the live streaming, and it's proof that NBC is getting plenty of bang for its buck during the Olympics.  And I can't even begin to think of what other digital platforms that haven't been invented yet people will be watching the Olympics on in 2032.

The way I see it, this is a win-win for everyone.  It's obvious how well the IOC makes out in this deal.  Their pockets will be overflowing with NBC's money for the better part of two more decades.  For NBC, they know they're going to get their ridiculous Olympic ratings every two years for those same two decades.  As for the USOC and the sports federations, they know they're going to get the same commitment and dedication from NBC that the network has previously shown them.

Whatever your feelings about NBC and the Olympics are, there's no denying that the two have become synonymous with each other.  It's been so long since an Olympics weren't on NBC, that nobody even remembers what one on another network was like.  (For the record, it was 1998, when CBS covered the Nagano Games.)  Fortunately, we don't have to think about that for a long while.  The Olympics have found a home on NBC.  It's nice to know they're not going anywhere.

SEC Getting Called Out

While I generally stay away from talking about college football on this blog, today I'm going to make an exception.  That's because I saw something about the new College Football Playoff that debuts next season on ESPN.com the other day, and it was very interesting.  The SEC released its conference schedules for the next several years last week, and the conference is drawing plenty of criticism for having each team only play eight conference games when everybody else is playing nine.

A guy from the Pac-12 made perhaps the best point on this topic.  The CFP is supposed to look at the teams objectively and determine the best four to place in the two semifinal games.  Yet they're not being held to the same standard.  Not when you have teams in the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12 playing nine conference games and SEC teams playing only eight.  Those SEC teams are likely all going to have an extra win as a result. 

Whether it's justified or not, the SEC has gotten a reputation as the best conference.  The SEC teams know this.  That's why they don't want to play each other.  But, the Pac-12 guy is right.  The perspective is going to be skewed.  The Big 12 only has 10 teams.  They play everybody every year.  In the Pac-12, you play nine of the other 11.  Yet in the SEC, you only play eight of the other 13 teams.  There's no guarantee that the best teams in the SEC will play each other, even with the existence of the conference championship game.  And since seven of your opponents are the same every year, it'll take you six years to cycle through everybody in the conference...and you could go more than a decade between home games against a conference team!  (Missouri fan #1: "Why are we playing Georgia?"  Missouri fan #2: "Because they're in our conference."  Missouri fan #1: "Georgia's in our conference!?")

The SEC guys have tried to justify their stance by saying they want to "preserve rivalries" and spewing off this line about the "integrity of the schedule."  They also claim it's unfair for half the league to have to play an extra conference road game each season (although that would alternate every year, just like it does in all the leagues that play nine).  And then there was that argument about being able to play a non-conference rivalry game late in the season because they don't have that extra conference weekend.

But, let's be honest here.  The SEC teams don't want to play an uneven number of conference games because it means half of them would lose a home game.  You can't schedule your easy home win against Georgia State (sorry, Georgia State, I needed an example) if you have to play a road game against an SEC team instead.  You won't get your thousands (millions?) of dollars in extra revenue, and you might even lose.  And the SEC sure doesn't want that.  They don't want to have an extra week where the conference is guaranteed to go 7-7.  They'd much prefer the 11-3 weeks and having 12 bowl-eligible teams.

In their defense, the SEC did also make a conference rule requiring its teams to play actual BCS schools in non-conference games, instead of loading up on those I-AA home games that they win 70-7.  After all, strength of schedule is going to be a big component in the CFP, so they knew they had to do something.  The SEC's gotten burned by that in basketball time and again over the past few years.  But you know a way for SEC teams to improve their strength of schedule even more?  Actually playing SEC teams!

I don't know how the selection process for this College Football Playoff is actually going to work or if it even makes a difference that the SEC is playing one fewer conference game than the other four BCS leagues.  But it is a significant enough thing to keep an eye on.  If the SEC gets two of the four teams in that thing every year, those questions will become louder.  And people, especially those affiliated with or fans of teams in other conferences, will want to know if their teams are having that second conference loss held against them.

Play by the same rules.  It seems simple enough.  If they're going to compare teams from five different conferences against each other, it would seem to make sense that your sample size should be the same.  And if you've got four of those five doing the same thing (playing nine conference games), the fifth should follow their lead.

Unfortunately, the NCAA and the College Football Playoff people can't  make the SEC go to a nine-game conference schedule.  But they should do it on their own.  If you want to continue making this claim that you're the best, prove it.  Go beat each other on the field.

Stanley Cup Second Round

The NHL kinda got what it wanted when it changed the playoff format to this whole division-based thing.  Three of the four conference semifinal series are between rivals, one of which is the longest rivalry in the game (Boston-Montreal) and another of which is the first-ever playoff meeting in a budding rivalry between two teams that share a city (Kings-Ducks).  And I will give them that.  We're gonna have some fun watching these four series over the next two weeks.

Bruins-Canadiens: Another chapter in this classic rivalry.  And you know these two were getting antsy to play after both sitting around for a week (then proceeding to go into double overtime in Game 1).  They were also, by far, the two most impressive teams of any in the first round.  The winner here probably goes to the finals.

I can see this one going the distance.  Two good teams that hate each other meeting in the playoffs.  I hope it goes seven.  The differences are very slight, but important.  Boston is arguably the best team in hockey.  Carey Price led the Canadians to an Olympic gold medal, and he might be the key for the Canadiens in the playoffs.  I'm not sure Montreal has the offense to outscore Boston four times.  Which means they're going to need Price to steal at least one.  Game 1 might've been that game, but I highly doubt that'll be the only time the road team wins in this series.  If we get to Game 7, though, it'll be the home team that comes out on top.  Bruins in seven.

Penguins-Rangers: Here's the thing about this series: If Pittsburgh were going against any other team, it would be a slam-dunk call to predict a Penguins victory.  But against the Rangers?  Different story. The Rangers went 2-1-1 against the Penguins this season and are not at all intimidated by Pittsburgh.  They know they can skate with them.

There's one other area that always needs to be taken into consideration when talking about the Pittsburgh Penguins in the playoffs, as well.  Marc-Andre Fleury isn't a good goalie.  They're not going to win the Cup with him in net.  The Penguins may have Malkin and Crosby and all those great scorers, but at the most important position, the Rangers have the clear advantage.  And we saw that Penguin offense completely disappear last season against the Bruins in the conference finals.  If that happens again and the Rangers get just enough offense, Lundqvist will take care of the rest.

With all that being said, though, I do think Pittsburgh will win the series.  The Rangers don't know how to make life easy on themselves in the playoffs.  For some reason, they really like seven-game series.  That can have quite an impact on you, especially as the playoffs wear on.  And the big difference with this series is that Game 7 won't be at Madison Square Garden.  Even with a terrible goalie and an overrated offense, that extra couple days of rest and home ice advantage will make a difference.  Pittsburgh will win a dogfight.  Penguins in six.

Blackhawks-Wild: Clearly that No. 3 seed in the division made no difference to Chicago.  The Blackhawks are a playoff-tested team and rose to the occasion against St. Louis.  My expectation was that Chicago would win that series, then knock off whoever came out of that Avalanche-Wild series.  Chicago's simply the best team in the Central Division.  That hasn't changed.

Great job by Minnesota to win four of the last five against Colorado.  I have no idea who the Wild's starting goalie is, but evidently that doesn't matter.  It will against the Blackhawks, though.  Chicago is a better offensive team than Colorado.  Fortunately, Minnesota's a good enough offensive team to hang with them.  Not enough to win the series, but the Wild are definitely a team on the rise.  Blackhawks in six.

Ducks-Kings: How long until the Sharks fire Ron Wilson?  Nothing against the Kings, but the Sharks are a much better team, and LA didn't win that series because of anything Jonathan Quick did.  San Jose simply fell apart.  Someone has to take the blame for San Jose's breakdown (the latest in a long line of playoff failures), and I think it's got to be the coach.

Anyway, moving on to the playoff series all eight hockey fans in Southern California have been waiting 15 years for.  I think the Kings' playoff experience over the last two years had a lot to do with their comeback over San Jose (not as much as the Sharks falling apart, but that's a different story).  They already beat one team that's more talented than they are, and it wouldn't be a complete surprise to see them do it again.  Except I don't think that's going to happen.  The Ducks have been on a mission ever since losing in seven to the Red Wings last season.  They're the better team, but, as we saw in the Kings-Sharks series, that isn't necessarily the most relevant fact.  What is relevant, however, is that the Ducks ain't letting themselves lose to the Kings.  This isn't just to advance in the playoffs.  This is for SoCal supremacy.  Ducks in five.