I read an article today that I didn't agree with. With the baseball season halfway over and the trade deadline approaching, it's time for teams to make a decision about whether or not they think they have a chance to win this year and either go all-in for a playoff run or become sellers at the deadline and try to build for next year. The article suggested that both the Mets and Yankees should be sellers at this year's trade deadline.
It's completely ridiculous to think that the Yankees should be sellers, especially since they most definitely aren't going to be. And you can't blame them. The AL East is there for the taking (even if it is a study in varying degrees of mediocre), and CC Sabathia will be back after the All-Star Break. Furthermore, every team in that division is flawed and they almost all need to make a move or two. Whoever makes the smartest deadline deal (or strikes first and gets the starting pitcher everyone else wants) could end up being the team that wins it.
Whether or not that columnist agrees, the Yankees are going to be buyers. The Mets likely will be sellers. They've been waiting until next year when Matt Harvey returns (and Noah Syndergaard is in the rotation as well) pretty much all season. It only makes sense for the Mets to unload veteran pieces that contending teams might want in the short term for prospects that will help them out in the long term.
The second wild card has made the whole trade deadline situation even trickier to figure out. With more teams in the race (whether it's reality or simply their perception is irrelevant), there are fewer players on the market. And how many players from bad teams are contenders actually going to want? It's definitely a buyers market where supply is nowhere close to demand. This furthers my belief that the trade deadline should be at the end of August instead of the end of July, but that's an argument for another day.
As it stands, though, the non-waiver trade deadline is quickly approaching, so teams that are right on the edge need to decide soon. There are the obvious sellers--the Cubs, the Rays, the Padres, the Phillies, the Twins. There are the obvious buyers--the Blue Jays, the Brewers, the Orioles, the Braves. There are the teams that probably don't need to do anything--the Dodgers, the A's, the Tigers. Then there's everybody else. What they decide to do could determine these pennant races.
Here's what I think some middling contenders need to do as the trade deadline approaches:
Royals: Buyers-James Shields is probably leaving as a free agent. That means they've only got a legitimate No. 1 pitcher for three more months. That's it. If they go out and get another one, even if it is a rental, that might be enough to contend for a wild card. And, they're only 3.5 games behind the Tigers, so even the division remains possible.
Indians: Sellers-After making the playoffs last year, hopes got high in Cleveland. But they're right back to where they were before last season's breakthrough. The Indians have a lot of good talent, but it's probably not enough to propel them back to the postseason. If somebody wants Lonnie Chisenhall, I'd listen.
Angels: Buyers-This is a tough one. The Angels are finally starting to play at a level the talent on their roster indicates they should be. But that doesn't mean Anaheim's complete. Not by a long shot. They could use another starter behind Jered Weaver and Garrett Richards, and it wouldn't hurt to improve that bullpen (they already made a Jason Grilli-Ernesto Frieri swap with Pittsburgh). It might seem counterintuitive to trade some of their outfield depth, but they've got enough to make a deal worthwhile.
Mariners: Buyers-Seattle might be the most surprising contender out there. And they're also the most interesting team in the mix. The Mariners have been so bad for so long that they have a lot of young position players on the Major League roster. But they also went out and spent a lot of money on Robinson Cano, who's used to playing in October. Take a shot.
Rangers: Sellers-Another team that's gotten used to the postseason is the Rangers. But they've had some injuries this year and find themselves mired in fourth place in the surprisingly ultra-strong AL West. They're not going to catch the A's. Or the Angels. And the playoffs certainly seem out of the question. But Texas has a lot that other teams will want. How much of it they're willing to give up, and to who, could make a huge difference in the races.
Marlins: Buyers-Miami's not as good as the Braves or the Nationals, but the deficiencies of the NL East's top two teams have kept the Marlins in contention a lot longer than most people probably thought. They don't have enough to contend right now, so I'd put them in the "buyers" category right now. That could change, though, depending on what Atlanta and Washington do.
Reds: Buyers-Cincinnati is one of those teams that could go either way. The Reds could easily stand pat and make a run at the wild card. But Milwaukee's going to do something, and if they want a chance to win the NL Central, they might need to do something as well. They don't need to do much. That's why this one could go either way.
Cardinals: Buyers-I still don't quite understand how St. Louis is in contention with a bunch of guys I've never heard of every year. Yet they are. And it also seems like they never do anything, one way or the other, at the trade deadline. While I don't see that changing this year, it also seems unlikely the Cardinals will challenge the Brewers for the NL Central title without making a move of some sort. With all those guys that they don't want to get rid of, you know they've got trade chips, too.
Pirates: Sellers-Last year's run to the playoffs was as great as it was unexpected. But the Pirates are back in their familiar place as the team that has the pieces to make the difference on a contender, even though it probably won't be Pittsburgh. I can easily see them standing pat and seeing if they can make another run next year with this same core group. I can also see them dangling those pieces in front of hungry suitors in an attempt to get even more prospects.
Rockies: Sellers-Make no mistake, the Colorado Rockies aren't going anywhere. The NL West is a two-horse race between the Dodgers and Giants. But the Rockies are kind of like the Pirates in that they have a lot of players who could make a difference in a pennant race. For anybody who needs a hitter, I'd pick up a phone and see what Colorado wants.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Saturday, June 28, 2014
The Brackets All-Stars
With just under a week left in voting for the All-Star Game, some of the players that we're going to see in Minnesota are starting to come into focus. There are still some races that are going to come down to the wire, but it's also safe to tell fans that they can preorder their Mike Trout and Troy Tulowitzki All-Star jerseys.
The inevitable debate about who should be starting and who will be starting will, of course, continue as well. Like it or not, people, Derek Jeter is going to be an All-Star. If he doesn't win the fan vote (which I think he will, and he should), John Farrell will pick him as a reserve. There's no way Derek Jeter doesn't participate in the final All-Star Game of his career. The game is for the fans, after all.
Besides, these are probably the same idiots that have Matt Wieters in first place among AL catchers, despite the fact that Wieters hasn't played since early May and is out for the year because of Tommy John surgery. I have no problem with popular veterans who haven't necessarily put up the numbers this season being picked as starters. If fans want to see them, they should be able to. But it's something completely different when a player has been injured or is out for the year, people know it, and these morons continue to vote for him! Matt Wieters can't play in the All-Star Game! Stop voting for him!
Likewise, it's disappointing to see names like Melky Cabrera and Ryan Braun (and, to a certain extent Nelson Cruz) so high in the fan voting. I'm the first to admit that I'm in the corner of the late 90s steroid guys. But this situation is completely different. It might just be me, but I can't bring myself to vote for anyone who's served a suspension for violating the MLB drug program. For all the crap A-Rod and others get, fans turn around and vote for players who are just as guilty for the All-Star team as if nothing happened. Talk about a double standard.
Anyway, the debate about starters and whether or not fans should be choosing the starting lineup isn't new, and it's not going to change anytime soon. And I remain convinced that the "the fans shouldn't be picking the team" people would be the ones most vocal in their opposition if the fan vote was ever taken away. You can't have it both ways, people!
One debate that is fun to get involved in, though, revolves around who'll be the starting pitcher in each league (and the National League DH). Take last year. The Mets were the home team. Everyone knew Matt Harvey deserved to start and was going to, yet they still found a way to turn it into a mini-controversy about Clayton Kershaw not starting. Well, if the game wasn't in New York, the Kershaw camp would've had a much stronger argument.
This year's American League starter seemed almost as obvious. Except there's one small problem. Masahiro Tanaka is starting the final Sunday before the All-Star Break. That means he can't start the All-Star Game. So, the remaining candidates to be the AL starter are probably Mark Buehrle and Chris Sale. In the NL, I'd be shocked if it wasn't Adam Wainwright. He's having an excellent year, and his manager is managing the National League team.
With that in mind, here are my selections for the American and National League All-Star teams. My starting lineups are based on the current vote totals. Things obviously could/would change if, for example, David Wright were to move past Aramis Ramirez into a starting position (or people came to their senses and stopped voting for Matt Wieters).
NATIONAL LEAGUE
C: *Yadier Molina, Cardinals; Evan Gattis, Braves; Jonathan Lucroy, Brewers
1B: *Paul Goldschmidt, Diamondbacks; Anthony Rizzo, Cubs; Justin Morneau, Rockies
2B: *Chase Utley, Phillies; Anthony Rendon, Nationals
SS: *Troy Tulowitzki, Rockies; Hanley Ramirez, Dodgers
3B: *Aramis Ramirez, Brewers; Todd Frazier, Reds; David Wright, Mets
OF: *Yasiel Puig, Dodgers; *Andrew McCutchen, Pirates; *Carlos Gomez, Brewers; Justin Upton, Braves; Charlie Blackmon, Rockies; Giancarlo Stanton, Marlins; Hunter Pence, Giants
P: Craig Kimbrel, Braves; Julio Teheran, Braves; Johnny Cueto, Reds; Alfredo Simon, Reds; Zack Greinke, Dodgers; Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers; Steve Cishek, Marlins; Kyle Lohse, Brewers; Francisco Rodriguez, Brewers; Huston Street, Padres; Madison Bumgarner, Giants; Adam Wainwright, Cardinals; Rafael Soriano, Nationals
(Final Vote: Freddie Freeman, Braves-1B; Marlon Byrd, Phillies-OF; Neil Walker, Pirates-2B; Matt Adams, Cardinals-1B; Ian Desmond, Nationals-SS)
AMERICAN LEAGUE
C: Matt Wieters, Orioles (injured); Salvador Perez, Royals; Derek Norris, Athletics (replacement)
1B: *Miguel Cabrera, Tigers; Jose Abreu, White Sox
2B: *Robinson Cano, Mariners; Ian Kinsler, Tigers; Jose Altuve, Astros
SS: *Derek Jeter, Yankees; Alexei Ramirez, White Sox
3B: *Josh Donaldson, Athletics; Adrian Beltre, Rangers
OF: *Jose Bautista, Blue Jays; *Mike Trout, Angels; *Melky Cabrera, Blue Jays; Adam Jones, Orioles; Michael Brantley, Indians; Yoenis Cespedes, Athletics
DH: *Nelson Cruz, Orioles; Victor Martinez, Tigers; Edwin Encarnacion, Blue Jays
P: Koji Uehara, Red Sox; Chris Sale, White Sox; Max Scherzer, Tigers; Greg Holland, Royals; Garrett Richards, Angels; Phil Hughes, Twins; Glen Perkins, Twins; Masahiro Tanaka, Yankees; Scott Kazmir, Athletics; Felix Hernandez, Mariners; David Price, Rays; Yu Darvish, Rangers; Mark Buehrle, Blue Jays
(Final Vote: Alex Gordon, Royals-OF; Erick Aybar, Angels-SS; Brian Dozier, Twins-2B; Kyle Seager, Mariners-3B; Alex Rios, Rangers-OF)
The inevitable debate about who should be starting and who will be starting will, of course, continue as well. Like it or not, people, Derek Jeter is going to be an All-Star. If he doesn't win the fan vote (which I think he will, and he should), John Farrell will pick him as a reserve. There's no way Derek Jeter doesn't participate in the final All-Star Game of his career. The game is for the fans, after all.
Besides, these are probably the same idiots that have Matt Wieters in first place among AL catchers, despite the fact that Wieters hasn't played since early May and is out for the year because of Tommy John surgery. I have no problem with popular veterans who haven't necessarily put up the numbers this season being picked as starters. If fans want to see them, they should be able to. But it's something completely different when a player has been injured or is out for the year, people know it, and these morons continue to vote for him! Matt Wieters can't play in the All-Star Game! Stop voting for him!
Likewise, it's disappointing to see names like Melky Cabrera and Ryan Braun (and, to a certain extent Nelson Cruz) so high in the fan voting. I'm the first to admit that I'm in the corner of the late 90s steroid guys. But this situation is completely different. It might just be me, but I can't bring myself to vote for anyone who's served a suspension for violating the MLB drug program. For all the crap A-Rod and others get, fans turn around and vote for players who are just as guilty for the All-Star team as if nothing happened. Talk about a double standard.
Anyway, the debate about starters and whether or not fans should be choosing the starting lineup isn't new, and it's not going to change anytime soon. And I remain convinced that the "the fans shouldn't be picking the team" people would be the ones most vocal in their opposition if the fan vote was ever taken away. You can't have it both ways, people!
One debate that is fun to get involved in, though, revolves around who'll be the starting pitcher in each league (and the National League DH). Take last year. The Mets were the home team. Everyone knew Matt Harvey deserved to start and was going to, yet they still found a way to turn it into a mini-controversy about Clayton Kershaw not starting. Well, if the game wasn't in New York, the Kershaw camp would've had a much stronger argument.
This year's American League starter seemed almost as obvious. Except there's one small problem. Masahiro Tanaka is starting the final Sunday before the All-Star Break. That means he can't start the All-Star Game. So, the remaining candidates to be the AL starter are probably Mark Buehrle and Chris Sale. In the NL, I'd be shocked if it wasn't Adam Wainwright. He's having an excellent year, and his manager is managing the National League team.
With that in mind, here are my selections for the American and National League All-Star teams. My starting lineups are based on the current vote totals. Things obviously could/would change if, for example, David Wright were to move past Aramis Ramirez into a starting position (or people came to their senses and stopped voting for Matt Wieters).
NATIONAL LEAGUE
C: *Yadier Molina, Cardinals; Evan Gattis, Braves; Jonathan Lucroy, Brewers
1B: *Paul Goldschmidt, Diamondbacks; Anthony Rizzo, Cubs; Justin Morneau, Rockies
2B: *Chase Utley, Phillies; Anthony Rendon, Nationals
SS: *Troy Tulowitzki, Rockies; Hanley Ramirez, Dodgers
3B: *Aramis Ramirez, Brewers; Todd Frazier, Reds; David Wright, Mets
OF: *Yasiel Puig, Dodgers; *Andrew McCutchen, Pirates; *Carlos Gomez, Brewers; Justin Upton, Braves; Charlie Blackmon, Rockies; Giancarlo Stanton, Marlins; Hunter Pence, Giants
P: Craig Kimbrel, Braves; Julio Teheran, Braves; Johnny Cueto, Reds; Alfredo Simon, Reds; Zack Greinke, Dodgers; Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers; Steve Cishek, Marlins; Kyle Lohse, Brewers; Francisco Rodriguez, Brewers; Huston Street, Padres; Madison Bumgarner, Giants; Adam Wainwright, Cardinals; Rafael Soriano, Nationals
(Final Vote: Freddie Freeman, Braves-1B; Marlon Byrd, Phillies-OF; Neil Walker, Pirates-2B; Matt Adams, Cardinals-1B; Ian Desmond, Nationals-SS)
AMERICAN LEAGUE
C: Matt Wieters, Orioles (injured); Salvador Perez, Royals; Derek Norris, Athletics (replacement)
1B: *Miguel Cabrera, Tigers; Jose Abreu, White Sox
2B: *Robinson Cano, Mariners; Ian Kinsler, Tigers; Jose Altuve, Astros
SS: *Derek Jeter, Yankees; Alexei Ramirez, White Sox
3B: *Josh Donaldson, Athletics; Adrian Beltre, Rangers
OF: *Jose Bautista, Blue Jays; *Mike Trout, Angels; *Melky Cabrera, Blue Jays; Adam Jones, Orioles; Michael Brantley, Indians; Yoenis Cespedes, Athletics
DH: *Nelson Cruz, Orioles; Victor Martinez, Tigers; Edwin Encarnacion, Blue Jays
P: Koji Uehara, Red Sox; Chris Sale, White Sox; Max Scherzer, Tigers; Greg Holland, Royals; Garrett Richards, Angels; Phil Hughes, Twins; Glen Perkins, Twins; Masahiro Tanaka, Yankees; Scott Kazmir, Athletics; Felix Hernandez, Mariners; David Price, Rays; Yu Darvish, Rangers; Mark Buehrle, Blue Jays
(Final Vote: Alex Gordon, Royals-OF; Erick Aybar, Angels-SS; Brian Dozier, Twins-2B; Kyle Seager, Mariners-3B; Alex Rios, Rangers-OF)
Friday, June 27, 2014
Revised World Cup Picks
After two weeks of mostly thrilling soccer, the World Cup field has been cut in half. As usual, there have been plenty of surprises, plenty of disappointments, and some of the world's best showing us exactly why. Now we get a day off to rest and sink everything all in before the tournament resumes on Saturday with the beginning of the knockout round.
Saturday will be a mini-Copa America, as Brazil meets Chile and Colombia faces Uruguay. The theme of this tournament so far has been the domination of the American teams. Half the remaining field is from either North or South America. Of the 10 teams from those two regions that began the tournament, eight advanced to the knockout stage. Only Honduras and Ecuador missed out. And this is the first time there are three teams from CONCACAF moved on to the second round, which I don't think anyone saw coming, especially since Costa Rica and the United States came out of arguably the two toughest groups.
It's also the first time that two African teams advanced in the same World Cup. And it easily could've been three if not for that Greece penalty kick in second half stoppage time that knocked out Ivory Coast. Nigeria finished second in Argentina's weak group, while Algeria is right up there with Costa Rica when it comes to most surprising squad remaining. Neither one is going to win their next game, but it is theoretically possible that they could meet in the quarters and guarantee the first-ever African semifinalist.
Meanwhile, Europe had 13 teams in the tournament and only six of them moved on (among the high-profile European eliminations were defending champion Spain and Cristiano Ronaldo-led Portugal). While the Netherlands, Germany and France have looked good, I'm still not sold on Belgium or Switzerland. I still don't really understand why these two teams were seeded. Greece is probably the third-most surprising squad remaining. I bet there were very few people who expected to see them play more than three games in this World Cup. They can't score! Yet somehow they did enough to advance.
However, with a few exceptions, the top 16 teams in the world are the ones left standing. Of the top 16 teams in the FIFA World Rankings, 11 advanced to the Round of 16. And France, at No. 17, is the 16th-ranked team that actually qualified for the tournament. You've also got Mexico at No. 20 and in the Round of 16 for the sixth straight World Cup, so their advancement isn't a shock to anybody. The only outliers in the group are Algeria (22), Costa Rica (28) and Nigeria (44).
Anyway, I saw a number of predictions of a European victory prior to the tournament, and there are still plenty of people I know that are picking Germany or the Netherlands. I just don't see it, though. A European team's never won the World Cup in the Americas, and now I know why. It's not just the fan support. It's the conditions and everything else. And with half the field coming from the Americas, the odds are certainly stacked in their favor. Can a European team advance to the final, and maybe even win? Of course. I just wouldn't bank on it.
I'll start breaking down the Round of 16 with Saturday's mini-Copa America. Of the five South American teams, four of them are in the same section of the bracket. Which means, at the very least, that we're guaranteed a South American semifinalist. Anyway, Brazil wasn't overly impressive in its first two games, but looked incredible against Cameroon. Chile did a great job to knock off Spain and come out of Group B, but I'm not sure how much they have left. These teams are obviously familiar with each other, but I'd like Chile's chances a lot better if the game was being played in Santiago or on neutral ground.
In the second game, Colombia meets Uruguay. Colombia has been one of the most impressive sides in the tournament, but that might be a consequence of their weak group. Ordinarily I'd like Uruguay in this matchup, but that was before the biting incident. Without Luis Suarez, Uruguay simply isn't as good. And that's why I think we're getting a Brazil-Colombia quarterfinal.
The next section of the bracket is the two Europe vs. Africa matchups. In Group E, France certainly looked like the team that was seeded. Not Switzerland. Anyway, their reward for winning a weak group was playing the second-place team in another weak one. That would be Nigeria. Great job by Nigeria to get here, but Les Bleues will continue making people forget about the disappointment of four years ago by getting to the quarterfinals. Germany always makes it to the quarterfinals. This World Cup will be no exception. Like their African counterparts, Algeria is simply overmatched. Germany's the No. 2 team in the world for a reason and still a popular pick to reach the final, if not win the whole thing.
On the bottom half, we've got the Netherlands against Mexico and Costa Rica against Greece. It's possible that we'll have our very first all-CONCACAF World Cup quarterfinal, but I don't think the Mexicans are beating the Dutch. Their stated goal has been to finally win their Round of 16 game after five consecutive losses, but unfortunately for them, they have to play a very good Dutch team that's showing everybody why it was a finalist in the last World Cup. The winner of that one gets the winner of Costa Rica-Greece. It's safe to say that whoever comes out of that game will be the most unexpected quarterfinalist in this year's World Cup. No one would've predicted either one of these teams to get that far (or even this far). Costa Rica won a group that included Uruguay, Italy and England. All three of those teams are better than Greece.
Moving into the bottom section, this whole tournament is set up beautifully for Argentina. Their path to the final has never been easier. They had an easy group, and looking at the other teams that they'll need to get through in the knockout games, I'd be shocked if they weren't playing at Maracana in two weeks. In fact, the only other team in the bottom half of the bracket ranked in the Top 10 in the world is Argentina's second round opponent, No. 6 Switzerland. I don't feel the need to question Switzerland's ranking again, but suffice it to say they're not as good as Argentina.
Then there's the final Round of 16 matchup between Belgium and the United States. Once the draw was finished and the U.S. ended up in a group with Germany, Portugal and Ghana, the one silver lining that everybody found was that the Round of 16 game would definitely be winnable if they got out of the group. Well, they did get out of the group. And the Round of 16 game is still definitely winnable. Belgium looked very good in its group games, but they're not the caliber of Germany and Portugal. The U.S. played very well against European opponents that are far superior to this Belgian team. Klinsmann will have them ready for another one. Thanks to this team, America has gotten swept up in soccer fever. Well, everyone better clear their calendars for Fourth of July weekend. Because there's a quarterfinal game against Argentina on the agenda. I believe that we will win! I believe that we will win! I believe that we will win!
So, there you have it. My quarterfinal matchups are Brazil-Colombia, France-Germany, Netherlands-Costa Rica and Argentina-United States. I only picked six teams in the right positions (nine overall) correctly, but that includes three of my semifinalists. In the semis, we'll see an epic Brazil-Germany showdown, while the Netherlands will play Argentina. And I'm sticking with my original pick for the final. The biggest game ever between two of the biggest rivals in international soccer. A can't-miss World Cup Final between Brazil and Argentina at Maracana. How awesome would that be?
Saturday will be a mini-Copa America, as Brazil meets Chile and Colombia faces Uruguay. The theme of this tournament so far has been the domination of the American teams. Half the remaining field is from either North or South America. Of the 10 teams from those two regions that began the tournament, eight advanced to the knockout stage. Only Honduras and Ecuador missed out. And this is the first time there are three teams from CONCACAF moved on to the second round, which I don't think anyone saw coming, especially since Costa Rica and the United States came out of arguably the two toughest groups.
It's also the first time that two African teams advanced in the same World Cup. And it easily could've been three if not for that Greece penalty kick in second half stoppage time that knocked out Ivory Coast. Nigeria finished second in Argentina's weak group, while Algeria is right up there with Costa Rica when it comes to most surprising squad remaining. Neither one is going to win their next game, but it is theoretically possible that they could meet in the quarters and guarantee the first-ever African semifinalist.
Meanwhile, Europe had 13 teams in the tournament and only six of them moved on (among the high-profile European eliminations were defending champion Spain and Cristiano Ronaldo-led Portugal). While the Netherlands, Germany and France have looked good, I'm still not sold on Belgium or Switzerland. I still don't really understand why these two teams were seeded. Greece is probably the third-most surprising squad remaining. I bet there were very few people who expected to see them play more than three games in this World Cup. They can't score! Yet somehow they did enough to advance.
However, with a few exceptions, the top 16 teams in the world are the ones left standing. Of the top 16 teams in the FIFA World Rankings, 11 advanced to the Round of 16. And France, at No. 17, is the 16th-ranked team that actually qualified for the tournament. You've also got Mexico at No. 20 and in the Round of 16 for the sixth straight World Cup, so their advancement isn't a shock to anybody. The only outliers in the group are Algeria (22), Costa Rica (28) and Nigeria (44).
Anyway, I saw a number of predictions of a European victory prior to the tournament, and there are still plenty of people I know that are picking Germany or the Netherlands. I just don't see it, though. A European team's never won the World Cup in the Americas, and now I know why. It's not just the fan support. It's the conditions and everything else. And with half the field coming from the Americas, the odds are certainly stacked in their favor. Can a European team advance to the final, and maybe even win? Of course. I just wouldn't bank on it.
I'll start breaking down the Round of 16 with Saturday's mini-Copa America. Of the five South American teams, four of them are in the same section of the bracket. Which means, at the very least, that we're guaranteed a South American semifinalist. Anyway, Brazil wasn't overly impressive in its first two games, but looked incredible against Cameroon. Chile did a great job to knock off Spain and come out of Group B, but I'm not sure how much they have left. These teams are obviously familiar with each other, but I'd like Chile's chances a lot better if the game was being played in Santiago or on neutral ground.
In the second game, Colombia meets Uruguay. Colombia has been one of the most impressive sides in the tournament, but that might be a consequence of their weak group. Ordinarily I'd like Uruguay in this matchup, but that was before the biting incident. Without Luis Suarez, Uruguay simply isn't as good. And that's why I think we're getting a Brazil-Colombia quarterfinal.
The next section of the bracket is the two Europe vs. Africa matchups. In Group E, France certainly looked like the team that was seeded. Not Switzerland. Anyway, their reward for winning a weak group was playing the second-place team in another weak one. That would be Nigeria. Great job by Nigeria to get here, but Les Bleues will continue making people forget about the disappointment of four years ago by getting to the quarterfinals. Germany always makes it to the quarterfinals. This World Cup will be no exception. Like their African counterparts, Algeria is simply overmatched. Germany's the No. 2 team in the world for a reason and still a popular pick to reach the final, if not win the whole thing.
On the bottom half, we've got the Netherlands against Mexico and Costa Rica against Greece. It's possible that we'll have our very first all-CONCACAF World Cup quarterfinal, but I don't think the Mexicans are beating the Dutch. Their stated goal has been to finally win their Round of 16 game after five consecutive losses, but unfortunately for them, they have to play a very good Dutch team that's showing everybody why it was a finalist in the last World Cup. The winner of that one gets the winner of Costa Rica-Greece. It's safe to say that whoever comes out of that game will be the most unexpected quarterfinalist in this year's World Cup. No one would've predicted either one of these teams to get that far (or even this far). Costa Rica won a group that included Uruguay, Italy and England. All three of those teams are better than Greece.
Moving into the bottom section, this whole tournament is set up beautifully for Argentina. Their path to the final has never been easier. They had an easy group, and looking at the other teams that they'll need to get through in the knockout games, I'd be shocked if they weren't playing at Maracana in two weeks. In fact, the only other team in the bottom half of the bracket ranked in the Top 10 in the world is Argentina's second round opponent, No. 6 Switzerland. I don't feel the need to question Switzerland's ranking again, but suffice it to say they're not as good as Argentina.
Then there's the final Round of 16 matchup between Belgium and the United States. Once the draw was finished and the U.S. ended up in a group with Germany, Portugal and Ghana, the one silver lining that everybody found was that the Round of 16 game would definitely be winnable if they got out of the group. Well, they did get out of the group. And the Round of 16 game is still definitely winnable. Belgium looked very good in its group games, but they're not the caliber of Germany and Portugal. The U.S. played very well against European opponents that are far superior to this Belgian team. Klinsmann will have them ready for another one. Thanks to this team, America has gotten swept up in soccer fever. Well, everyone better clear their calendars for Fourth of July weekend. Because there's a quarterfinal game against Argentina on the agenda. I believe that we will win! I believe that we will win! I believe that we will win!
So, there you have it. My quarterfinal matchups are Brazil-Colombia, France-Germany, Netherlands-Costa Rica and Argentina-United States. I only picked six teams in the right positions (nine overall) correctly, but that includes three of my semifinalists. In the semis, we'll see an epic Brazil-Germany showdown, while the Netherlands will play Argentina. And I'm sticking with my original pick for the final. The biggest game ever between two of the biggest rivals in international soccer. A can't-miss World Cup Final between Brazil and Argentina at Maracana. How awesome would that be?
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
New Home Run Derby Format
So they've finally ditched the AL vs. NL format for the Home Run Derby. Can the team captains thing be far behind? Please!
At least they're trying to make the Home Run Derby better. I give them credit for that. And I've got to say, I do kinda like the new format. Whether it'll make the Derby any shorter remains to be seen though. If it took nearly three hours with eight guys, will they hit the magic number now that they've added two more?
The Home Run Derby wasn't just long, it was getting boring. They had to do something. And they've tweaked the format enough to make it a little more interesting. It sure beats the year they did the international thing to promote the World Baseball Classic, too.
Probably the biggest change is that instead of four players per league there will now be five, and the number of outs per player per round has been reduced from 10 to 7. This is probably MLB's way of acknowledging that the Derby is indeed too long. One way to make it shorter is reducing the number of outs in each round. While I would've preferred dropping it to five, this is a reasonable method of splitting the difference. It'll also eliminate (hopefully) the guys who hit early having to sit around for an hour and a half before going again. Likewise, guys who hit late and advance won't have to take 20 swings in a relatively short amount of time anymore.
But my favorite element of the new format is the bracket. How many times in the past couple years has it been AL vs. AL in the finals? Well, now we're guaranteed to have one finalist from each league, which is really the way it should be. Instead of the top four guys regardless of league advancing to the second round, it's the top three from the NL and the top three from the AL. Seeds 2 and 3 then meet in the second round to see who faces No. 1 in the semifinals, and the two semifinal winners, one per league, will meet in the finals.
While this represents a good change, I'd still like to see more. I've never really been a fan of the whole "team captain" concept since they introduced it. They normally pick someone from the home team, but this year's captains are Jose Bautista of the Blue Jays and Troy Tulowitzki of the Rockies, who said he might pick teammate Justin Morneau, a former Twin (and former Derby winner).
I get why they did it, and it certainly has built camaraderie between the participants, but it seemed like an unnecessary gimmick then and it still does now. I also don't like having non-All-Stars participate in the Home Run Derby. Sure, last year Yoenis Cespedes, who wasn't an All-Star, ended up winning the whole thing, but it's weird to see a guy who's not on the All-Star Team wearing the All-Star jersey like all the players who are. At the very least, if you're going to let players who aren't on the All-Star team be in the Home Run Derby, don't let them wear the league jersey. That should be reserved for All-Stars.
Speaking of the league jerseys, this year's are far better than last year's. Seeing as orange isn't one of the Twins' colors, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody. The AL's red and the NL's blue, except the back is the opposite color. I don't know when this trend started or how it caught on, but it doesn't look good. And it's confusing. But since the front of the jerseys is nice (and I'm worried about next year in Cincinnati, where it'll be red and some other color), I'll give them a pass.
One other plus is that the AL and NL league hats appear to be gone. Maybe it was those hideous Montreal Expos monstrosities from last year that finally tipped them over the edge, but the hats that match the jerseys are done. How do I know this? Because the MLB.com Shop currently has blue hats with the All-Star Game logo for every NL team and red hats with the All-Star Game logo for every AL team on its site. So, it looks like now we've got Home Run Derby hats to go along with the Fourth of July and Memorial Day hats.
Even though I have my own well-documented problems with the Fourth of July and Memorial Day and camouflage hats, this still represents a slight improvement over the team hats that matched the All-Star jerseys. Although my preference would be going back to when the guys in the Home Run Derby wore their regular hats, with the logo on the side, and their All-Star jersey. (I know that'll never happen though. Not since MLB discovered that they can sell All-Star hats for $35 apiece and people will buy them.)
Who knows how the jersey/hat combos will end up looking on the actual field and how the Home Run Derby will play out in this new format? I give MLB credit for trying to change with the times, though. This is the season that saw the introduction of video replay and the implementation of the Buster Posey Rule. Why not tweak the Derby format while you're at it? If it doesn't work, they can always go back to the old way. Or try something completely different. (I do like the relay idea some guys suggested in the comments section.)
At least they're trying to make the Home Run Derby better. I give them credit for that. And I've got to say, I do kinda like the new format. Whether it'll make the Derby any shorter remains to be seen though. If it took nearly three hours with eight guys, will they hit the magic number now that they've added two more?
The Home Run Derby wasn't just long, it was getting boring. They had to do something. And they've tweaked the format enough to make it a little more interesting. It sure beats the year they did the international thing to promote the World Baseball Classic, too.
Probably the biggest change is that instead of four players per league there will now be five, and the number of outs per player per round has been reduced from 10 to 7. This is probably MLB's way of acknowledging that the Derby is indeed too long. One way to make it shorter is reducing the number of outs in each round. While I would've preferred dropping it to five, this is a reasonable method of splitting the difference. It'll also eliminate (hopefully) the guys who hit early having to sit around for an hour and a half before going again. Likewise, guys who hit late and advance won't have to take 20 swings in a relatively short amount of time anymore.
But my favorite element of the new format is the bracket. How many times in the past couple years has it been AL vs. AL in the finals? Well, now we're guaranteed to have one finalist from each league, which is really the way it should be. Instead of the top four guys regardless of league advancing to the second round, it's the top three from the NL and the top three from the AL. Seeds 2 and 3 then meet in the second round to see who faces No. 1 in the semifinals, and the two semifinal winners, one per league, will meet in the finals.
While this represents a good change, I'd still like to see more. I've never really been a fan of the whole "team captain" concept since they introduced it. They normally pick someone from the home team, but this year's captains are Jose Bautista of the Blue Jays and Troy Tulowitzki of the Rockies, who said he might pick teammate Justin Morneau, a former Twin (and former Derby winner).
I get why they did it, and it certainly has built camaraderie between the participants, but it seemed like an unnecessary gimmick then and it still does now. I also don't like having non-All-Stars participate in the Home Run Derby. Sure, last year Yoenis Cespedes, who wasn't an All-Star, ended up winning the whole thing, but it's weird to see a guy who's not on the All-Star Team wearing the All-Star jersey like all the players who are. At the very least, if you're going to let players who aren't on the All-Star team be in the Home Run Derby, don't let them wear the league jersey. That should be reserved for All-Stars.
Speaking of the league jerseys, this year's are far better than last year's. Seeing as orange isn't one of the Twins' colors, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody. The AL's red and the NL's blue, except the back is the opposite color. I don't know when this trend started or how it caught on, but it doesn't look good. And it's confusing. But since the front of the jerseys is nice (and I'm worried about next year in Cincinnati, where it'll be red and some other color), I'll give them a pass.
One other plus is that the AL and NL league hats appear to be gone. Maybe it was those hideous Montreal Expos monstrosities from last year that finally tipped them over the edge, but the hats that match the jerseys are done. How do I know this? Because the MLB.com Shop currently has blue hats with the All-Star Game logo for every NL team and red hats with the All-Star Game logo for every AL team on its site. So, it looks like now we've got Home Run Derby hats to go along with the Fourth of July and Memorial Day hats.
Even though I have my own well-documented problems with the Fourth of July and Memorial Day and camouflage hats, this still represents a slight improvement over the team hats that matched the All-Star jerseys. Although my preference would be going back to when the guys in the Home Run Derby wore their regular hats, with the logo on the side, and their All-Star jersey. (I know that'll never happen though. Not since MLB discovered that they can sell All-Star hats for $35 apiece and people will buy them.)
Who knows how the jersey/hat combos will end up looking on the actual field and how the Home Run Derby will play out in this new format? I give MLB credit for trying to change with the times, though. This is the season that saw the introduction of video replay and the implementation of the Buster Posey Rule. Why not tweak the Derby format while you're at it? If it doesn't work, they can always go back to the old way. Or try something completely different. (I do like the relay idea some guys suggested in the comments section.)
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Wimbledon 2014
It's going to be a very weird year at Wimbledon. Instead of playing his standard third match on Centre Court, Andy Murray is going to play the opening Centre Court match of the tournament, which is his right as defending champion. There won't be a ladies' defending champion to start play on Tuesday, though. Marion Bartoli retired shortly after Wimbledon last year and won't be defending her title. I'm assuming that means Sabine Lisicki, as the returning finalist, will get the honor.
The TV coverage is going to be weird, too. ESPN has done a tremendous job since they acquired exclusive U.S. rights to Wimbledon. Expect this year they've got a little problem. The final group matches of the World Cup are Monday-Thursday, which means they need both ESPN and ESPN2 for soccer. They've got the same problem next week when they can't do their standard Centre Court on ESPN, Court 1 on ESPN2 thing during the round of 16 and quarterfinals. So, it's ESPNEWS to the rescue. (In 2010, they used ESPNU for the Wimbledon/World Cup conflict, which seemed to make a little more sense.)
But it's still Wimbledon, and it's still the greatest fortnight in tennis. This is the Grand Slam that each of the Big Four have won in the last four years, and it's also the place where we had that crazy day of early-round upsets last year. This is where we can turn back the clock and see Roger Federer as Roger Federer once again. This is where the Williams sisters are at their dominant best. This is where an entire country celebrated one of their own finally ending that tremendous drought last year. It's as if Andy Murray rewarded their passion.
At Wimbledon, they're allowed to deviate from the rankings when setting the seedings on the men's side. We should be thankful for that fact, because it means the fifth-ranked Murray is seeded third and we don't have to worry about a Big Four matchup prior to the semifinals. They also flopped Djokovic and Nadal, mainly due to Clay Boy's early exits in both 2012 and 2013.
Regardless, with the Big Four appearing in four different sections of the draw, they have to be considered favorites to meet each other in the semifinals (where it would be a Djokovic-Murray rematch and a Wimbledon renewal of Federer-Nadal). There are plenty of others who can challenge the Big Four, though. Tomas Berdych has been a finalist here before. Grigor Dimitrov has long been touted as the Next Big Thing in men's tennis. It's long been known that John Isner has the serve to contend at Wimbledon. Now he needs to prove that he can actually break serve and avoid playing those long early-round matches that inevitably kill his chances (this is the four-year anniversary of his 70-68 epic). Then there's Milos Raonic, who has a similar problem as Isner.
My quarterfinal predictions are just that. Djokovic-Berdych, Murray-Dimitrov, Isner-Federer and Raonic-Nadal. After all of the early upsets last year, knocking the favorites out before the tournament even really got started, we ended up seeing Jerzy Janowicz in the semifinals. I can't see that happening again. One of the Big Four might lose early, but we're going to see the big names at the end.
As for who emerges from those dream semifinals, I'm going to say Djokovic gets revenge on Murray and gets back to the final for the third time in four years. Most people agree that if Roger's ever going to win another Slam, it'll be here. Whether or not that magical 2012 run was that final Slam title is very tough to say, but we do know that Roger would have six more Grand Slam titles, including an eighth Wimbledon, if not for a certain little annoying Spanish guy. Believe it or not, Roger's looking for some redemption of his own at the All-England Club. Last year's second-round loss marked the end of his ridiculous streak of 36 consecutive Grand Slam tournaments reaching at least the quarterfinals (that's nine years people!), but he's gone out prior to the quarters in three of the last four. Wimbledon's as good a place as any to find his game again.
I bet Roger's probably hoping for Rafa's third straight early exit, though. Because if they meet in the semis, I see Nadal winning. That's just the way things have gone between these two recently, especially at Grand Slams. That puts Nadal against his other rival in a 1 vs. 2 rematch of the French Open final. Except this time, the result will be different. I'm going with Novak Djokovic to capture his third Wimbledon title.
On the women's side, as usual, the tournament is a lot more unpredictable. Serena Williams is the favorite, just like she is every time she shows up in London. Except for that one magical day 10 years ago, Serena has been Maria Sharapova's kryptonite. Well, guess who the French Open champ drew in the quarters? Although, it might not get to that. Because Eugenie Bouchard, the only woman to make the semis at both prior Slams this year, would be Serena's Round of 16 opponent. And waiting for the winner in the semis would be Sabine Lisicki, who beat Serena last year en route to the finals.
Whoever comes out of that top half will likely be favored in the final. Petra Kvitova's a former champ, beating Aggie Radwanska two years ago. The bottom half also features Australian Open champ Li Na, who lost in the first round at the French, and Venus Williams, who's not the player she once was, but is still a name you don't want to see anywhere near yours in the draw. I'm most intrigued by two other players in the bottom half of the draw, though. Caroline Wozniacki and Victoria Azarenka.
Woz had that much-publicized breakup with Rory McIlroy, followed by an early exit at the French, followed by that trip to Miami with Serena that gave the world this. Vika, meanwhile, sat out the French and has been dealing with injuries for much of the year. It was her second-round retirement because of an ankle injury that got Wild Wednesday started last year, but she made two semifinal appearances in the two years before that (and won a pair of Olympic medals in 2012). If Vika's healthy and in form, she could definitely be a player.
Anyway, there are a number of women who could end up holding the winner's plate in two weeks. I think after what happened last year, then what happened at the French, Serena's incredibly focused. And a focused Serena Williams is a dangerous Serena Williams. She exacts her revenge on Lisicki in the semifinals. I think Azarenka is in form, at least enough to beat Radwanska and get to the semis. But not enough to beat Kvitova. And in a matchup of the 2011 champ against the five-time champ, I'll go with Serena.
The TV coverage is going to be weird, too. ESPN has done a tremendous job since they acquired exclusive U.S. rights to Wimbledon. Expect this year they've got a little problem. The final group matches of the World Cup are Monday-Thursday, which means they need both ESPN and ESPN2 for soccer. They've got the same problem next week when they can't do their standard Centre Court on ESPN, Court 1 on ESPN2 thing during the round of 16 and quarterfinals. So, it's ESPNEWS to the rescue. (In 2010, they used ESPNU for the Wimbledon/World Cup conflict, which seemed to make a little more sense.)
But it's still Wimbledon, and it's still the greatest fortnight in tennis. This is the Grand Slam that each of the Big Four have won in the last four years, and it's also the place where we had that crazy day of early-round upsets last year. This is where we can turn back the clock and see Roger Federer as Roger Federer once again. This is where the Williams sisters are at their dominant best. This is where an entire country celebrated one of their own finally ending that tremendous drought last year. It's as if Andy Murray rewarded their passion.
At Wimbledon, they're allowed to deviate from the rankings when setting the seedings on the men's side. We should be thankful for that fact, because it means the fifth-ranked Murray is seeded third and we don't have to worry about a Big Four matchup prior to the semifinals. They also flopped Djokovic and Nadal, mainly due to Clay Boy's early exits in both 2012 and 2013.
Regardless, with the Big Four appearing in four different sections of the draw, they have to be considered favorites to meet each other in the semifinals (where it would be a Djokovic-Murray rematch and a Wimbledon renewal of Federer-Nadal). There are plenty of others who can challenge the Big Four, though. Tomas Berdych has been a finalist here before. Grigor Dimitrov has long been touted as the Next Big Thing in men's tennis. It's long been known that John Isner has the serve to contend at Wimbledon. Now he needs to prove that he can actually break serve and avoid playing those long early-round matches that inevitably kill his chances (this is the four-year anniversary of his 70-68 epic). Then there's Milos Raonic, who has a similar problem as Isner.
My quarterfinal predictions are just that. Djokovic-Berdych, Murray-Dimitrov, Isner-Federer and Raonic-Nadal. After all of the early upsets last year, knocking the favorites out before the tournament even really got started, we ended up seeing Jerzy Janowicz in the semifinals. I can't see that happening again. One of the Big Four might lose early, but we're going to see the big names at the end.
As for who emerges from those dream semifinals, I'm going to say Djokovic gets revenge on Murray and gets back to the final for the third time in four years. Most people agree that if Roger's ever going to win another Slam, it'll be here. Whether or not that magical 2012 run was that final Slam title is very tough to say, but we do know that Roger would have six more Grand Slam titles, including an eighth Wimbledon, if not for a certain little annoying Spanish guy. Believe it or not, Roger's looking for some redemption of his own at the All-England Club. Last year's second-round loss marked the end of his ridiculous streak of 36 consecutive Grand Slam tournaments reaching at least the quarterfinals (that's nine years people!), but he's gone out prior to the quarters in three of the last four. Wimbledon's as good a place as any to find his game again.
I bet Roger's probably hoping for Rafa's third straight early exit, though. Because if they meet in the semis, I see Nadal winning. That's just the way things have gone between these two recently, especially at Grand Slams. That puts Nadal against his other rival in a 1 vs. 2 rematch of the French Open final. Except this time, the result will be different. I'm going with Novak Djokovic to capture his third Wimbledon title.
On the women's side, as usual, the tournament is a lot more unpredictable. Serena Williams is the favorite, just like she is every time she shows up in London. Except for that one magical day 10 years ago, Serena has been Maria Sharapova's kryptonite. Well, guess who the French Open champ drew in the quarters? Although, it might not get to that. Because Eugenie Bouchard, the only woman to make the semis at both prior Slams this year, would be Serena's Round of 16 opponent. And waiting for the winner in the semis would be Sabine Lisicki, who beat Serena last year en route to the finals.
Whoever comes out of that top half will likely be favored in the final. Petra Kvitova's a former champ, beating Aggie Radwanska two years ago. The bottom half also features Australian Open champ Li Na, who lost in the first round at the French, and Venus Williams, who's not the player she once was, but is still a name you don't want to see anywhere near yours in the draw. I'm most intrigued by two other players in the bottom half of the draw, though. Caroline Wozniacki and Victoria Azarenka.
Woz had that much-publicized breakup with Rory McIlroy, followed by an early exit at the French, followed by that trip to Miami with Serena that gave the world this. Vika, meanwhile, sat out the French and has been dealing with injuries for much of the year. It was her second-round retirement because of an ankle injury that got Wild Wednesday started last year, but she made two semifinal appearances in the two years before that (and won a pair of Olympic medals in 2012). If Vika's healthy and in form, she could definitely be a player.
Anyway, there are a number of women who could end up holding the winner's plate in two weeks. I think after what happened last year, then what happened at the French, Serena's incredibly focused. And a focused Serena Williams is a dangerous Serena Williams. She exacts her revenge on Lisicki in the semifinals. I think Azarenka is in form, at least enough to beat Radwanska and get to the semis. But not enough to beat Kvitova. And in a matchup of the 2011 champ against the five-time champ, I'll go with Serena.
Friday, June 20, 2014
The U.S. Four For 2024
So much for the USOC keeping that list of cities still in consideration for a 2024 Olympic bid private. You knew it wouldn't take long for someone to leak the news, so they decided to nip that in the bud and make the announcement themselves. It's down to four cities, none of which is surprising. And with only Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington left in the running, it now seems inevitable that the USOC will bid to host the 2024 Olympics.
Whichever city it is will face some incredibly stiff competition. It'll be the 100th anniversary of the 1924 Paris Games, so you know there's going to be a Paris bid. Rome looks likely, as well. And after finishing second to Tokyo for the 2020 Olympics, another bid from Istanbul would make a lot of sense. Then there's South Africa. They didn't bid for 2020, but the IOC wants an Olympics in Africa very badly, so whichever South African city bids (most likely either Durban or Johannesburg) would be viewed very favorably. However, now that the revenue-sharing thing is settled, the IOC has also made it clear they'd like to have the Olympics return to the U.S. as soon as possible. So, it's going to be very interesting to watch this bid process play out. (Doha has said they want to bid, too, but they're not having three straight Olympics in Asia.)
As soon as they mentioned their interest, you knew Los Angeles would be considered very seriously by the USOC. LA has hosted the Olympics twice, including the very successful 1984 Games, and seems to want the Olympics the most. They have all the necessary facilities and would likely reuse many of the same venues from 1984. It's also LA. They've got the money and the city has the international cache that's becoming more and more necessary.
However, one of LA's greatest strengths might also be one of its greatest drawbacks. London is the only city that has hosted the Olympics three times. Should they both be candidates for 2024, Paris and Los Angeles would be vying to become the second. Except Paris and London are really the only cities in their respective countries that could reasonably handle the job. In the U.S., that's not the case. There are plenty of American cities that would be capable of hosting a successful Olympics. Giving LA a third opportunity to do so before giving any of those cities a chance for the first time doesn't seem right.
Among those American cities that would make an ideal Olympic host: the one in Northern California. The IOC has been pushing the USOC to put forth a San Francisco bid for years. That leads me to believe the IOC wants to go to San Francisco, and that a San Francisco bid would be the one that has the greatest chance of success. (Plus, there's the gorgeous scenic shot of the Golden Gate Bridge that would rival the shots we're going to see of Christ the Redeemer and Copacabana from Rio.)
From what I've read, there are residents and politicos in the Bay Area who don't seem too keen on an Olympic bid. Evidently, according to those articles, the only reason San Francisco is being considered is because the mayor responded "Yes" when the USOC sent out a letter trying to gauge interest from a number of different cities.
Whether or not that's true, I don't know. But it is clear that any "San Francisco" Olympics would include the rest of the Bay Area, which is both good and bad. San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose and Santa Clara are all close enough to each other that the Games wouldn't be too spread out, and all four cities are big enough to accommodate the millions of fans from around the world. Stanford and Cal could even pitch in, too. The point is, there are plenty of existing facilities in the Bay Area (as long as one of them isn't that piece of crap "stadium" the A's and Raiders play in). The cost wouldn't be that significant an issue, either (it is the location of Silicon Valley, after all).
I've been advocating a San Francisco Olympics for years. It's the one city that seems to make the most sense for the U.S. There are two other advantages that San Francisco and LA have over Boston and Washington. First, the weather in California is beautiful about 340 days a year. That includes the Summer. In fact, you could have the Olympics in San Francisco at pretty much any time of year and the weather would be the same. Beautiful.
More importantly, though, they're both on the West Coast. NBC likes that, and if you don't think NBC has an influence on the USOC you're sadly mistaken. No tape delays anywhere, with competition still able to take place at reasonable times.
The weather is probably the biggest thing that would hold the Washington bid back. The IOC likes capitals, which works in Washington's favor, but unlike California, the weather in the Beltway over the summer is hot, humid and sticky. We saw the problems with that in Atlanta. There's also some concern that Washington is too government-influenced. I'm not sure that's actually the case, but it does make me wonder about the levels of public support from people who actually live in the DC area.
Finally, we've got Boston, the only other American city that seems to be as gung-ho about hosting the Olympics as Los Angeles. Unfortunately, being enthusiastic about bidding doesn't make you the best-equipped to make an actual bid. Boston is a wonderful, historic city, but they can't rely on existing venues. There are too many old ones that would need to be upgraded. The Olympics have never been in the Northeast Corridor, but the bids from Boston and Washington simply aren't as strong as the two from the California cities.
There's still time (they won't even begin the process until picking a city for the 2022 Winter Olympics next year), and whether or not the USOC is even going to bid is still a question that needs to be answered, but I think it's likely that there will be an American candidate. Going against what will likely be a loaded, high-profile field similar to the one New York went up against in 2005, the U.S. needs to present the city it feels has the best chance of winning. That's why I'd go with San Francisco.
Whichever city it is will face some incredibly stiff competition. It'll be the 100th anniversary of the 1924 Paris Games, so you know there's going to be a Paris bid. Rome looks likely, as well. And after finishing second to Tokyo for the 2020 Olympics, another bid from Istanbul would make a lot of sense. Then there's South Africa. They didn't bid for 2020, but the IOC wants an Olympics in Africa very badly, so whichever South African city bids (most likely either Durban or Johannesburg) would be viewed very favorably. However, now that the revenue-sharing thing is settled, the IOC has also made it clear they'd like to have the Olympics return to the U.S. as soon as possible. So, it's going to be very interesting to watch this bid process play out. (Doha has said they want to bid, too, but they're not having three straight Olympics in Asia.)
As soon as they mentioned their interest, you knew Los Angeles would be considered very seriously by the USOC. LA has hosted the Olympics twice, including the very successful 1984 Games, and seems to want the Olympics the most. They have all the necessary facilities and would likely reuse many of the same venues from 1984. It's also LA. They've got the money and the city has the international cache that's becoming more and more necessary.
However, one of LA's greatest strengths might also be one of its greatest drawbacks. London is the only city that has hosted the Olympics three times. Should they both be candidates for 2024, Paris and Los Angeles would be vying to become the second. Except Paris and London are really the only cities in their respective countries that could reasonably handle the job. In the U.S., that's not the case. There are plenty of American cities that would be capable of hosting a successful Olympics. Giving LA a third opportunity to do so before giving any of those cities a chance for the first time doesn't seem right.
Among those American cities that would make an ideal Olympic host: the one in Northern California. The IOC has been pushing the USOC to put forth a San Francisco bid for years. That leads me to believe the IOC wants to go to San Francisco, and that a San Francisco bid would be the one that has the greatest chance of success. (Plus, there's the gorgeous scenic shot of the Golden Gate Bridge that would rival the shots we're going to see of Christ the Redeemer and Copacabana from Rio.)
From what I've read, there are residents and politicos in the Bay Area who don't seem too keen on an Olympic bid. Evidently, according to those articles, the only reason San Francisco is being considered is because the mayor responded "Yes" when the USOC sent out a letter trying to gauge interest from a number of different cities.
Whether or not that's true, I don't know. But it is clear that any "San Francisco" Olympics would include the rest of the Bay Area, which is both good and bad. San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose and Santa Clara are all close enough to each other that the Games wouldn't be too spread out, and all four cities are big enough to accommodate the millions of fans from around the world. Stanford and Cal could even pitch in, too. The point is, there are plenty of existing facilities in the Bay Area (as long as one of them isn't that piece of crap "stadium" the A's and Raiders play in). The cost wouldn't be that significant an issue, either (it is the location of Silicon Valley, after all).
I've been advocating a San Francisco Olympics for years. It's the one city that seems to make the most sense for the U.S. There are two other advantages that San Francisco and LA have over Boston and Washington. First, the weather in California is beautiful about 340 days a year. That includes the Summer. In fact, you could have the Olympics in San Francisco at pretty much any time of year and the weather would be the same. Beautiful.
More importantly, though, they're both on the West Coast. NBC likes that, and if you don't think NBC has an influence on the USOC you're sadly mistaken. No tape delays anywhere, with competition still able to take place at reasonable times.
The weather is probably the biggest thing that would hold the Washington bid back. The IOC likes capitals, which works in Washington's favor, but unlike California, the weather in the Beltway over the summer is hot, humid and sticky. We saw the problems with that in Atlanta. There's also some concern that Washington is too government-influenced. I'm not sure that's actually the case, but it does make me wonder about the levels of public support from people who actually live in the DC area.
Finally, we've got Boston, the only other American city that seems to be as gung-ho about hosting the Olympics as Los Angeles. Unfortunately, being enthusiastic about bidding doesn't make you the best-equipped to make an actual bid. Boston is a wonderful, historic city, but they can't rely on existing venues. There are too many old ones that would need to be upgraded. The Olympics have never been in the Northeast Corridor, but the bids from Boston and Washington simply aren't as strong as the two from the California cities.
There's still time (they won't even begin the process until picking a city for the 2022 Winter Olympics next year), and whether or not the USOC is even going to bid is still a question that needs to be answered, but I think it's likely that there will be an American candidate. Going against what will likely be a loaded, high-profile field similar to the one New York went up against in 2005, the U.S. needs to present the city it feels has the best chance of winning. That's why I'd go with San Francisco.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
The Day That Changed Everything
It's hard to believe, but today marks the 20th anniversary of one of the wildest, craziest days in American history. Without a question, it was one of the most significant days in American sports in the 20th Century. So significant, in fact, that ESPN dedicated an entire 30 for 30 to the subject (and it was one of the best ones in the series). And 20 years later, the events of June 17, 1994, still have a lasting impact.
The ESPN 30 for 30 touched on a couple things that were significant at the time, but pale in comparison to everything else that happened on that memorable day. Arnold Palmer, who nowadays is being plugged pretty hard as the half-iced tea/half-lemonade guy in those commercials, was a golf legend first. Twenty years ago today, he played the final U.S. Open round of his career.
They also showed highlights of the Rangers' Stanley Cup parade. Three days earlier, they had captured their first title in 65 years. Many of us in New York were hoping that there would be another parade down the Canyon of Heroes at some point this week, but, alas, that remains the last championship parade for a New York hockey team.
Another thing that they showed in the ESPN 30 for 30 was a Ken Griffey, Jr., home run. Of course, two months later, the baseball season would come to an abrupt end, depriving us of a potential assault on the home run record that would still belong to Roger Maris for another few years. Tony Gwynn, God rest his soul, was hitting .394 when the strike hit. Who knows if he could've reached .400? (Heartbreaking news about Gwynn. He'll always have a special place in my heart. The last time I went to Cooperstown was seven years ago, for his and Cal Ripken, Jr.'s induction.)
We're two months away from the anniversary of the strike. It started on August 12, 1994 to be exact. (Ironically, the day the strike started was the same day I made my first trip to Cooperstown.) It dragged on for months. We lost a World Series and were faced with the prospect of seeing replacement players until the strike was finally settled during Spring Training 1995. The strike changed baseball forever. It led to the Steroid Era.
But, there was also a much more lasting impact of the baseball strike, which I think is one of the few positive things that can be taken away. Through all the labor struggles we've seen in the other three Major League sports over the past few years, including the lockout that cancelled the entire 2004-05 NHL season (that anniversary is coming up, too), Baseball has had labor peace ever since that day. And I truly believe that there will never be another work stoppage in Major League Baseball again. Both sides learned from the strike. The fans eventually came back. They might not if it happens again. And both the players and the owners understand that.
More significantly, June 17, 1994, marked the opening day of the World Cup, which was held in the United States for the first time. Nobody thought it would work. The U.S. was notorious for not caring about soccer. No one was going to show up. Wrong! To this day, the 1994 World Cup is still the most attended in the event's history. As it turns out, going to the U.S. might've been the best thing FIFA ever did. Because it started a soccer explosion in this country.
MLS is coming up on its 20th anniversary, and it's never been stronger. Soccer's on TV everywhere. People watch the English Premier League and Champions League religiously. European club and national teams play exhibition games in the U.S., and the stadiums are packed. And do I even need to say anything about the U.S. National Team (great win over Ghana, guys!), the biggest by-product of the culture change started with the 1994 World Cup. People care about the National Team and World Cup now. That most certainly wasn't the case 20 years ago, when soccer was still a curiosity.
All of that pales in comparison to the Crime of the Century, though. I'm, of course, talking about the event that led to the creation of 24-hour news channels and reality TV (and also led to the Kardashians being unleashed on the world). NBC cut away from its coverage of Game 5 of the NBA Finals because people wanted to watch a white Ford Bronco drive very slowly down the Santa Monica Freeway while being trailed by police cars for an hour and a half. You could see
Yes, America, it was 20 years ago today that the entire country was transfixed by O.J. Simpson. From a slow speed car chase to the all the events that unfolded in the weeks and months afterwards to the trial itself, the O.J. Simpson case completely changed the way this country watches TV. It was the only thing people wanted to watch or could talk about. The entire trial was covered live on television, and everyone had an opinion. Whether you thought he was guilty or not wasn't relevant. You had an opinion.
I just watched a special about Oscar Pistorius, which is the 21st Century's version of the O.J. trial, and they interviewed Allen Dershowitz, a member of the legal "Dream Team" that earned a not guilty verdict. They obviously touched on O.J. and Dershowitz said something very interesting. He, not so subtly, implied that they didn't win the case as much as the prosecution lost it. That, to me, suggested that even Dershowitz, who helped get his client acquitted, has doubts about O.J.'s innocence.
O.J. Simpson is a fallen hero. He went from a beloved former sports star, TV pitchman and actor to an accused murderer overnight. Even though he was acquitted, his image has been shattered forever. And Simpson, of course, was never able to recover, and he's currently serving 33 years in prison for breaking into a hotel room and stealing memorabilia. He ended up going to jail anyway, which many people think is some sort of poetic justice.
Regardless of your personal opinion on O.J. Simpson, there's no denying that he'll have a permanent place in the American lexicon. The O.J. Simpson trial was the media event of its time, and it forever changed the way Americans watch TV. In fact, it did more than that. It completely changed the way we look at our celebrities. Now you only hear about celebrities because of the "trouble" they get in, as insignificant or made up as it might be.
For good or for bad, America changed with the O.J. Simpson saga. Whether or not today's a reason to celebrate is up for debate, but there's no doubt about the significance of what happened on this day 20 years ago. June 17, 1994--one of the most memorable days in the history of American sports. And one that has left a lasting legacy.
The ESPN 30 for 30 touched on a couple things that were significant at the time, but pale in comparison to everything else that happened on that memorable day. Arnold Palmer, who nowadays is being plugged pretty hard as the half-iced tea/half-lemonade guy in those commercials, was a golf legend first. Twenty years ago today, he played the final U.S. Open round of his career.
They also showed highlights of the Rangers' Stanley Cup parade. Three days earlier, they had captured their first title in 65 years. Many of us in New York were hoping that there would be another parade down the Canyon of Heroes at some point this week, but, alas, that remains the last championship parade for a New York hockey team.
Another thing that they showed in the ESPN 30 for 30 was a Ken Griffey, Jr., home run. Of course, two months later, the baseball season would come to an abrupt end, depriving us of a potential assault on the home run record that would still belong to Roger Maris for another few years. Tony Gwynn, God rest his soul, was hitting .394 when the strike hit. Who knows if he could've reached .400? (Heartbreaking news about Gwynn. He'll always have a special place in my heart. The last time I went to Cooperstown was seven years ago, for his and Cal Ripken, Jr.'s induction.)
We're two months away from the anniversary of the strike. It started on August 12, 1994 to be exact. (Ironically, the day the strike started was the same day I made my first trip to Cooperstown.) It dragged on for months. We lost a World Series and were faced with the prospect of seeing replacement players until the strike was finally settled during Spring Training 1995. The strike changed baseball forever. It led to the Steroid Era.
But, there was also a much more lasting impact of the baseball strike, which I think is one of the few positive things that can be taken away. Through all the labor struggles we've seen in the other three Major League sports over the past few years, including the lockout that cancelled the entire 2004-05 NHL season (that anniversary is coming up, too), Baseball has had labor peace ever since that day. And I truly believe that there will never be another work stoppage in Major League Baseball again. Both sides learned from the strike. The fans eventually came back. They might not if it happens again. And both the players and the owners understand that.
More significantly, June 17, 1994, marked the opening day of the World Cup, which was held in the United States for the first time. Nobody thought it would work. The U.S. was notorious for not caring about soccer. No one was going to show up. Wrong! To this day, the 1994 World Cup is still the most attended in the event's history. As it turns out, going to the U.S. might've been the best thing FIFA ever did. Because it started a soccer explosion in this country.
MLS is coming up on its 20th anniversary, and it's never been stronger. Soccer's on TV everywhere. People watch the English Premier League and Champions League religiously. European club and national teams play exhibition games in the U.S., and the stadiums are packed. And do I even need to say anything about the U.S. National Team (great win over Ghana, guys!), the biggest by-product of the culture change started with the 1994 World Cup. People care about the National Team and World Cup now. That most certainly wasn't the case 20 years ago, when soccer was still a curiosity.
All of that pales in comparison to the Crime of the Century, though. I'm, of course, talking about the event that led to the creation of 24-hour news channels and reality TV (and also led to the Kardashians being unleashed on the world). NBC cut away from its coverage of Game 5 of the NBA Finals because people wanted to watch a white Ford Bronco drive very slowly down the Santa Monica Freeway while being trailed by police cars for an hour and a half. You could see
Yes, America, it was 20 years ago today that the entire country was transfixed by O.J. Simpson. From a slow speed car chase to the all the events that unfolded in the weeks and months afterwards to the trial itself, the O.J. Simpson case completely changed the way this country watches TV. It was the only thing people wanted to watch or could talk about. The entire trial was covered live on television, and everyone had an opinion. Whether you thought he was guilty or not wasn't relevant. You had an opinion.
I just watched a special about Oscar Pistorius, which is the 21st Century's version of the O.J. trial, and they interviewed Allen Dershowitz, a member of the legal "Dream Team" that earned a not guilty verdict. They obviously touched on O.J. and Dershowitz said something very interesting. He, not so subtly, implied that they didn't win the case as much as the prosecution lost it. That, to me, suggested that even Dershowitz, who helped get his client acquitted, has doubts about O.J.'s innocence.
O.J. Simpson is a fallen hero. He went from a beloved former sports star, TV pitchman and actor to an accused murderer overnight. Even though he was acquitted, his image has been shattered forever. And Simpson, of course, was never able to recover, and he's currently serving 33 years in prison for breaking into a hotel room and stealing memorabilia. He ended up going to jail anyway, which many people think is some sort of poetic justice.
Regardless of your personal opinion on O.J. Simpson, there's no denying that he'll have a permanent place in the American lexicon. The O.J. Simpson trial was the media event of its time, and it forever changed the way Americans watch TV. In fact, it did more than that. It completely changed the way we look at our celebrities. Now you only hear about celebrities because of the "trouble" they get in, as insignificant or made up as it might be.
For good or for bad, America changed with the O.J. Simpson saga. Whether or not today's a reason to celebrate is up for debate, but there's no doubt about the significance of what happened on this day 20 years ago. June 17, 1994--one of the most memorable days in the history of American sports. And one that has left a lasting legacy.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
40 Sounds Good, But Might Not Work
Ever since finishing my last post, I've gotten to thinking about what a 40-team World Cup might look like. Specifically, I was curious to see how the eight additional teams would affect the tournament. There are certainly enough quality teams that don't qualify for the World Cup each time, but would you really have the 40 best countries if the field was expanded? I'm not sure. In fact, it might actually dilute the product.
The talk about 40 really got going when UEFA President Michel Platini suggested it in October. His comments were a direct response to FIFA President Sepp Blatter saying that he'd like to see more representation from Africa and Asia, presumably at the expense of Europe and South America. Platini argued that instead of taking berths away from Europe, you could instead get your additional representation by increasing the field size. Platini's plan would call for one additional berth from Europe, as well as two from Africa, two from Asia, two from the Americas and one from Oceania.
Of course, this should be taken with a grain of salt, seeing as Platini is Blatter's likely opponent for the FIFA presidency next year, and this will help him gain support from the Asian, African and Oceanic nations, as well as those in the Caribbean. Oceania currently doesn't have an automatic berth in the World Cup finals. Instead, whoever wins the Oceania qualifying tournament has to go into a home-and-home playoff for a berth (this cycle it was New Zealand, which lost to Mexico). That's one of the reasons why Australia left Oceania to join the Asian Federation after the 2006 World Cup. Likewise, Platini suggested that one of those extra American berths could automatically go to a Caribbean nation, although I'm not sure how that would work, seeing as the Caribbean nations are all a part of CONCACAF.
Anyway, Platini would like to see the World Cup expanded in time for Russia 2018. With qualifying set to start in 2015, that decision would have to be made fairly soon, so it seems highly unlikely that the field for Russia would be any larger than the current 32. But if Platini does run for FIFA president and wins the election, he'd probably try to push it through for 2022 and beyond.
Platini's plan sounds simple enough. Instead of eight groups of four, it would be eight groups of five. But how would that work exactly? The World Cup currently consists of 64 games played over a span of about a month. Adding eight teams would add 32 games to the tournament, and that's assuming the knockout round remains the same. If they were to give the group winners a bye and add a Round of 24, that's eight more games, bringing the total number to 104. Or, 50 more than the current number. Is it just me, or is that a lot?
It obviously wouldn't be possible to play 96 games in the current 31-day format. With four games a day during group play (as opposed to the current three), you'd need 38 days to complete the tournament. Adding a week to make it a five-week tournament wouldn't ruffle too many feathers, but that gives the teams just three days off between every game, so you'd probably have to go even longer than that. And a Round of 24 would add four days to the knockout round, as well.
And that's where the problems could come in. Because that's where it impacts the club schedules. The Champions League final is at the end of May and the European leagues start the new season in mid-August. That's roughly 10 weeks. Taking six or seven of those 10 away is a lot to ask, and it would be incredibly unfair to the players, many of whom are highly compensated, but also can't be expected to perform at the same high level 12 months a year with no time off. The European teams would also probably have to forego their summer exhibition trips to the U.S., which I doubt anyone wants.
Even more than that, though, the byes, which sound good in theory, would actually become problematic. With five teams in a group, there would have to be a bye during each round of group play games, and you'd be going from six games per group to 10. But whoever has the first bye could conceivably wait more than a week to play its first game (and some teams would play two games before others play their first). Likewise, the team with the last bye in each group might be sitting around waiting to see if they advance to the knockout round, then go into that game with potentially more than a week of rest against an opponent that just played.
I drew out a hypothetical 40-team World Cup to see what the schedule would look like. As the hosts, Russia would be playing the opening game, which is currently scheduled for Friday, June 8. Assuming the current format holds, Russia would be the top seed in Group A, so that makes assembling their hypothetical schedule easy. After the opener, Russia would play again on Wednesday, June 13, then Sunday, June 17. With their bye coming in the fourth game slot, they'd then wait more than a week before concluding group play on Monday, June 25. The Round of 16 would start almost a week later on June 30-July 1.
But the No. 5 team in Group H, which would have a bye on the first game day, wouldn't play its first game until Saturday, June 16, the day before Russia plays its third game. And going back to Group A for a second, whoever has the last bye would play their last group game on Thursday, June 21. Nine or 10 days before a potential Round of 16 game. It also then becomes impossible to have the simultaneous final group games, since one team in each group would already be done.
Then there are the stadiums, of which you'd almost certainly need more than the 12 FIFA currently requires. To play 96 games in 12 stadiums, each venue would have to host eight. That's not impossible, nor is it unrealistic, but it would be much less of a burden to play six games each in 16 different stadiums. You can't add four cities to a World Cup just like that, though. These things take years to plan for a reason.
Overall, the concept of a 40-team World Cup doesn't sound like that bad of an idea. Especially since there are more than 200 countries in FIFA. But the more you think about it, the more you realize it might not work. It could be a logistical nightmare, in a number of respects.
Besides, I haven't heard any complaints about the 32-team format, which seems to work pretty well for everybody. As the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The World Cup ain't broke. And expanding it from 32 teams to 40 might not necessarily make it better.
The talk about 40 really got going when UEFA President Michel Platini suggested it in October. His comments were a direct response to FIFA President Sepp Blatter saying that he'd like to see more representation from Africa and Asia, presumably at the expense of Europe and South America. Platini argued that instead of taking berths away from Europe, you could instead get your additional representation by increasing the field size. Platini's plan would call for one additional berth from Europe, as well as two from Africa, two from Asia, two from the Americas and one from Oceania.
Of course, this should be taken with a grain of salt, seeing as Platini is Blatter's likely opponent for the FIFA presidency next year, and this will help him gain support from the Asian, African and Oceanic nations, as well as those in the Caribbean. Oceania currently doesn't have an automatic berth in the World Cup finals. Instead, whoever wins the Oceania qualifying tournament has to go into a home-and-home playoff for a berth (this cycle it was New Zealand, which lost to Mexico). That's one of the reasons why Australia left Oceania to join the Asian Federation after the 2006 World Cup. Likewise, Platini suggested that one of those extra American berths could automatically go to a Caribbean nation, although I'm not sure how that would work, seeing as the Caribbean nations are all a part of CONCACAF.
Anyway, Platini would like to see the World Cup expanded in time for Russia 2018. With qualifying set to start in 2015, that decision would have to be made fairly soon, so it seems highly unlikely that the field for Russia would be any larger than the current 32. But if Platini does run for FIFA president and wins the election, he'd probably try to push it through for 2022 and beyond.
Platini's plan sounds simple enough. Instead of eight groups of four, it would be eight groups of five. But how would that work exactly? The World Cup currently consists of 64 games played over a span of about a month. Adding eight teams would add 32 games to the tournament, and that's assuming the knockout round remains the same. If they were to give the group winners a bye and add a Round of 24, that's eight more games, bringing the total number to 104. Or, 50 more than the current number. Is it just me, or is that a lot?
It obviously wouldn't be possible to play 96 games in the current 31-day format. With four games a day during group play (as opposed to the current three), you'd need 38 days to complete the tournament. Adding a week to make it a five-week tournament wouldn't ruffle too many feathers, but that gives the teams just three days off between every game, so you'd probably have to go even longer than that. And a Round of 24 would add four days to the knockout round, as well.
And that's where the problems could come in. Because that's where it impacts the club schedules. The Champions League final is at the end of May and the European leagues start the new season in mid-August. That's roughly 10 weeks. Taking six or seven of those 10 away is a lot to ask, and it would be incredibly unfair to the players, many of whom are highly compensated, but also can't be expected to perform at the same high level 12 months a year with no time off. The European teams would also probably have to forego their summer exhibition trips to the U.S., which I doubt anyone wants.
Even more than that, though, the byes, which sound good in theory, would actually become problematic. With five teams in a group, there would have to be a bye during each round of group play games, and you'd be going from six games per group to 10. But whoever has the first bye could conceivably wait more than a week to play its first game (and some teams would play two games before others play their first). Likewise, the team with the last bye in each group might be sitting around waiting to see if they advance to the knockout round, then go into that game with potentially more than a week of rest against an opponent that just played.
I drew out a hypothetical 40-team World Cup to see what the schedule would look like. As the hosts, Russia would be playing the opening game, which is currently scheduled for Friday, June 8. Assuming the current format holds, Russia would be the top seed in Group A, so that makes assembling their hypothetical schedule easy. After the opener, Russia would play again on Wednesday, June 13, then Sunday, June 17. With their bye coming in the fourth game slot, they'd then wait more than a week before concluding group play on Monday, June 25. The Round of 16 would start almost a week later on June 30-July 1.
But the No. 5 team in Group H, which would have a bye on the first game day, wouldn't play its first game until Saturday, June 16, the day before Russia plays its third game. And going back to Group A for a second, whoever has the last bye would play their last group game on Thursday, June 21. Nine or 10 days before a potential Round of 16 game. It also then becomes impossible to have the simultaneous final group games, since one team in each group would already be done.
Then there are the stadiums, of which you'd almost certainly need more than the 12 FIFA currently requires. To play 96 games in 12 stadiums, each venue would have to host eight. That's not impossible, nor is it unrealistic, but it would be much less of a burden to play six games each in 16 different stadiums. You can't add four cities to a World Cup just like that, though. These things take years to plan for a reason.
Overall, the concept of a 40-team World Cup doesn't sound like that bad of an idea. Especially since there are more than 200 countries in FIFA. But the more you think about it, the more you realize it might not work. It could be a logistical nightmare, in a number of respects.
Besides, I haven't heard any complaints about the 32-team format, which seems to work pretty well for everybody. As the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The World Cup ain't broke. And expanding it from 32 teams to 40 might not necessarily make it better.
Friday, June 13, 2014
Where the 2022 World Cup Might Be
It's looking more and more likely that the 2022 World Cup won't be in Qatar. Evidently, FIFA President Sepp Bladder has told officials in the U.S. to "be ready." That rumor was quickly squashed, but the fact that it got out there leads you to believe the evidence in this bribery scandal is pretty overwhelming.
Should FIFA decide to move the tournament, I hope they don't simply give the World Cup to the United States. I hope they have a revote. And I'd actually advocate Australia. I though the Australian bid was strong four years ago, and this way FIFA could still go somewhere new while also keeping the 2022 World Cup in Asia (I know Australia isn't in Asia, but they are for FIFA).
With FIFA's rotation policy, South America and Europe can't host in 2022. Qatar took Asia out of the equation for 2026, which leaves just North America and Africa (they won't go back to South America so soon). The only nations that have expressed serious interest in the 2026 hosting assignment are the U.S. and Canada. Those plans have gotten very far along. Who's to say that the U.S. would want to host in 2022 instead?
There are a couple reasons why I'd prefer 2026, not the least of which is quarterfinal games in Washington and Boston or Washington and Philadelphia or Boston and Philadelphia on the 4th of July. It doesn't take a math major to figure out that July 4, 2026 will be a very significant date in American history. There should be something special going on on that day, and World Cup quarterfinals would definitely qualify.
But let's assume for a minute that the U.S. does end up hosting eight years from now. Where would the games be? In 1994, the games were played in nine cities. That was also the last time the World Cup featured only 24 teams and 48 games. Now there are 64 games between 32 teams. In fact, FIFA requires you to have at least 12 stadiums. This rule can be bent (South Africa only had 10, and there were two in Johannesburg), but finding 12 cities that have big enough football stadiums and would be willing to host games would be fairly easy in this country.
Assuming the final would be played at the Rose Bowl again (and why wouldn't it?), it would also be safe to assume that MetLife Stadium, the 49ers' new stadium, Soldier Field in Chicago and Jerry's World would be locks to host. But where else? Well, Washington and Boston would be safe bets. I'm not sure about Philadelphia (the stands are really close to the field, so it might not be wide enough), but if they can figure out a configuration that works, I'd say you could add Philly to the "lock" category.
That gives us eight host cities: the four big ones in the Northeast, one in the Midwest, one in the Southwest and two on the West Coast. It'd be smart to then use the other four to balance it out. Seattle would absolutely have to be one of those four. The loyalty that fan base shows the Sounders on a regular basis (playing in the same stadium in the Seahawks) is enough to earn the third West Coast hosting nod. I'd like say the same thing about Columbus, which always hosts the Mexico game in World Cup qualifying, but I'm not sure Columbus has enough cache to be considered a lock. Especially with larger cities in major markets that would be interested.
You'd have to figure somewhere in the Southeast would get the nod, whether that's Miami or Tampa or Atlanta. With the Falcons building a new stadium, Atlanta would probably be the most likely of those three. That leaves us with two. I think we'd be looking at either Phoenix, Houston or Denver for one. Phoenix doesn't have an MLS team and that desert heat would be very uncomfortable, so I think they're out. And you probably want to stay away from Denver's altitude if you can. So that leaves us with Houston.
Chicago probably won't be the only Midwestern city that gets to host, so my final choice would be somewhere in Big Ten country. Columbus would definitely be in the discussion and so would Detroit, which hosted games during the 1994 World Cup. Indianapolis? Maybe. But I actually have a feeling that they'd go with Minnesota. The Vikings are building their new stadium and have already been awarded a Super Bowl, and from what I understand, they want to bring an MLS team to the Twin Cities, as well. It could easily be one of the Florida cities, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Minneapolis would be selected as the 12th city over Miami.
So, the final roll call for 2022 World Cup stadiums, should it be moved to the U.S. would look like this:
Should FIFA decide to move the tournament, I hope they don't simply give the World Cup to the United States. I hope they have a revote. And I'd actually advocate Australia. I though the Australian bid was strong four years ago, and this way FIFA could still go somewhere new while also keeping the 2022 World Cup in Asia (I know Australia isn't in Asia, but they are for FIFA).
With FIFA's rotation policy, South America and Europe can't host in 2022. Qatar took Asia out of the equation for 2026, which leaves just North America and Africa (they won't go back to South America so soon). The only nations that have expressed serious interest in the 2026 hosting assignment are the U.S. and Canada. Those plans have gotten very far along. Who's to say that the U.S. would want to host in 2022 instead?
There are a couple reasons why I'd prefer 2026, not the least of which is quarterfinal games in Washington and Boston or Washington and Philadelphia or Boston and Philadelphia on the 4th of July. It doesn't take a math major to figure out that July 4, 2026 will be a very significant date in American history. There should be something special going on on that day, and World Cup quarterfinals would definitely qualify.
But let's assume for a minute that the U.S. does end up hosting eight years from now. Where would the games be? In 1994, the games were played in nine cities. That was also the last time the World Cup featured only 24 teams and 48 games. Now there are 64 games between 32 teams. In fact, FIFA requires you to have at least 12 stadiums. This rule can be bent (South Africa only had 10, and there were two in Johannesburg), but finding 12 cities that have big enough football stadiums and would be willing to host games would be fairly easy in this country.
Assuming the final would be played at the Rose Bowl again (and why wouldn't it?), it would also be safe to assume that MetLife Stadium, the 49ers' new stadium, Soldier Field in Chicago and Jerry's World would be locks to host. But where else? Well, Washington and Boston would be safe bets. I'm not sure about Philadelphia (the stands are really close to the field, so it might not be wide enough), but if they can figure out a configuration that works, I'd say you could add Philly to the "lock" category.
That gives us eight host cities: the four big ones in the Northeast, one in the Midwest, one in the Southwest and two on the West Coast. It'd be smart to then use the other four to balance it out. Seattle would absolutely have to be one of those four. The loyalty that fan base shows the Sounders on a regular basis (playing in the same stadium in the Seahawks) is enough to earn the third West Coast hosting nod. I'd like say the same thing about Columbus, which always hosts the Mexico game in World Cup qualifying, but I'm not sure Columbus has enough cache to be considered a lock. Especially with larger cities in major markets that would be interested.
You'd have to figure somewhere in the Southeast would get the nod, whether that's Miami or Tampa or Atlanta. With the Falcons building a new stadium, Atlanta would probably be the most likely of those three. That leaves us with two. I think we'd be looking at either Phoenix, Houston or Denver for one. Phoenix doesn't have an MLS team and that desert heat would be very uncomfortable, so I think they're out. And you probably want to stay away from Denver's altitude if you can. So that leaves us with Houston.
Chicago probably won't be the only Midwestern city that gets to host, so my final choice would be somewhere in Big Ten country. Columbus would definitely be in the discussion and so would Detroit, which hosted games during the 1994 World Cup. Indianapolis? Maybe. But I actually have a feeling that they'd go with Minnesota. The Vikings are building their new stadium and have already been awarded a Super Bowl, and from what I understand, they want to bring an MLS team to the Twin Cities, as well. It could easily be one of the Florida cities, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Minneapolis would be selected as the 12th city over Miami.
So, the final roll call for 2022 World Cup stadiums, should it be moved to the U.S. would look like this:
- Los Angeles--Rose Bowl (Final)
- San Francisco--Levi's Stadium (3rd Place)
- New York--MetLife Stadium (Semifinal)
- Dallas--AT&T Stadium (Semifinal)
- Boston--Gillette Stadium
- Philadelphia--Lincoln Financial Field
- Washington--FedEx Field
- Chicago--Soldier Field
- Seattle--CenturyLink Field
- Atlanta--New Atlanta Stadium
- Houston--Reliant Stadium
- Minneapolis--Vikings Stadium
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Brazil 2014 Preview
Well Brazil, it's your time to shine. After all the delays and protests and problems, the World Cup is finally here. And the pressure on the home team is immense. Unlike the last World Cup, where the hope for South Africa was simply to advance, for Brazil this year it's title or bust. But in order to do that, they'll have to end the Spanish world dominance. Those two are the favorites, and I think many people are hoping we'll see them clash in the final at Rio's historic Maracana, just like they did at last year's Confederations Cup. But that's no guarantee. We've got plenty of teams and star players to entertain us over the next month. Oh, and we'll get to see a ton of gorgeous scenic shots of Brazil's beautiful countryside.
Group A: Brazil, Croatia, Mexico, Cameroon
Brazil advancing out of the group stage isn't going to be a problem. The hosts are going to win Group A fairly easily. Their first big test will come in the Round of 16 against the second-place finisher in the loaded Group B (that could be the Brazil-Spain game, a few rounds early). That Croatia-Mexico game could decide the second advancer. Mexico is lucky to be in the World Cup, but got somewhat lucky with this group, because they could get out of it. El Tri's quarterfinal goal ain't happening though. I don't even think they make the knockout stage. Croatia's just a better team. Cameroon could pull an upset, but isn't going to advance.
Group B: Spain, Netherlands, Chile, Australia
I'd like someone from FIFA to explain the seeding process to me. How is the team that finished second in the last World Cup not among the top eight seeds? The rematch of the previous World Cup final shouldn't be the first game of the tournament! Anyway, the winner of that Spain-Netherlands game likely avoids Brazil. The loser will have to be careful, though, because Chile's very good and could sneak in there. Especially since you know there's going to be a ton of Chilean fans at all their games. Poor Australia is simply overmatched in this group.
Group C: Colombia, Greece, Ivory Coast, Japan
From one of the better groups, to one of the weaker ones. That's what you get when Colombia's the seed and Greece is the only European team. That opens up Group C for Ivory Coast, which is probably the best African side, and Japan, the best team in Asia. I can realistically see all four of these teams making it through. I guess the advantage of a weaker group is that it'll be a little more competitive. I do like Colombia to emerge as the group winner, while Ivory Coast will be the token African representative in the Round of 16.
Group D: Uruguay, Costa Rica, England, Italy
I don't get why the Netherlands isn't seeded, but I really don't get why Italy isn't seeded. They won the World Cup in 2006, finished second at Euro 2012 and took third in the Confederations Cup, where they beat group member Uruguay in the bronze medal game. Not only aren't they seeded, Italy got the worst draw of any European team. They're out to redeem themselves after 2010, and they're probably pissed about how the draw went down. The Azzuri will be very scary in this tournament. Not enough to top the group, though. Ubertalented Uruguay borders Brazil, so it'll feel like you're playing them in Montevideo. England's chances of advancing depends on what English team shows up, while Costa Rica is the unfortunate team to draw three former champs in one of the two Groups of Death.
Group E: Switzerland, Ecuador, France, Honduras
For the record, Switzerland is one of the teams that I wouldn't have seeded so that Italy and the Netherlands could be (Belgium is the other). As a result of the Swiss being the seed, this is one of the weaker groups. I don't think Switzerland wins the group, and it's questionable whether or not they even advance. Like Italy, France is out to redeem itself after the debacle that was South Africa. And they've got a favorable group to advance out of. Ecuador might be the weakest South American team, which is by no means a knock, because I can easily see them advancing. I can't say the same about Honduras.
Group G: Argentina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iran, Nigeria
Argentina will go through the formality of playing its three group games. They were already going to be one of the favorites. Then they got this group. The only questions about Argentina in the group round will be how many goals they allow and what the goal differential will be. With that being said, though, this is a great group for Bosnia. The only World Cup debutants will get a not-so-nice welcome from Messi and Co., but after that, they've got two very winnable games. Advancing is definitely a possibility. If Bosnia falters, look for Nigeria to take advantage. Iran may be the weakest side in the entire tournament.
Group H: Germany, Portugal, Ghana, United States
Even with Landon Donovan, advancing was going to be a difficult task for the United States. Ghana's knocked the U.S. out of the last two World Cups, Germany's Germany and Portugal has Cristiano Ronaldo. It's not impossible, but they need to beat Ghana in the first game, then hope lightning strikes twice and upset Portugal like they did 12 years ago in Korea. That makes the Germany game meaningless. I don't think it happens, though. The two European teams are ranked in the Top 5 in the world (again, how does this happen?). You know Germany's advancing. What's the saying, "Death, Taxes and Deutschland?" And if Cristiano Ronaldo's healthy (he sure looked it in that exhibition game), Portugal probably will as well.
Group G: Belgium, Algeria, Russia, South Korea
The one thing working in the U.S.'s favor is that if they do manage to get out of the group, the Round of 16 matchup is going to be a very winnable game. That's because Group G is one of the weakest, if not THE weakest. Belgium's the seed? Really? They're good, but they don't deserve to be seeded over Italy. Not only that, they were gifted with this group. Belgium's not going to finish behind two of these teams. I think Russia wins the group, but South Korea and Algeria aren't going to advance.
Round of 16: Brazil-Netherlands, Colombia-Italy, France-Bosnia, Germany-Belgium; Spain-Croatia, Uruguay-Ivory Coast, Argentina-Ecuador, Russia-Portugal
Quarterfinals: Brazil-Italy, France-Germany; Spain-Uruguay, Argentina-Portugal
Semifinals: Brazil-Germany; Uruguay-Argentina
Final: Brazil-Argentina
The biggest surprise in my knockout phase games is obviously Uruguay over Spain in the quarterfinals. I'm simply not buying into the Spanish hype. Brazil exposed the way to beat them in the Confederations Cup, and you know the other teams saw that and took notes. But there's another factor I see working in the South American teams' favor, which is why I see this turning into Copa America at the end.
Every World Cup played in the Americas (including the two in Mexico and one in the U.S.) has been won by either Brazil, Argentina or Uruguay. There's a reason for that. These three South American squads, in addition to being very good, are going to have the fan support and be the most comfortable playing in cities and stadiums with which they're very familiar. That's why I don't think the all-European final predictions that I've seen from some people are very realistic. After two straight all-European finals, we're going to see at least one of the South American teams on the field at Maracana on July 13.
I think there will be two South American teams on the field at Maracana for the final. It'll be archrivals Brazil and Argentina. As for a winner, the pressure on Brazil to win this World Cup is immense. It's even more than the pressure that was on the Russian hockey team in Sochi. The only other time Brazil hosted, they lost the final game at Maracana to Uruguay in 1950. There are plenty of Brazilians who still remember that, and this team will want to make sure it doesn't happen again. That victory over Spain in the Confederations Cup gave them plenty of confidence, as well.
No host nation has won the World Cup since France in 1998. I think that changes next month. When Brazil extends its record by winning its sixth title. Except this one will be the sweetest. Because this time, they'll win it in Rio.
Group A: Brazil, Croatia, Mexico, Cameroon
Brazil advancing out of the group stage isn't going to be a problem. The hosts are going to win Group A fairly easily. Their first big test will come in the Round of 16 against the second-place finisher in the loaded Group B (that could be the Brazil-Spain game, a few rounds early). That Croatia-Mexico game could decide the second advancer. Mexico is lucky to be in the World Cup, but got somewhat lucky with this group, because they could get out of it. El Tri's quarterfinal goal ain't happening though. I don't even think they make the knockout stage. Croatia's just a better team. Cameroon could pull an upset, but isn't going to advance.
Group B: Spain, Netherlands, Chile, Australia
I'd like someone from FIFA to explain the seeding process to me. How is the team that finished second in the last World Cup not among the top eight seeds? The rematch of the previous World Cup final shouldn't be the first game of the tournament! Anyway, the winner of that Spain-Netherlands game likely avoids Brazil. The loser will have to be careful, though, because Chile's very good and could sneak in there. Especially since you know there's going to be a ton of Chilean fans at all their games. Poor Australia is simply overmatched in this group.
Group C: Colombia, Greece, Ivory Coast, Japan
From one of the better groups, to one of the weaker ones. That's what you get when Colombia's the seed and Greece is the only European team. That opens up Group C for Ivory Coast, which is probably the best African side, and Japan, the best team in Asia. I can realistically see all four of these teams making it through. I guess the advantage of a weaker group is that it'll be a little more competitive. I do like Colombia to emerge as the group winner, while Ivory Coast will be the token African representative in the Round of 16.
Group D: Uruguay, Costa Rica, England, Italy
I don't get why the Netherlands isn't seeded, but I really don't get why Italy isn't seeded. They won the World Cup in 2006, finished second at Euro 2012 and took third in the Confederations Cup, where they beat group member Uruguay in the bronze medal game. Not only aren't they seeded, Italy got the worst draw of any European team. They're out to redeem themselves after 2010, and they're probably pissed about how the draw went down. The Azzuri will be very scary in this tournament. Not enough to top the group, though. Ubertalented Uruguay borders Brazil, so it'll feel like you're playing them in Montevideo. England's chances of advancing depends on what English team shows up, while Costa Rica is the unfortunate team to draw three former champs in one of the two Groups of Death.
Group E: Switzerland, Ecuador, France, Honduras
For the record, Switzerland is one of the teams that I wouldn't have seeded so that Italy and the Netherlands could be (Belgium is the other). As a result of the Swiss being the seed, this is one of the weaker groups. I don't think Switzerland wins the group, and it's questionable whether or not they even advance. Like Italy, France is out to redeem itself after the debacle that was South Africa. And they've got a favorable group to advance out of. Ecuador might be the weakest South American team, which is by no means a knock, because I can easily see them advancing. I can't say the same about Honduras.
Group G: Argentina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iran, Nigeria
Argentina will go through the formality of playing its three group games. They were already going to be one of the favorites. Then they got this group. The only questions about Argentina in the group round will be how many goals they allow and what the goal differential will be. With that being said, though, this is a great group for Bosnia. The only World Cup debutants will get a not-so-nice welcome from Messi and Co., but after that, they've got two very winnable games. Advancing is definitely a possibility. If Bosnia falters, look for Nigeria to take advantage. Iran may be the weakest side in the entire tournament.
Group H: Germany, Portugal, Ghana, United States
Even with Landon Donovan, advancing was going to be a difficult task for the United States. Ghana's knocked the U.S. out of the last two World Cups, Germany's Germany and Portugal has Cristiano Ronaldo. It's not impossible, but they need to beat Ghana in the first game, then hope lightning strikes twice and upset Portugal like they did 12 years ago in Korea. That makes the Germany game meaningless. I don't think it happens, though. The two European teams are ranked in the Top 5 in the world (again, how does this happen?). You know Germany's advancing. What's the saying, "Death, Taxes and Deutschland?" And if Cristiano Ronaldo's healthy (he sure looked it in that exhibition game), Portugal probably will as well.
Group G: Belgium, Algeria, Russia, South Korea
The one thing working in the U.S.'s favor is that if they do manage to get out of the group, the Round of 16 matchup is going to be a very winnable game. That's because Group G is one of the weakest, if not THE weakest. Belgium's the seed? Really? They're good, but they don't deserve to be seeded over Italy. Not only that, they were gifted with this group. Belgium's not going to finish behind two of these teams. I think Russia wins the group, but South Korea and Algeria aren't going to advance.
Round of 16: Brazil-Netherlands, Colombia-Italy, France-Bosnia, Germany-Belgium; Spain-Croatia, Uruguay-Ivory Coast, Argentina-Ecuador, Russia-Portugal
Quarterfinals: Brazil-Italy, France-Germany; Spain-Uruguay, Argentina-Portugal
Semifinals: Brazil-Germany; Uruguay-Argentina
Final: Brazil-Argentina
The biggest surprise in my knockout phase games is obviously Uruguay over Spain in the quarterfinals. I'm simply not buying into the Spanish hype. Brazil exposed the way to beat them in the Confederations Cup, and you know the other teams saw that and took notes. But there's another factor I see working in the South American teams' favor, which is why I see this turning into Copa America at the end.
Every World Cup played in the Americas (including the two in Mexico and one in the U.S.) has been won by either Brazil, Argentina or Uruguay. There's a reason for that. These three South American squads, in addition to being very good, are going to have the fan support and be the most comfortable playing in cities and stadiums with which they're very familiar. That's why I don't think the all-European final predictions that I've seen from some people are very realistic. After two straight all-European finals, we're going to see at least one of the South American teams on the field at Maracana on July 13.
I think there will be two South American teams on the field at Maracana for the final. It'll be archrivals Brazil and Argentina. As for a winner, the pressure on Brazil to win this World Cup is immense. It's even more than the pressure that was on the Russian hockey team in Sochi. The only other time Brazil hosted, they lost the final game at Maracana to Uruguay in 1950. There are plenty of Brazilians who still remember that, and this team will want to make sure it doesn't happen again. That victory over Spain in the Confederations Cup gave them plenty of confidence, as well.
No host nation has won the World Cup since France in 1998. I think that changes next month. When Brazil extends its record by winning its sixth title. Except this one will be the sweetest. Because this time, they'll win it in Rio.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Another Year Without a Triple Crown
California Chrome's owner, Steve Coburn, apologized today for his postrace comments on NBC immediately after his horse's attempt for the Triple Crown fell short at the Belmont Stakes. Coburn was obviously upset in the heat of the moment and he certainly came off as a sore loser more than anything else. And, sure, it was inappropriate to say that Tonalist's owners took the "coward's way out" by not running in either of the previous two Triple Crown races.
We're all disappointed that California Chrome didn't win the Triple Crown, moving the drought to 36 years and counting since Affirmed in 1978. It certainly looked like Chrome didn't have the legs to win at Belmont regardless of what the other horses were doing. Was he tired after running three races in five weeks? Who knows? Was it the 1 1/2-mile distance, which is the longest of the three Triple Crown races and longer than any of these horses have run before? Maybe. After all, if the Preakness had been the same distance as the Belmont, California Chrome gets caught in the end.
NBC, of course, loves the possibility of the Triple Crown. The ratings for the Belmont were off the charts, and attendance at the race was near record-numbers. At the betting windows, they took in more money than ever before (more than $19 million just at the track itself). When there's no chance at a Triple Crown, nobody cares about the Belmont Stakes. California Chrome fever took over, and every possible storyline was exhausted during the three weeks between the Preakness and the Belmont. It's a good thing California Chrome is a horse and knew nothing about this ridiculous hype.
When Secreteriat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed made it three Triple Crowns in five years, the hype machine was nowhere near what it was surrounding California Chrome (or Big Brown or Smarty Jones or any of the other nine horses that have tried and failed since Affirmed). There certainly wasn't a social media scene exploding every five seconds with some new angle or breaking news.
That's why Coburn's prediction that we'll never see another Triple Crown winner seems plausible. There's been Triple Crown droughts before. Secreteriat's Triple Crown in 1973 snapped a 25-year drought since one of the other all-time great racehorses, Citation, did it in 1948. However, this is the longest we've gone without a Triple Crown since Sir Barton won the first in 1919. I've never seen a Triple Crown winner in my lifetime and I, like most people, would love to see one. I'm optimistic that one day we will, but as the years go on and we see the contenders lose the Belmont in all kinds of different ways, the more I think that he might be right.
It probably wasn't the best idea NBC ever had to interview Coburn immediately after the race. I can understand why they did it. (They had likely arranged it ahead of time to talk to him win or lose.) But Coburn's emotions taking over and his tactless rant obviously took everything away from what had been a feel-good story over the preceding month. If you see through the anger and look at what he actually said, though, Coburn actually made some pretty good points.
He was absolutely right when he said California Chrome had a "target on his back." That, of course, was obvious. And that target becomes much bigger when the Derby winner also wins the Preakness. Everyone wants to see a Triple Crown. Except the owners of the horses that could be the potential spoiler.
Taking nothing away from Tonalist, who won the race and likely would've anyway, the most interesting thing that Coburn said was that it's not fair that the horse going for the Triple Crown is sometimes the only one that runs in all three races, always against fresh horses. He'd like to see that come to an end. Because the fresh horses are obviously going to have the advantage, especially since the Belmont is the longest in distance (that, more than any other reason might be why we haven't seen a Triple Crown in 36 years).
This was taken purely as sour grapes. But it's also interesting to note that other than California Chrome, Ride On Curlin and General A Rod were the only horses to run in all three Triple Crown races. Of the 11 horses to enter the Belmont, they were the only three to run in the Preakness. All of the others had either run the Kentucky Derby and skipped the Preakness or hadn't run in either of the prior two legs, which is what Tonalist did.
If Coburn had it his way, only the horses that qualify for the Kentucky Derby would get to run in the Preakness and Belmont Stakes. Now, they've only had qualifying for the Kentucky Derby since they capped the field at 20 about 15 years ago, so before then all three races were open to any horse that was entered. And out of those 20, how many would actually want to enter the Preakness when there's no chance of winning the Triple Crown? Even fewer would want to enter all three. And what does Coburn think of horses like Wicked Strong and Medal Count? They ran the Derby and skipped the Preakness. Is that OK?
I get what he was trying to say though. And maybe he's right in some way. It shouldn't be just "Kentucky Derby" qualifying. It should be "Triple Crown" qualifying. Maybe you increase it to 25-30 horses. Those ones ranked 21-30 can run the Preakness if they desire and all the Derby runners don't enter, then any horse that ran in either or both of the previous two races can enter the Belmont. That would at least limit the field of contenders.
Triple Crown races have been organized this way for nearly a century, so the likelihood of Steve Coburn getting that changed is slim to none. And maybe the system doesn't need to be changed. Winning all three races in a five-week span is supposed to be hard. That's why only 11 horses have done it. And that's why it's so tough to swallow when we have a horse come agonizingly close to joining that elite company only to fall short.
We're all disappointed that California Chrome didn't win the Triple Crown, moving the drought to 36 years and counting since Affirmed in 1978. It certainly looked like Chrome didn't have the legs to win at Belmont regardless of what the other horses were doing. Was he tired after running three races in five weeks? Who knows? Was it the 1 1/2-mile distance, which is the longest of the three Triple Crown races and longer than any of these horses have run before? Maybe. After all, if the Preakness had been the same distance as the Belmont, California Chrome gets caught in the end.
NBC, of course, loves the possibility of the Triple Crown. The ratings for the Belmont were off the charts, and attendance at the race was near record-numbers. At the betting windows, they took in more money than ever before (more than $19 million just at the track itself). When there's no chance at a Triple Crown, nobody cares about the Belmont Stakes. California Chrome fever took over, and every possible storyline was exhausted during the three weeks between the Preakness and the Belmont. It's a good thing California Chrome is a horse and knew nothing about this ridiculous hype.
When Secreteriat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed made it three Triple Crowns in five years, the hype machine was nowhere near what it was surrounding California Chrome (or Big Brown or Smarty Jones or any of the other nine horses that have tried and failed since Affirmed). There certainly wasn't a social media scene exploding every five seconds with some new angle or breaking news.
That's why Coburn's prediction that we'll never see another Triple Crown winner seems plausible. There's been Triple Crown droughts before. Secreteriat's Triple Crown in 1973 snapped a 25-year drought since one of the other all-time great racehorses, Citation, did it in 1948. However, this is the longest we've gone without a Triple Crown since Sir Barton won the first in 1919. I've never seen a Triple Crown winner in my lifetime and I, like most people, would love to see one. I'm optimistic that one day we will, but as the years go on and we see the contenders lose the Belmont in all kinds of different ways, the more I think that he might be right.
It probably wasn't the best idea NBC ever had to interview Coburn immediately after the race. I can understand why they did it. (They had likely arranged it ahead of time to talk to him win or lose.) But Coburn's emotions taking over and his tactless rant obviously took everything away from what had been a feel-good story over the preceding month. If you see through the anger and look at what he actually said, though, Coburn actually made some pretty good points.
He was absolutely right when he said California Chrome had a "target on his back." That, of course, was obvious. And that target becomes much bigger when the Derby winner also wins the Preakness. Everyone wants to see a Triple Crown. Except the owners of the horses that could be the potential spoiler.
Taking nothing away from Tonalist, who won the race and likely would've anyway, the most interesting thing that Coburn said was that it's not fair that the horse going for the Triple Crown is sometimes the only one that runs in all three races, always against fresh horses. He'd like to see that come to an end. Because the fresh horses are obviously going to have the advantage, especially since the Belmont is the longest in distance (that, more than any other reason might be why we haven't seen a Triple Crown in 36 years).
This was taken purely as sour grapes. But it's also interesting to note that other than California Chrome, Ride On Curlin and General A Rod were the only horses to run in all three Triple Crown races. Of the 11 horses to enter the Belmont, they were the only three to run in the Preakness. All of the others had either run the Kentucky Derby and skipped the Preakness or hadn't run in either of the prior two legs, which is what Tonalist did.
If Coburn had it his way, only the horses that qualify for the Kentucky Derby would get to run in the Preakness and Belmont Stakes. Now, they've only had qualifying for the Kentucky Derby since they capped the field at 20 about 15 years ago, so before then all three races were open to any horse that was entered. And out of those 20, how many would actually want to enter the Preakness when there's no chance of winning the Triple Crown? Even fewer would want to enter all three. And what does Coburn think of horses like Wicked Strong and Medal Count? They ran the Derby and skipped the Preakness. Is that OK?
I get what he was trying to say though. And maybe he's right in some way. It shouldn't be just "Kentucky Derby" qualifying. It should be "Triple Crown" qualifying. Maybe you increase it to 25-30 horses. Those ones ranked 21-30 can run the Preakness if they desire and all the Derby runners don't enter, then any horse that ran in either or both of the previous two races can enter the Belmont. That would at least limit the field of contenders.
Triple Crown races have been organized this way for nearly a century, so the likelihood of Steve Coburn getting that changed is slim to none. And maybe the system doesn't need to be changed. Winning all three races in a five-week span is supposed to be hard. That's why only 11 horses have done it. And that's why it's so tough to swallow when we have a horse come agonizingly close to joining that elite company only to fall short.
Friday, June 6, 2014
The Sorry Qatari Situation
On the eve of the World Cup (I can't believe it's next week already), we've got a bona fide World Cup scandal. Although, this particular scandal isn't really much of a surprise. It's a scandal that's been four years in the making. Ever since that day in December 2010 when they controversially awarded the 2022 World Cup to Qatar.
Almost immediately the higher-ups at FIFA began to regret that decision. For starters, Qatar is oppressively hot during the months of June and July, when the World Cup is traditionally held. It's so oppressively hot, in fact, that FIFA President Sepp Bladder has said that, even with the air conditioned stadiums that were so highly touted in the bid, the 2022 World Cup would have to be held at a different time. That means either February and a conflict with the Winter Olympics or September/October and the start of domestic league seasons, as well as the other type of football in the U.S. Neither one's really that fun a scenario.
Then there's the fact that Qatar is the size of a postage stamp, so building hotels and everything to house the thousands of people who'd be descending on the country for the World Cup is kind of another problem. Oh, and they've got to build the stadiums, too. Yeah, that's not going so well. A number of workers have died during construction, and they're not exactly working in the best conditions (again, ridiculously hot in Qatar).
But all that pales in comparison to what the Sunday Times of London is reporting. According to the newspaper, Qatari FIFA member Mohamed Bin Hammam bought the election for his home country. They claim to have millions of e-mails proving Bin Hammam offered more than $5 million in cash and gifts in exchange for votes. This is the same Mohamed Bin Hammam who was banned from FIFA for life a year after the World Cup vote for trying to buy votes in the presidential election.
FIFA has appointed Michael Garcia to lead an investigation into these claims. And if Garcia can prove that there is some truth to this, there are plenty, including some high-ranking FIFA officials, calling for the World Cup to be taken away from Qatar.
None of this is actually funny, but the part that I find "funny" is that it's only now that people have started asking if Qatar bought the World Cup. Did they really need this scandal to come to light to ask that question? Ever since the results of the vote were announced I've been working under that assumption. How else do you explain a country that has no soccer history or any sort of infrastructure, as well as a bid with so many potential problems finishing ahead of countries such as the United States and Australia? That only makes sense in FIFA's eyes. To the general public, the vote has always been highly questionable.
After all, Qatar has been trying to buy major sporting events for years. Whenever they don't win, they cry about "closing the door on the Arab world." It couldn't possibly be that 110-degree temperatures aren't healthy, and that you can't ask world-class athletes to compete in those conditions! Qatar's money can only get it so far. Doha's many Olympic bids have failed because the IOC is never going to get caught in another bribery scandal again. Not after Salt Lake City. But in the World Cup, they found their event. This is the one they were able to buy.
It's been a long standing belief of many that FIFA is corrupt. This scandal has done nothing to disprove that notion. If anything, it's further proved people's suspicions. Although, I guess the good thing is that this will no doubt bring about some much-needed change and bring some transparency to the voting process.
If they can prove that the vote was tainted, FIFA has to take the World Cup away from Qatar. They won't have any other choice. I'm sure there will be plenty of legal challenges from Qatari officials, but there's no possible way for them to have all this evidence of corruption and vote tampering and still let them host. Especially since the selection was highly questionable in the first place. And it might be the easy way out, but taking the 2022 World Cup away from Qatar would also mean they wouldn't have to deal with the problem of figuring out when to hold it.
Of course, when and if they take the 2022 World Cup away from Qatar, the question then becomes "Who will host it?" The U.S. finished second in the vote and would be an easy replacement (no need to build the football stadiums that would be used). But do you just give it to the U.S. or do you have a whole new bid process? And if you did that, would you let Qatar bid again? Regardless, they've got eight years to figure that out. It's plenty of time.
One thing's for sure, though. FIFA wants this scandal to be over quickly, even if it means taking swift action immediately after this year's World Cup ends. Fortunately, the Brazil-Croatia game is less than a week away. For the next month, people will turn their attention to the soccer being played at the 2014 World Cup instead of talking about the "What ifs?" surrounding the 2022 World Cup. For FIFA, kickoff in Brasilia can't come soon enough.
Almost immediately the higher-ups at FIFA began to regret that decision. For starters, Qatar is oppressively hot during the months of June and July, when the World Cup is traditionally held. It's so oppressively hot, in fact, that FIFA President Sepp Bladder has said that, even with the air conditioned stadiums that were so highly touted in the bid, the 2022 World Cup would have to be held at a different time. That means either February and a conflict with the Winter Olympics or September/October and the start of domestic league seasons, as well as the other type of football in the U.S. Neither one's really that fun a scenario.
Then there's the fact that Qatar is the size of a postage stamp, so building hotels and everything to house the thousands of people who'd be descending on the country for the World Cup is kind of another problem. Oh, and they've got to build the stadiums, too. Yeah, that's not going so well. A number of workers have died during construction, and they're not exactly working in the best conditions (again, ridiculously hot in Qatar).
But all that pales in comparison to what the Sunday Times of London is reporting. According to the newspaper, Qatari FIFA member Mohamed Bin Hammam bought the election for his home country. They claim to have millions of e-mails proving Bin Hammam offered more than $5 million in cash and gifts in exchange for votes. This is the same Mohamed Bin Hammam who was banned from FIFA for life a year after the World Cup vote for trying to buy votes in the presidential election.
FIFA has appointed Michael Garcia to lead an investigation into these claims. And if Garcia can prove that there is some truth to this, there are plenty, including some high-ranking FIFA officials, calling for the World Cup to be taken away from Qatar.
None of this is actually funny, but the part that I find "funny" is that it's only now that people have started asking if Qatar bought the World Cup. Did they really need this scandal to come to light to ask that question? Ever since the results of the vote were announced I've been working under that assumption. How else do you explain a country that has no soccer history or any sort of infrastructure, as well as a bid with so many potential problems finishing ahead of countries such as the United States and Australia? That only makes sense in FIFA's eyes. To the general public, the vote has always been highly questionable.
After all, Qatar has been trying to buy major sporting events for years. Whenever they don't win, they cry about "closing the door on the Arab world." It couldn't possibly be that 110-degree temperatures aren't healthy, and that you can't ask world-class athletes to compete in those conditions! Qatar's money can only get it so far. Doha's many Olympic bids have failed because the IOC is never going to get caught in another bribery scandal again. Not after Salt Lake City. But in the World Cup, they found their event. This is the one they were able to buy.
It's been a long standing belief of many that FIFA is corrupt. This scandal has done nothing to disprove that notion. If anything, it's further proved people's suspicions. Although, I guess the good thing is that this will no doubt bring about some much-needed change and bring some transparency to the voting process.
If they can prove that the vote was tainted, FIFA has to take the World Cup away from Qatar. They won't have any other choice. I'm sure there will be plenty of legal challenges from Qatari officials, but there's no possible way for them to have all this evidence of corruption and vote tampering and still let them host. Especially since the selection was highly questionable in the first place. And it might be the easy way out, but taking the 2022 World Cup away from Qatar would also mean they wouldn't have to deal with the problem of figuring out when to hold it.
Of course, when and if they take the 2022 World Cup away from Qatar, the question then becomes "Who will host it?" The U.S. finished second in the vote and would be an easy replacement (no need to build the football stadiums that would be used). But do you just give it to the U.S. or do you have a whole new bid process? And if you did that, would you let Qatar bid again? Regardless, they've got eight years to figure that out. It's plenty of time.
One thing's for sure, though. FIFA wants this scandal to be over quickly, even if it means taking swift action immediately after this year's World Cup ends. Fortunately, the Brazil-Croatia game is less than a week away. For the next month, people will turn their attention to the soccer being played at the 2014 World Cup instead of talking about the "What ifs?" surrounding the 2022 World Cup. For FIFA, kickoff in Brasilia can't come soon enough.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
The 2014 Stanley Cup Final
All the experts agree the Kings are the favorites to win the Stanley Cup. I know this. I understand why. The Kings have been to at least the conference final in each of the last three years, the West was the overall better conference during the regular season, and LA has beaten better teams in the playoffs than the Rangers. And they have home ice. They deserve to be the favorite. But being the favorite doesn't mean unbeatable. And you can bet the Kings aren't taking the Rangers lightly.
They've both played a lot of games this postseason. The Kings have played the maximum 21. The Rangers have played 20. But they've also been off since Thursday and didn't have to play a Game 7 overtime. That rest might not make much of a difference, especially since there's two days off between Games 1 and 2. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Rangers take Game 1 (which they did in all three of their previous series) in LA based on the fact that they're actually the more rested team for once.
The Rangers have also played a lot less physical hockey than the Kings throughout the playoffs. Sure, they played hard-fought, seven-game series against Philly and Pittsburgh, and the Montreal series became much more hard-hitting as it went along. But the Flyers, Penguins and Canadiens aren't the Sharks or the Ducks. And they're certainly not the Blackhawks. Will that end up being a benefit? Or will it go the other way and have the change of style actually end up helping LA?
Both teams are confident, especially the Kings. I guess that's what comes with winning three Game 7's on the road. They've also got a crap load of playoff experience. This is the 11th of a possible 12 playoff rounds that they've reached over the past three seasons. Then there's their record in elimination games. Nothing fazes the Kings. It's virtually impossible to put this team away. Just ask the Sharks.
When it comes to talent, LA might have a slight edge. They've gotten production from practically everyone and Marian Gaborik is the top goal scorer in the playoffs. And you can bet Gaborik wants to take it to the Rangers. Then there's his linemate Anze Kopitar, who might be the best overall offensive player on either team. And Drew Doughty's an absolute beast. If the Kings win this series, he probably wins the Conn Smythe. If the Rangers thought going against PK Subban was tough, Doughty's going to crank that up a notch.
Surprisingly, the one area of concern for the Kings might be in goal. When they won the Cup in 2012, Jonathan Quick won the Conn Smythe. But this year, it has often seemed that they're winning games in spite of their goaltender rather than because of him. Take the Chicago series. Quick came up big when he needed to, but that series turned into "Who's going to score last?" Quick's simply not unbeatable like he was in 2012. Although, you can't take those three Game 7 road wins away from him.
In goal is where the Rangers might have an advantage. Henrik Lundqvist is arguably the best goalie in the game and he could absolutely be a difference-maker in this series. Take Game 6 of the Eastern Conference Final. Montreal wasn't getting anything by him that night. It's safe to say Game 5 was an anomaly. He's got the best goals against average, save percentage and record of any playoff goalie. King Henrik (or maybe we should call him Ranger Henrik for the next couple weeks) has already proven himself as one of the top big-game goalies in hockey. There's no one I would trust in net more.
One of the best things Alain Vigneaut did against Montreal is something Daryl Sutter has done well all season. He's gotten all four lines involved. That depth is one of the main reasons the Rangers beat the Canadiens, and I think it's one of the main reasons they have a real chance against the Kings. Nash and St. Louis have found their scoring touch, and the Rangers' top forwards throughout the entire postseason have been Richards, Kreider and Zuccarello. Ryan McDonagh's suddenly become a major player on offense, too. And, of course, there's Lundqvist in the back.
I think we'll get a good idea of who's going to win this series early on. Because these teams play two different styles, and one of them's going to have to win out. It's also highly unlikely that this series will be anywhere near as high-scoring as the Western Conference Final was. The Kings are going against Henrik Lundqvist this time. Not Corey Crawford (who's not the reason the Blackhawks lost).
There's probably one assumption that we can safely make with these two teams--Game 7. And when it comes to Game 7 all bets are off. Both teams thrive in that situation, but something will have to give. Well, I'll take Henrik Lundqvist in a winner-take-all game over anybody.
Besides, this ride can't end without a Cup. Not on the 20th anniversary of that memorable 1994 title run. Go ahead and accuse me of being a homer here (I'll admit it, I totally am), but I like the Rangers' chances here. Broadway 4, Hollywood 3.
They've both played a lot of games this postseason. The Kings have played the maximum 21. The Rangers have played 20. But they've also been off since Thursday and didn't have to play a Game 7 overtime. That rest might not make much of a difference, especially since there's two days off between Games 1 and 2. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Rangers take Game 1 (which they did in all three of their previous series) in LA based on the fact that they're actually the more rested team for once.
The Rangers have also played a lot less physical hockey than the Kings throughout the playoffs. Sure, they played hard-fought, seven-game series against Philly and Pittsburgh, and the Montreal series became much more hard-hitting as it went along. But the Flyers, Penguins and Canadiens aren't the Sharks or the Ducks. And they're certainly not the Blackhawks. Will that end up being a benefit? Or will it go the other way and have the change of style actually end up helping LA?
Both teams are confident, especially the Kings. I guess that's what comes with winning three Game 7's on the road. They've also got a crap load of playoff experience. This is the 11th of a possible 12 playoff rounds that they've reached over the past three seasons. Then there's their record in elimination games. Nothing fazes the Kings. It's virtually impossible to put this team away. Just ask the Sharks.
When it comes to talent, LA might have a slight edge. They've gotten production from practically everyone and Marian Gaborik is the top goal scorer in the playoffs. And you can bet Gaborik wants to take it to the Rangers. Then there's his linemate Anze Kopitar, who might be the best overall offensive player on either team. And Drew Doughty's an absolute beast. If the Kings win this series, he probably wins the Conn Smythe. If the Rangers thought going against PK Subban was tough, Doughty's going to crank that up a notch.
Surprisingly, the one area of concern for the Kings might be in goal. When they won the Cup in 2012, Jonathan Quick won the Conn Smythe. But this year, it has often seemed that they're winning games in spite of their goaltender rather than because of him. Take the Chicago series. Quick came up big when he needed to, but that series turned into "Who's going to score last?" Quick's simply not unbeatable like he was in 2012. Although, you can't take those three Game 7 road wins away from him.
In goal is where the Rangers might have an advantage. Henrik Lundqvist is arguably the best goalie in the game and he could absolutely be a difference-maker in this series. Take Game 6 of the Eastern Conference Final. Montreal wasn't getting anything by him that night. It's safe to say Game 5 was an anomaly. He's got the best goals against average, save percentage and record of any playoff goalie. King Henrik (or maybe we should call him Ranger Henrik for the next couple weeks) has already proven himself as one of the top big-game goalies in hockey. There's no one I would trust in net more.
One of the best things Alain Vigneaut did against Montreal is something Daryl Sutter has done well all season. He's gotten all four lines involved. That depth is one of the main reasons the Rangers beat the Canadiens, and I think it's one of the main reasons they have a real chance against the Kings. Nash and St. Louis have found their scoring touch, and the Rangers' top forwards throughout the entire postseason have been Richards, Kreider and Zuccarello. Ryan McDonagh's suddenly become a major player on offense, too. And, of course, there's Lundqvist in the back.
I think we'll get a good idea of who's going to win this series early on. Because these teams play two different styles, and one of them's going to have to win out. It's also highly unlikely that this series will be anywhere near as high-scoring as the Western Conference Final was. The Kings are going against Henrik Lundqvist this time. Not Corey Crawford (who's not the reason the Blackhawks lost).
There's probably one assumption that we can safely make with these two teams--Game 7. And when it comes to Game 7 all bets are off. Both teams thrive in that situation, but something will have to give. Well, I'll take Henrik Lundqvist in a winner-take-all game over anybody.
Besides, this ride can't end without a Cup. Not on the 20th anniversary of that memorable 1994 title run. Go ahead and accuse me of being a homer here (I'll admit it, I totally am), but I like the Rangers' chances here. Broadway 4, Hollywood 3.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Fun Facts: The NY vs. LA Edition
Our Stanley Cup Final matchup is finally set. It's the Rangers vs. the Kings. It almost happened two years ago, and this year we've got it. I would've preferred Rangers-Blackhawks for a couple of reasons, not least of which that it would've been two Original Six teams for the second straight year (that, and it would've been the two best goal songs in hockey). The official prediction is coming tomorrow (as if there's any doubt who I'm picking to win this series).
But first, let's revel in this unique series between New York and LA. Unless you count the Devils-Kings Stanley Cup Final two years ago (or the Devils-Ducks series in 2003), this is the first time the two biggest cities in the U.S. are meeting in the championship series in any of the four major sports since the Yankees played the Dodgers in the 1981 World Series. (The funny thing is the Rangers and Kings actually played in the 1981 Stanley Cup playoffs, so this isn't the first time they're meeting in the postseason.) So, that should be enough proof right there to shut up the "They play in major markets and can just buy their teams" people.
Anyway, on to the fun facts...
But first, let's revel in this unique series between New York and LA. Unless you count the Devils-Kings Stanley Cup Final two years ago (or the Devils-Ducks series in 2003), this is the first time the two biggest cities in the U.S. are meeting in the championship series in any of the four major sports since the Yankees played the Dodgers in the 1981 World Series. (The funny thing is the Rangers and Kings actually played in the 1981 Stanley Cup playoffs, so this isn't the first time they're meeting in the postseason.) So, that should be enough proof right there to shut up the "They play in major markets and can just buy their teams" people.
Anyway, on to the fun facts...
- Kenny Albert's an animal. He called all 13 games of the conference finals. He did the West on TV, and he's also the Rangers radio guy. So, he was going back-and-forth between New York, Montreal, LA and Chicago every night for two weeks. That's just nuts. (Just found out Kenny's going to do Game 1 on NBC instead of Doc Emrick, who'll miss the game due to a death in the family.)
- The Kings have played the maximum 21 games over the first three rounds of the playoffs. They're the first team to get to the Final after playing three Game 7's in the first three rounds. And the Rangers' 20 games over the first three rounds are the second-most in history for a Stanley Cup finalist. They're the first two teams ever to survive Game 7's in each of the first two rounds and get to the Final.
- Speaking of Game 7, there's been seven in the 14 series that have been played. Out of a 98 possible games over the first three rounds, 88 have been played, including 23 that went to overtime. The only series that didn't have at least one overtime game was the Rangers-Flyers series in the first round.
- The last time the Rangers were in the Final, obviously, was 1994. That's also the last time the NHL changed the playoff format prior to this season.
- This is another one that's obvious, but it's the first time that the two teams meeting for the Stanley Cup both played outdoor games during the season. That's, of course, thanks to the creation of the Stadium Series.
- I read an article in the paper today about that incredible Spring of 1994, when the Garden was buzzing and Knicks and Rangers were both in the Finals. Two teams that share an arena have never won both the NBA and NHL titles in the same season. In fact, the last time two teams that share an arena were in both the NBA and Stanley Cup Finals in the same season, the Devils and Nets both made it in 2003. (That's not at all relevant to this series, I just found it interesting.)
- Here's the relevant one about arena-sharers: It's the second straight season and third time in five years that both teams in the Stanley Cup Final share their arena with an NBA team (or, in the Kings' case, two NBA teams). In the NBA, meanwhile, thanks to the Heat, it hasn't happened since Lakers-Celtics in 2010.
- Along those same lines, the Super Bowl was played in New York (yes, I know, it was technically in New Jersey) in February. In 1993, the Super Bowl was in the Rose Bowl and the Kings ended up in the Stanley Cup Final. That's the only other time the Super Bowl and Stanley Cup Final have been played in the same city in the same calendar year.
- The Rangers have been without a captain since trading Ryan Callahan to the Lightning at the deadline. They're the first captain-less team to play for the Cup since the 1972-73 Blackhawks.
- The Kings, who won all three of their Game 7's on the road, overcame a 3-0 deficit against the Sharks in the first round (although I still contend that San Jose lost that series more than LA won it, but I digress). They're the fifth team in history (and the fourth in the NHL) to win a series after trailing 3-0. The last to do it was the 2010 Flyers, who rode their comeback over the Bruins all the way to the Final, where they lost to the Blackhawks.
- Just like two years ago, the Kings didn't have home ice in any of their three Western Conference playoff series. But they will in the Stanley Cup Final, which is their 11th playoff series over the past three seasons. In those 11 series, the Kings have had home ice a grand total of twice, this one and last year's second round against San Jose. This is the third time the Kings have made the Final, and the first time they've ever had home ice advantage in any round in a year they played for the Cup.
- Both goalies were their nation's starter during the Olympics--Jonathan Quick for the United States and Henrik Lundqvist for Sweden. This year marked the fifth time that the NHL has sent its players to the Olympics, but it's just the second time two goalies played in both the Olympics and Stanley Cup Final in the same year. The other was the Red Wings' Dominik Hasek (Czech Republic) and the Hurricanes' Arturs Irbe (Latvia) in 2002. (It's the first Final meeting of Olympic medalist goalies since Quick and Martin Brodeur in 2012.)
- Lastly, we'll take a look at the two cities, Media Market No. 1 and Media Market No. 2. Teams with "New York" in their name (no Devils, no New Jersey Nets), are 3-0 in championship series/games since the Yankees lost the 2003 World Series. Teams from LA/Anaheim are 5-1 in finals since the Ducks' Cup run in 2007, with the 2007-08 Lakers contributing the only loss. Since 2000, the New York teams are 4-2 (6-6 counting the Devils and Nets), the LA/Anaheim teams are 8-3 in the championship round of their respective sports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)