Busy Baseball Deadline Day

The baseball trade deadline usually comes and goes with very little fanfare.  That certainly wasn't the case this year.  I can't remember a trade deadline this eventful maybe ever.  And we didn't just have some minor moves.  We had some major players change teams, the balance of power shifted, and the postseason picture definitely affected by what happened today.

So who are the big winners and losers?  Well, one team that looked like it would be the biggest winner ended up not being so by the end of the day.  But interestingly, very little happened that's going to make an impact in the National League.  As a result, we start in the Junior Circuit.

Dominoes began falling early, when the Red Sox and A's announced their blockbuster, with Jon Lester going from Boston to Oakland in exchange for Yoenis Cespedes.  I didn't get this trade when it happened, and I don't get it now.  The Boston trading Lester part is whatever.  Everybody kind of knew that was going to happen.  But to Oakland?  For Cespedes?  It doesn't make sense.  The A's went out and got another starting pitcher.  But in exchange, they gave up their cleanup hitter and arguably their biggest power threat.  Sure they made their pitching staff a little stronger, but you still need to score runs, and the lineup is significantly weaker now.

Oakland's lineup is especially weaker than one team in particular.  Detroit.  Going back to the Jeff Samardzija trade, it's clear that everything the A's are doing is directly because of the Tigers.  Basically, they're tired of losing to Detroit in the playoffs.  Well, in my opinion, the way to beat Detroit isn't making your offense weaker.  Especially because the Tigers already had a better lineup, and the pitching staffs were at worst comparable.

I said the pitching staffs were comparable.  They aren't anymore.  That's because Lester wasn't the only front-line starter traded on Thursday.  The Tigers responded big time.  They got David Price.  So, Detroit now has the last three Cy Young winners, Rick Porcello, who arguably could've been an All-Star this year, and Anibal Sanchez, who had the best ERA in the American League last season.  And, like I said, the lineup was already better before the A's dumped Cespedes.  Game, set and match Tigers.  Guess who's NOT the favorites in the American League anymore.

That trade was actually a three-way deal with Seattle.  Austin Jackson actually had to come out of the Tigers-White Sox game in the seventh inning because he got traded to the Mariners.  With Jackson in center field and the leadoff spot, Seattle got a little better.  They're still the third-best team in the AL West, though, so the best they can hope for is the Wild Card Game.  I actually thought they were going to be the team that ended up with Drew Smyly in that deal, because Seattle could use another starter, but Smyly in Tampa Bay is a decent fit.  He's not David Price, but who is?

Boston wasn't done dealing with Lester, either.  They shipped out another starter, sending John Lackey to St. Louis for Joe Kelly and Allen Craig.  The Red Sox are clearly trying to win the World Series next year.  Apparently that's this team's M.O.  Suck one year, blow the team up, win the World Series the next, rinse and repeat.  Let's see if it works this time.

Surprisingly, the Red Sox also made a couple of trades within the division.  They sent reliever Andrew Miller to Baltimore, which strengthens the Orioles' bullpen a little bit, but they (the Orioles) definitely needed to do much more.  They might be in first place, but they aren't the best team in the division, and they certainly aren't going to beat Detroit or Oakland in the playoffs.  The Orioles needed to add a starter and they didn't do that.  They might still win division and/or make the playoffs, but that's more a commentary on the state of the AL East.

But the most surprising trade made by the Boston Red Sox today was sending Stephen Drew to the Yankees.  It's the first trade between the bitter archrivals since 1997, and it seems to be six of one, half a dozen of the other.  The Red Sox went without Drew for the first two months of the season, brought him back in June, then traded him six weeks later.  What exactly was the point?  For the Yankees' part, they were thinking about signing Drew in the offseason, yet decided not to, only to get him at the deadline (and make him play second base).

Even though they needed a starter with 80 percent of the rotation on the DL, the Yankees seemed content with Brandon McCarthy and Chris Capuano (probably with the hopes that Michael Pineda and Masahiro Tanaka come back to further strengthen the rotation), so they turned their attention to their anemic offense.  They essentially swapped Brian Roberts for Drew, even though Drew has been awful with the bat so far this season.  And, even though he's actually been one of their most consistent hitters, they don't want Ichiro to be the everyday right fielder.  Enter Martin Prado, who can play multiple positions, so I'm a little more OK with that one.  I don't think either move makes the Yankees favorites in the AL East, though.

Like I said, most of the movement took place in the American League.  The only National League team that did anything significant was the Cardinals with the Lackey trade, as well as adding Justin Masterson.  Much like Baltimore, St. Louis needed to do more (especially since Yadier Molina's out until at least mid-September), but the NL Central is really bad and they got two established starters, so that might be enough for a team as annoyingly consistent as the Cardinals.

It's probably a stretch to put this one in the same category as the three pitching trades, but the Nationals became NL East favorites by getting Asdrubal Cabrera from the Indians.  Ryan Zimmerman's out for a while, if not the rest of the year, so they needed to make some sort of offensive move.  Ian Desmond's locked in at short, so I'm curious to see where they put Cabrera (my guess is he plays second and Anthony Rendon moves to third), and I doubt this move is for more than this year, but it's a good short-term deal for Washington.  And it's enough to push them past the Braves in the NL East.

Of note in the National League is that the two best teams in the NL--the Dodgers and Giants--did essentially nothing.  Yes, the Giants got Jake Peavy (and Felix Doubront went to the Cubs, making 80 percent of the Red Sox' rotation that was traded at the deadline), but they were both quiet on deadline day.  That's because neither one had to do anything.  The Dodgers and Giants already were the two deepest teams in the National League.  Sure, LA could've moved one of its 36 outfielders for a reliever, but they can probably live with what they've got.

My final assessment is that the biggest winners here are the Tigers, with the Cardinals and Nationals close behind (OK, not really that close).  The A's were big winners until the Price deal went down.  Believe it or not, the Red Sox came out as big winners too.  They set themselves up nicely for next year, especially if Lester comes back as a free agent.  The biggest losers?  Baltimore, Toronto and the Phillies (why didn't they trade anybody?), as well as Arizona, which now has nothing to show for the Justin Upton trade.

FOX Has Baseball? Who Knew!?

I did something today for the first time ever.  I watched baseball on Fox Sports 1.  Evidently Fox Sports 1 has been covering baseball all season, but you'd never know it.  And I'm not sure that's exactly what FOX wanted when they decided to do that.

FOX is in the first year of a new contract with Major League Baseball, and in that new contract they made some changes.  Last year, there was a FOX game every Saturday afternoon.  This year there isn't.  In fact, the only games that have actually been on FOX this year were the All-Star Game and those couple Saturday night games they have right before the break.  Since the All-Star break has come and gone, so has baseball on FOX.  If you blinked, you missed it.

Instead, the Saturday afternoon games have been on Fox Sports 1.  I think.  The reason I don't actually know is because those games aren't exclusive.  So, for example, the Yankees-Red Sox game at Fenway Park on Saturday afternoon will obviously be a national game.  That means it'll be on Fox Sports 1.  Except people in New York and New England won't watch it on Fox Sports 1.  That's because it's also on YES and NESN.  If given the choice, fans will watch their team's game on their team's network with their team's announcers over a national broadcast.  So, since fans will be given that choice, FOX is giving up millions of potential eyeballs because its coverage isn't exclusive.

That's an incredible mistake on FOX's part.  They're trying to build Fox Sports 1.  I get that.  But this isn't the way to do it.  So far, the only event Fox Sports 1 has had exclusively that people made it a point to watch was the Big East Men's Basketball Tournament.  Some playoff games will be on Fox Sports 1, too, so that'll obviously be a big draw, but I have a feeling for many people trying to find Fox Sports 1 to watch the baseball playoffs will be just like trying to find truTV to watch the NCAA Tournament.  And it'll be just as confusing, too.

My solution isn't for FOX to stop putting games on Fox Sports 1.  It's their network and their rights, so they can do whatever they want.  The better option, though, seems to be fairly obvious.  Make all of the games exclusive, whether they're on FOX or Fox Sports 1.  That's the only way you'll get people in the habit of watching Fox Sports 1.  And it won't seem so random when a game is on that way, either.

Take the Sunday night game.  While I'm not the biggest fan of the Sunday night game (mainly because when the Yankees play in it, I have nothing to do during the day, then at the end of the season, it's on at the same time as the Sunday night football game), I at least know that it's on ESPN every week.  The ESPN Sunday night game has become an accepted part of the baseball-watching routine.  But would you believe it's the only exclusive national telecast of any baseball game in a given week?

When FOX shows games on the broadcast network, they are in an exclusive window.  Since FOX games are regional, however many games FOX is showing (usually three) are the only ones allowed to start within that window.  Until they started with the Saturday night thing, they did 4:00, meaning that if you weren't on FOX, you had to start at 1, 7 or 10.

While I'm not sure, I think that's still the case, which could be why Yankees-Blue Jays was the only 1:00 game in the Majors last Saturday (which is wrong on so many levels).  But again, I don't know.  Because it just seems like a regular game when you can also watch it on your regular channel.  I will give FOX this, though.  They have Saturday doubleheaders on Fox Sports 1, and I think they've done away with splitting the broadcasts regionally.  But with two games, that obviously means other games are going on at the same time as the Fox Sports 1 games that are on the teams' local networks.

Maybe this soft launch strategy is only for this first year or two.  The rationale might be that since not everybody gets Fox Sports 1 yet, this way they can still see the game.  When Fox Sports 1 gets greater distribution, FOX might make the move back to its telecasts being exclusive, whether they're on the broadcast network or the cable network.  And maybe FOX will figure out that more people watch baseball than the other crap they've been showing on Saturdays and start showing baseball again.

In the early 90s, CBS had the MLB TV contract.  Except very few people knew it.  Because it seemed like the only things CBS was interested in showing were the All-Star Game and World Series, with an occasional regular season game mixed in.  FOX paid an awful lot to renew its contract with Major League Baseball, but in year 1 of the new deal, it more closely resembles the CBS coverage in the early 90s than their own coverage of recent years.  That shouldn't be the case.

What I'm saying probably sounds a little weird.  I'm not saying that I think there should be more national broadcasts or even that I'd prefer to watch them over a team broadcast (which obviously isn't the case).  What I'm saying is that I think FOX is missing an opportunity here.  The only exclusive games on Fox Sports 1 are on random Tuesday nights in July.  Not the Saturday afternoon games that are the bread-and-butter of the package.  It seems backwards.

The Impact of 15 to 10

As I sit here watching the induction of this incredible class to the Baseball Hall of Fame, I can't help but think about the news that came out from the Hall of Fame yesterday.  Starting next year, candidates will only appear on the ballot for 10 years instead of 15.  With next year's class sure to be as star-studded as this year's (Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz) and other sure-fire guys (Ken Griffey Jr., Chipper Jones, Trevor Hoffman, Mariano Rivera, Derek Jeter) to follow shortly thereafter, five fewer years on the ballot is only going to make it that much harder for everybody else to get in.

At first glance, this seems to be a reaction (and possible solution) to the ballot overcrowding created by Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and the rest of the Steroid Era players who otherwise would be deserving, but the writers have made it pretty clear they're not going to elect.  So, by cutting five years off of their eligibility, you're clearing Bonds, Clemens, etc., off the ballot sooner, thus theoretically opening up spots for their supporters to vote for someone else.

But, as much as knocking the Steroid Era guys off the ballot earlier will help ease some of the congestion, it also just became a lot harder for the Craig Biggios and Tim Raineses of the world to get into the Hall of Fame via the traditional method.  Biggo and Raines are what I consider the "borderline" guys.  They obviously have Hall of Fame credentials, but they're not as good as some others on the ballot who deserve to go in ahead of them.  Biggio ended up one vote shy of election this year and still has eight years to go, so he'll likely get inducted eventually, but Raines only has three years left.  He's simply going to run out of time.  If he had eight years instead of three, though, who knows?

While they might not seem that significant, those five years that Raines is losing certainly are.  They made the difference between being in the Hall of Fame and not being in the Hall of Fame for several recent inductees.  Bert Blyleven was elected in his 14th year in 2011.  Jim Rice got in on his 15th and final try in 2009.  Jack Morris was just knocked off the ballot after his 15 years expired this year.  His voting percentage went up every year from years 10-14 before it understandably went down this year (again, too many more deserving candidates ahead of him).

Of course, being dropped from the writers ballot five years earlier means a candidate moves on to the Veterans Committee five years earlier.  But as we've seen, it might actually be harder to get into the Hall of Fame via that route.  And with the current structure of the Veterans Committee, candidates are only considered once every three years, so they're now only eligible a maximum of twice in those five years (for example, Morris won't be considered again until 2016 for the following summer's induction, then in 2019, etc.).

Don Mattingly, Alan Trammell and Lee Smith are all between their 11th and 15th years on the ballot, so they'll stay on until they reach 15.  Those three will never be elected to the Hall of Fame, however.  But there are players who could've finally drummed up enough support over those final five years (Blyleven is a great example of someone whose supporters grew over time) that now have a much smaller window of time, which might not be enough depending on the other candidates in a given year.

I get the idea behind this, as well as the argument that some people make when they say "either you think the guy's a Hall of Famer or you don't."  While that's a fair viewpoint, it's not necessarily one I agree with.  Take this year (or next year or the year after that).  There are more than 10 guys that I would've voted for if I had a vote, and as a result of the 10-vote limit, some players who you otherwise would've voted for had to be left off. 

How many years they have left on the ballot shouldn't be a factor when it comes down to determining a player's Hall of Fame worthiness.  But it is for many voters.  And it does those voters a disservice as well.  Instead of having 15 years to think about a player's career, and maybe reconsider his credentials one way or the other, they'll have to rely on their snap judgments.  If they come around about a certain player, they'd better do it quick before he's gone.

To me, it seems like there was another solution.  It wouldn't have eliminated the ballot overcrowding that I'm sure is one of the reasons for the new eligibility term, but it would've helped ease some concerns about it.  Eliminating the 10-vote maximum.  That number seems incredibly arbitrary, and it doesn't seem necessary. 

On average, only one or two guys gets into the Hall of Fame each year.  Increasing the number of candidates the voters can choose wouldn't change that.  And even if that average did go up to three or four, so what?  If those players deserve it, they deserve it.  Sometimes there are fewer than 10 players on the ballot that do.  And sometimes there are more than 10, leaving voters trying to figure out who to knock off.  I say, if there are 15 guys on the ballot that somebody wants to vote for, let him vote for all 15.  You're not going to get 75 percent of more than 500 people to agree on more than two or three players anyway.

Election to the Baseball Hall of Fame is the highest honor a player can receive.  It's the top 1 percent of the 1 percent of the population that's had the privilege of playing that great game for a living.  It's already hard enough to receive that honor.  Why make it harder?

Fumble, Goodell

A lot has been said since Roger Goodell announced yesterday that Ravens running back Ray Rice will be suspended for the first two games of the season.  The reaction has been overwhelmingly negative.  While I don't want to jump on the commissioner-bashing bandwagon (I do that plenty for plenty of other reasons), I've gotta admit I agree with the critics.  Goodell dropped the ball on this one.  Two games was way too lenient.

To recap, Rice was arrested in February after a physical altercation with his fiancée at an Atlantic City casino.  There's even video of the incident.  He knocked her unconscious and dragged her out of an elevator!

This was clearly grounds for Rice to be suspended under Goodell's favorite thing in the world, the personal conduct policy.  The personal conduct policy gives Goodell the power to suspend players even if they haven't been charged or convicted of a crime (keep in mind, Rice was charged here).  And evidently domestic violence is only serious enough to warrant a two-game ban.

From the start, the arguments against the personal conduct policy have been Goodell's selective enforcement of it and the arbitrariness of the suspensions.  Case in point, Ben Roethlisberger was accused of sexual assault in the summer of 2010.  Despite the fact that criminal charges were never pressed, Roethlisberger was suspended for six games, reduced to four on appeal.  So, to recap, Ben Roethlisberger is accused of sexual assault and gets six games.  Ray Rice is charged with domestic violence and only gets two games.  In other words, the one who actually committed a crime was suspended for four fewer games.  Something doesn't add up here.

Sure, Richie Incognito was suspended for the rest of the season when the stuff about him and Jonathan Martin came out last year, but it was the Dolphins that suspended Incognito, not Goodell.  And have we heard a thing about possible discipline for Colts owner Jim Irsay?  Irsay is facing charges for DUI, possession and a myriad of other things stemming from his arrest in March.  He's facing four FELONY counts, yet the Commissioner hasn't said "Boo" about that situation.  Why is this man technically around to be around the NFL right now?

Maybe Goodell is hesitant to drop the hammer after he went overboard on Bountygate, but that shouldn't be an excuse.  Back when the personal conduct policy was first introduced, it seemed like Goodell was suspending guys for arbitrary amounts of time based on whim.  That shouldn't have been the case then, and it shouldn't be the case now.  Because it sends the wrong message.  Especially when the NFL is making such an effort to appeal to women.  (Even going beyond that, how many women work in the NFL or other NFL-related professions?  What message are you sending them by handing out slap on the wrist punishments?)

Sadly, this suspension simply falls in line with the NFL's recent reaction (or lack thereof) to domestic violence issues across the league.  Rice is the most high-profile player to be involved in one of these cases, the number of which is simply staggering.  Yet the NFL does nothing about what is quickly becoming the league's most serious off-field issue.  What's it going to take for Goodell to finally take a stand?  Does it need to be somebody who isn't on Goodell's fantasy team?

The biggest joke of this entire situation is that the NFL acts like it does care about domestic violence issues.  It's one of the topics discussed at the rookie symposium, where they go over the personal conduct policy.  There are also plenty of former players who talk about their experiences on the subject, and there are education events and fundraisers at which players and coaches participate.  Educate all you want.  Does it actually make a difference when the league office is turning a collective blind eye when these issues happen in real life?

It's even gotten to the point where college teams are becoming stricter than the NFL.  How many guys has the University of Texas kicked off the team since the new coach took over?  Obviously there are individual team rules that come into play with college programs, but it still says something that college teams are becoming more no-nonsense than the NFL.

Perhaps there's an obvious solution here.  When a player violates the NFL's substance abuse policy, he gets an automatic four-game suspension.  No questions asked, no appeals.  Everyone is fine with that.  Maybe it should be the same for violating the personal conduct policy.  Four games, with the option to make it more for more serious offenses.  Don't leave it up to some vague interpretation of the rules determined only by Goodell.  If the personal conduct policy was more clear cut and less arbitrary, there would be less wiggle-room for Goodell and there would be less argument from all sides when suspensions were announced.

Something needs to be done.  Because the NFL has a problem on its hands with these domestic violence issues.  A message needs to be sent that this type of behavior towards women is unacceptable.  And, unfortunately, suspending Ray Rice for two games didn't send that message.

The Raiders' Best Move? Back to LA

Marcus Allen made some noise today when he said that the answer to the Raiders' ongoing stadium saga might be a return to Los Angeles.  While the Davis family has made no mention of it and, as far as anyone knows, this is simply an idea that Allen is floating around, it makes a lot of sense.  After all, they've already left Oakland for LA once.  And the NFL desperately wants a team in the second-largest media market in the U.S., so you'd figure the league office would be much more on board than they were in 1982.

One of the primary reasons the Raiders went back to the Bay Area after their 14-year sojourn south is because Al Davis wanted to build a new stadium in LA and the NFL wouldn't let him.  So, he convinced officials in the City of Oakland to renovate the Coliseum (and turn it into the crappiest venue in two leagues) with the promise of returning the Raiders to Oakland.  But now, the Oakland Coliseum is an even bigger hole (and not the "Black" kind) than it was 20 years ago.

The Oakland Coliseum is the only stadium shared by an NFL and an MLB team.  Except both the A's and the Raiders aren't happy, and they're both looking to leave.  The A's repeatedly tried to get approval for a new stadium in San Jose before they finally gave up and agreed to a 10-year lease to stay at the Coliseum.  So with the A's locked in, it looks like the Oakland Coliseum isn't going anywhere.  And that's bad news for the Raiders.  Because Mark Davis, Al's son and the current owner's, grand idea was for the Raiders to be the anchor tenant in a new stadium built on the Coliseum grounds (which would've been feasible if the Giants hadn't prevented the A's from getting their new stadium in San Jose).  With that plan out the window, the Raiders are back to the same problem: they're stuck in a crappy stadium and looking for a way out.

Roger Goodell offered one solution.  He suggested that the Raiders share the 49ers' new Levi's Stadium, much like the Giants and Jets share MetLife Stadium.  But the Raiders have no interest in that plan.  The Raiders hate the 49ers, and Mark Davis refuses to be their tenants.  In Al Davis's eyes, there were the Raiders and there was everybody else.  And Al Davis would be rolling over in his grave to see his Raiders sharing their stadium with another football team, let alone the 49ers!

So, outside of moving across the Bay to San Francisco (which will never happen) or to one of the Oakland suburbs, there's only one logical place for the Raiders to move and get their stadium.  Los Angeles.  And this time, there wouldn't be any resistance to such a move.

It's no secret that the NFL wants to return to Los Angeles.  There used to be two teams there.  There hasn't been any since 1995.  When the Texans came into the league seven years later, LA was actually the first choice for the expansion franchise, but they couldn't come up with an acceptable stadium deal and picked Houston instead.  Ever since then, the talk has been about how to get back in LA.  An expansion franchise wouldn't make sense, nor is it on the NFL's agenda, so the only way for LA to get a new team would be for someone to move.  And the only team that would be acceptable in that area is the Raiders.  It's a win-win scenario.

As for the stadium, that wouldn't be a problem.  In fact, there are at least two proposed stadiums ready to be built.  They just need a team to play there, then the construction can start.  During their time in Southern California, the Raiders played at the LA Coliseum.  That's probably not a long-term option now.  But is it conceivable that the Raiders could return to the LA Coliseum for a year or two before Farmers Field (or another hypothetical stadium) is completed?  Absolutely!

Moving the Raiders back would give the NFL the LA team it so badly wants.  It would also help if that team were the Raiders.  Because they owned the town during the 1980s, and this time they'd be the only show in town (well, them and USC, which has been LA's de facto NFL team for 20 years).  Plus, they've already got the fan base from their previous stay in the area (if there are any worries about fans coming back, they can ask the Winnipeg Jets).  Then there's the potential financial windfall and plethora of sponsorship opportunities that would come with playing the nation's second-largest city!  (And you know NBC would love the celebrity sightings at Sunday night games!)

From a football perspective, a change of scenery might be exactly what the Raiders need, too.  What used to be one of the NFL's most consistently successful franchises has turned itself into a laughingstock.  The Raiders haven't been relevant since they made the Super Bowl 15 years ago, and it doesn't look like they're going to be competitive in the AFC West again this season. 

But a move back to LA would get people talking about them for a good reason once again.  And who knows, maybe it would galvanize a once-proud team that has been languishing for way too long.  After all, it worked once before.  The Raiders moved to LA in 1982 and won the Super Bowl in 1983. 

Whether that can/will happen again remains to be seen, but just think of the possibilities of a revived Los Angeles Raiders.

The Olympic TV Network

After years of the idea being floated around, it looks like an Olympic TV network is going to happen.  It's one of the big priorities of IOC President Thomas Bach, and he appears to have enough support within the Olympic community to get it done.  The TV network is just one of a number of reforms Bach would like to see, all of which are for the good of the Games.

One of the primary reasons the IOC wants to create an Olympic TV channel would be to promote Olympic sports in the years between Games.  And this is the No. 1 reason why this channel is a good idea.  How many sports do people only care about during the Olympics?  Let me rephrase that, how many Olympic sports do people watch other than during the Olympics?  (It's like how people only watch soccer during the World Cup.)  With a few exceptions, Olympic sports receive very little exposure outside of the Games themselves. 

Things have gotten better with the growth of 24-hour all-sports channels, but even with the existence of these channels, there are the sports that are seen on TV very infrequently, if at all.  Perhaps an Olympic TV channel would show World Championships, Olympic qualifying tournaments and other major events in some of these sports.  They also want to engage young people, and maybe by increasing the exposure of these non-marquee sports, it might encourage them to take up a sport they otherwise might not have.

I'm intrigued by the possibility of an Olympic channel for other reasons, though.  There's obviously plenty of Olympic history.  They could show documentaries and highlights, as well as news and magazine shows about all things Olympic.  Maybe even they'd rebroadcast old Olympic coverage!  Those interested would even get a chance to watch things like bid presentations and host city announcements live on TV instead of just online.  And the Youth Olympics could finally have a home after struggling to find broadcast partners in a number of countries.  There are so many possibilities it's intriguing, and they wouldn't be hard-pressed for programming, which is the problem most start-up TV networks run into.

While there would obviously be a lot of kinks to work out, Bach envisions an Olympic network as a sort of collaboration between National Olympic Committees, sports federations, broadcasters and sponsors.  He even cited the National Geographic Channel as an example, where the IOC would basically serve as a moderator and be the developer of online content.  (Although you can't help but wonder what role the various broadcasters might be willing to have, especially with the amount they pay for Olympic rights, and what an Olympic channel might show during the Games themselves, when these rights-holders would undoubtedly want their exclusivity to continue, and rightfully so.)

The ultimate goal of an Olympic TV channel is to expand the Olympic brand, which is one of Bach's top priorities.  And while I'm not sure about the possibilities of this channel in the U.S., it's definitely something that's worth a shot.  Besides, this would be a worldwide Olympic channel, and that's the reason why I think it would ultimately work.  But they've got to find the right model, which could be somewhat of a challenge.  Because Olympic fans in the U.S. and Olympic fans in Europe are very different from Olympic fans in China.

Another item on the docket for Olympic Agenda 2020 (the name for Bach's reform program) concerns the sports program.  More specifically, adding flexibility to the sports program.  Under previous President Jacques Rogge, the IOC capped the number of competitors (10,500) and sports (28) at the Summer Games.  Since that maximum number of sports had already been reached, the only way for a new sport to get into the Olympics would be at the expense of another.  That's why wresting was dropped and reinstated last year.

Bach isn't sure limiting the number of sports on the Olympic program is the answer.  He thinks there's a way to add sports to the program while maintaining the 10,500-athlete limit, which is important towards controlling costs for the host cities.  His proposal is to look at each sport and reexamine the events within each that are currently in the Olympics.  By eliminating certain disciplines within existing sports (for example, do we need 200-meter and 1000-meter races in flatwater canoe/kayak?) or reducing the number of entries in certain events (fewer weight classes in the combat sports?), that opens up the possibility of adding new sports, even if it brings the total over 28, keeping the program fresh and relevant without dramatically increasing the cost to host cities.

Speaking of controlling costs for host cities, Bach is very troubled by the lack of bids for the 2022 Winter Games.  Cities were scared off by Sochi's $51 million price tag, as well as how much it costs just to put together a bid.  It costs millions just to try and get the Olympics, then millions more if you win.  Cities and countries understandably don't want to shell out that amount of money when there's potentially no reward.

They haven't been too detailed on what kind of changes to the bid process might be in store, perhaps because they haven't figured out what they would be yet themselves.  But I have no doubt the Olympic bid process is going to change.  Starting with the 2024 cycle, the bid process is going to be much more streamlined and much more cost-effective.  The hope is that will make hosting the Olympics attractive once again.  There are plenty of long-term benefits to hosting the Olympics, but those can definitely be tough to see 10 years out.

It hasn't even been a year yet, and Thomas Bach has already left his mark on the Olympic Movement during his Presidency.  These proposals will be voted on by the full IOC membership after the Executive Board meets in October, but I already like everything I'm hearing about each one.

Second Half Baseball Predictions

It was an eventful, and surprising, first half of the baseball season.  I don't think anybody expected Oakland to be THIS good, and most predictions had the Brewers at the bottom of the NL Central, not the top.  Then there's the Royals, the Mariners, the Orioles and the Blue Jays, four teams in the thick of the American League playoff race that very few thought would be.  (I'm also not sure many people expected the Rangers to be this bad.)

With so many teams that are still "in the race," or at least think they are, the second half is certainly going to be fun.  Some of these races will go right down to the wire, while somebody's going to get hot and make a run.  The trade deadline is also going to be a big factor.  Who's going to make the right moves that get them into the postseason?

AL East: The Orioles are in first place, which is a little surprising because of Baltimore's pitching and the fact that they haven't had Matt Wieters for most of the season.  The Blue Jays were leading the way for most of the year until hitting a bump in the road over the past couple weeks, but I still like Toronto's talent.  They need to weather these DL stints by Edwin Encarnacion and Adam Lind, and they need to find other ways to score besides the home run (which is the reason for their problems), but I fully expect the Blue Jays to be involved in this thing for the duration.  Then there's the Yankees.  Inconsistent to say the least, but only five games out in what's turned out to be a weak division this year.  They obviously need to address the starting pitching situation and need to actually score in more than one inning per game to stay in it.  The AL East is very winnable this year, though, and you know the Yankees are going to be one of the more aggressive teams at the deadline.  They're not out of it by any means.  This will probably be a three-team race going forward.

AL Central: This is usually the point in the season where the Tigers begin to assert themselves.  Everyone knows that Detroit's the best team in this division, and they already have a 6.5-game lead over the surprising Royals.  The Tigers are simply too good and too deep for anyone else to legitimately think about anything other than a wild card.  It'll take a pretty major collapse or a historic stretch for somebody to catch them.  The Royals and Indians will have to fight each other for second place, because at least one wild card is coming out of the West.  Kansas City's a little better in my opinion, but the Royals haven't been in this position before, so I'm not sure they'll be able to sustain it.  They might be like last year's Pirates, though, so clueless about what's going on that it'll actually be a good thing.  Cleveland's not as good as they were last year.  I don't see the Indians keeping pace.

AL West: When Oakland traded for Jeff Samardzija and Jason Hammel, they did it with October in mind.  They won't admit it, but they were thinking about the Tigers and those back-to-back five-game Division Series losses.  Well, the good news for the A's is that they probably won't play Detroit in the Division Series this year.  However, if they finish with the best record, which I think they will, that means they get the winner of the Wild Card Game.  And that could easily be the rival Angels.  Anaheim's the best team in the wild card mix, so I fully expect them to host the Wild Card Game.  In fact, they might be the second-best team in the American League, which exposes the only flaw of the current playoff system.  Barring anything unforeseen, the Angels will be in the playoffs.  Seattle, though, I'm not sure about.  The Mariners are finally good for the first time in Felix Hernandez's career.  Can they keep it going?  Seattle's the most interesting team in this race.  Because I think they can, but I'm not sure they will.  And if we do see all three AL West teams in the playoffs, that'll make things even more interesting...because they're probably the only ones that can beat each other.

NL East: As most expected, this is shaping up to be a two-team race between the Braves and the Nationals.  They're tied for first and the second wild card right now, and it wouldn't be a stretch to say we might see both of them in October.  As for which one will win the division, though, I like the Nationals.  The differences between these two teams are very minimal.  I just think the Washington rotation and starting eight are just a tick better.  The Braves will miss Evan Gattis, and their starting staff simply isn't as deep as Washington's.  The one advantage Atlanta has is that superior bullpen.  Much like the AL West, the bottom teams in the NL East are nowhere near as good as the top two.  However, the Mets, Marlins and Phillies might have a say in who wins the division.  One of them is going to beat one or the other enough to influence the race.  The question is: will it also cost Atlanta or Washington a shot at a wild card?

NL Central: Without a doubt, the Brewers were the most surprising team of the first half.  Milwaukee's been in first place pretty much all season, but can they hold off the three teams that made the playoffs last season?  My pick in the NL Central is still the Cardinals.  They're annoyingly good.  No matter what, they seem to end up in the playoffs every year.  And they've probably already started their run.  St. Louis is only a game back...with Cincinnati only a half-game behind them.  And the Pirates are still involved, too, just 3.5 behind Milwaukee.  Pittsburgh finally got over the .500 hump last season, and they might again this year, but I don't think they'll get back to the playoffs.  They'll need to overtake at least two teams in the division, as well as somebody from another, to earn a wild card, and I just don't see it happening.  I'm not sure I see Cincinnati making the postseason for a third straight year, either.  The Reds will be in the thick of things and might even pass the Brewers, but they're not going to pass the Cardinals, and with the Giants/Dodgers loser all but guaranteed to host the Wild Card Game, there's only one wild card available.  Then again, the Brewers have surprised me all year, so I half expect them to end up holding off St. Louis and winning the division after all.

NL West: Everybody's preseason pick to win the National League pennant, the Los Angeles Dodgers, is once again playing like the team to beat.  The Dodgers have unfinished business after losing the NLCS last season, and they've been looking towards October for a while.  There aren't three teams better than the Dodgers that can knock them out of the playoffs.  Except winning the division isn't a total guarantee yet.  That's because the Giants have been nearly as good, if not just as good, all season.  And I don't see that changing.  The Dodgers are better, so they should win the division by a game or two, but San Francisco's not going anywhere.  The Giants are going to join them in October (after all, it's San Francisco's turn in the cycle to represent the NL in the World Series).  What I'm anxious to see possibly happen would be these two meeting in the Division Series, which can happen if the Giants win the Wild Card Game and the Dodgers have the best record.  With that pitching, San Francisco could easily knock off their archrivals in the postseason.

Playoff Teams:
AL-Athletics (West), Tigers (Central), Blue Jays (East), Angels (Wild Card 1), Orioles (Wild Card 2)
NL-Dodgers (West), Nationals (East), Cardinals (Central), Giants (Wild Card 1), Braves (Wild Card 2)

MLB Midseason Awards

Now that we've moved past the All-Star Game, it's time to start thinking about the second half of the baseball season.  Thanks to the second wild card, so many teams are still in contention, which is going to make the trade deadline very interesting.  And those pennant/playoff races are probably going to go a long way in determining who ends up winning the major awards in November.  But who'd win those awards if they were given out right now?  As usual, there are plenty of options.

AL Manager: Bob Melvin, Athletics-The A's are good.  Everybody knows that.  Generally when a team that's good is doing well, it doesn't surprise anybody and the manager doesn't really get that much credit.  But I doubt anyone thought Oakland would be THIS good.  Yet Bob Melvin has taken his band of misfits and guided them to the best record in Baseball.  They had six All-Stars (seven if you count Samardzija), but don't have any superstars.  Yet they're the favorites to represent the American League in the World Series.  He won this award two years ago, and if the second half of the season goes the same way as the first half, he'll win it again.

NL Manager: Ron Roenicke, Brewers-Who thought the Brewers were going to end up fighting the Cubs for last place this year?  Probably a whole lot more than thought they'd be in first place all season.  They haven't just been in first place pretty much all year, they've had the best record in the National League for a good majority of the year, as well.  While the Brewers are going to need a second half nearly as ridiculous as their first half to hold off the Cardinals and Reds, if they do, Ron Roenicke will be an easy choice for NL Manager of the Year.

AL Rookie: Jose Abreu, White Sox-This went from tough to really easy, back to tough, back to really easy.  Abreu and Masahiro Tanaka both took the Majors by storm when they came on the scene in April.  Then Abreu got hurt and Tanaka continued dominating the American League.  Abreu came back, Tanaka proved that he's like us mere mortals, and suddenly it became a toss-up again.  But now that Tanaka is out for six weeks (and hopefully no longer), Abreu gets the edge in the AL Rookie of the Year race.  The fact that he leads the Majors in homers and ranks third in the AL in RBIs helps, too.

NL Rookie: Billy Hamilton, Reds-While the decision in the AL is tough because Abreu and Tanaka have been simply dominant, the choice in the NL is hard because there are so few candidates.  But the clear frontrunner is the Reds' dynamic center fielder, Billy Hamilton.  We've heard about him for a couple years, and he's certainly living up to the hype.  He's blowing away the NL rookie field in virtually every category, and his 38 stolen bases are third-most in the Majors.  Throw in six triples, 19 doubles and 38 RBIs and it's not even close.

AL Cy Young: Felix Hernandez, Mariners-Up until two weeks ago, Tanaka was looking at a potential Rookie of the Year/Cy Young double, which would've been unprecedented.  But the two rough starts in his last two games before he went on the DL knocked Tanaka out of the running (and the fact that he's out until September means he'll stay out of the running).  And just like the All-Star start then passed on to Felix Hernandez, so does the midseason Cy Young.  King Felix is putting up his typical awesome numbers.  In fact, he might even be better than normal this year.  Of course, there's one big difference, too.  The Mariners don't suck this year.

NL Cy Young: Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers-Just like there wasn't a wrong choice between Kershaw and Adam Wainwright as the All-Star starter, there isn't really much that separates them in the Cy Young race, either.  Wainwright leads the league in ERA...because Kershaw is 0.2 innings shy of qualifying.  Wainwright's got 12 wins.  Kershaw has 11 in five fewer starts.  But there are a couple other reasons why I'd give the nod to Kershaw, and not just because he's the best pitcher in the game.  The near-perfect no-hitter, the ridiculous scoreless inning streak, the 126 strikeouts, the .191 batting average against, the 0.83 WHIP.  And, most importantly, the Dodgers are in first place (with the best record in the National League).

AL MVP: Mike Trout, Angels-After back-to-back runner-up finishes to Miguel Cabrera, this might finally be the year Trout wins his first MVP.  There isn't really a need to spew out stats saying why Mike Trout is awesome, but I'll give it a shot anyway.  Second in the AL in slugging, second in on-base percentage, seventh in batting average, tied for third in RBIs, fourth in homers, tied for fourth in doubles, fifth in triples, second in runs scored, ninth in hits.  Yeah, he's pretty good.  And the Angels are actually playing the way the talent on their roster implies they should, so we might see Trout in October for the first time!  If he has a Trout-like second half, he'll have an AL MVP plaque to go with his All-Star MVP award.

NL MVP: Troy Tulowitzki, Rockies-I've seen a lot of different choices for NL midseason MVP, but mine is Troy Tulowitzki.  He's without a doubt the best player in the National League, and the team he plays for isn't very good, which has to make putting up the numbers he's put up that much harder.  Some of the non-Tulo people like to point to his Coors/non-Coors splits, but I ask, how much more bad would the Rockies be without him?  Yes, he's doing it in Colorado, but a .345 average (as well as league-leading on-base and slugging percentages) can't be overlooked.  Neither can 21 homers or 52 RBIs by a shortstop who has very little else around him.  Tulo wears No. 2 because of Derek Jeter.  In Jeter's final season, Tulo might get something Jeter never did...an MVP.

As it turns out, making these choices wasn't really that tough.  Some are open to debate, but I feel very comfortable that these eight have stood out the most in the first half of the season.  Of course, things, as always, are subject to change in the second half.  And with 17 teams within 3.5 games of a playoff berth, the second half is going to be mighty entertaining.

Top Goals of the World Cup

What a World Cup!  I'm sad it's over, and even sadder that we have to wait four years until the next one in Russia.  And congratulations to Germany, a most deserving champion.  While I was pulling for Brazil and/or Argentina to keep up that South American magic on this side of the Atlantic, the best team definitely won.  Kudos do also go out to Brazil, though.  Despite all the doomsday predictions, they did a tremendous job as hosts and only made people that much more excited to come back to Rio in two years for the Olympics.

This was definitely the most exciting World Cup that I can remember, maybe the best ever (although I still hold great esteem for the World Cup hosted by the U.S. 20 years ago).  It also tied France 1998 as the highest-scoring World Cup in history.  While the goals became harder and harder to come by as the tournament went on, there were still 171 over the course of the 64 matches.  That gives us plenty to choose from for a Top 10 list (special thanks to Steve Misevic, my soccer guru, for his assistance in compiling the list)...

10. David Luiz (Brazil) vs. Colombia
No. 10 was a tough call, but back before Brazil was a national embarrassment, they were the favorites, and they played like it for a couple rounds.  Neymar had a brilliant goal against Cameroon in the final group game, but Brazil's best goal of the tournament?  That was by David Luiz on a brilliant free kick against Colombia in the quarterfinals.  David Luiz also got bonus points because he has awesome hair.

9. Lionel Messi (Argentina) vs. Iran
Messi's the best player in the world and he got his team to the final.  Even if his MVP was a little questionable (I would've voted for Thomas Mueller), he did show flashes of his greatness, most notably his game-winner in stoppage time against Iran.

8. David Villa (Spain) vs. Australia
Defending champion Spain famously fizzled out after two games.  But in their third game, the Spaniards showed why they had won the last three major tournaments before this one.  Take this goal by New York City FC's own David Villa.

7. Clint Dempsey (USA) vs. Ghana
It came 30 seconds into Team USA's World Cup journey, and it was magnificent.  It wasn't a game-winner or even a game-tying goal, but it did set the tone for the US coming out of the "Group of Death," along with champion Germany.

6. Haris Seferovic (Switzerland) vs. Ecuador
While not the prettiest goal of the tournament, this one makes the list because of its significance.  A game-winner in the 93rd minute of the first group play game between Switzerland and Ecuador, setting the stage for the number of comebacks and late goals to come.

5. Silvestre Varela (Portugal) vs. USA
The U.S. was seconds away from upsetting Portugal deep in the Amazon rainforest, holding Cristiano Ronaldo in check for 95 minutes.  Then this happened.

4. Mario Goetze (Germany) vs. Argentina
It wasn't the best goal of the tournament.  It could be argued that it wasn't even the best GERMAN goal of the tournament.  But this is the one that won the World Cup.  That alone is enough to earn a place in the top five.

3. James Rodriguez (Colombia) vs. Uruguay
World soccer's newest star has arrived.  James Rodriguez won the Golden Boot as the tournament's top scorer, and rightfully so.  Without question, his most spectacular goal came in Colombia's round of 16 win over Uruguay.  During the game broadcast, the ESPN announcers were debating whether it was the best goal of the tournament, but I've got it at No. 3.  Regardless, it was brilliant.

2. Robin Van Persie (Netherlands) vs. Spain
We got our first surprise of the tournament on Day Two, when the Netherlands crushed Spain 5-1 in that 2010 final rematch that happened way too early.  It was also the sign of things to come for both the Dutch, who finished third, and the Spanish, who flamed out spectacularly.  Speaking of spectacular, there was this amazing diving header by Robin Van Persie that was nominated for an ESPY.

1. Tim Cahill (Australia) vs. Netherlands
Believe it or not, those amazing goals by James and Van Persie don't take the cake as "Best Goal of the World Cup."  Our winner here is one of the most spectacular soccer goals I've ever seen.  And that was by Australia's (and the MetroStars') Tim Cahill.  In fact, some experts are calling it the best World Cup goal ever.  Fun fact, Australia has a total of 11 goals in its World Cup history.  Cahill has scored five of them.

That's my list.  Feel free to disagree.  I think that, without question, my top three were the three best goals of the tournament, but the order for the others is much more open to debate.  What all of these goals have in common, though, is that the goalkeepers had little to no chance of stopping them.  Ten sensational goals from a sensational World Cup.  See you in Russia in 2018.  Good luck trying to top Brazil.

All-Star Double Standard

While watching tonight's Yankees-Orioles game, I couldn't help but think about Nelson Cruz, who'll be starting at DH for the American League in the All-Star Game.  More specifically, I couldn't help but compare Nelson Cruz and other guys like him (Melky Cabrera, Ryan Braun) to Alex Rodriguez.  All of these guys were suspended for using performance-enhancing drugs, yet A-Rod is labeled a "cheater" while the other three all collect millions of All-Star votes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying A-Rod is a saint.  God knows he's not.  But there's a double standard here.  And I don't think that's right.  They were all suspended for doing the exact same thing.  Cabrera and Braun even lied about it, too, just like A-Rod.  So why are they forgiven and A-Rod continues to be vilified?

I get it.  A-Rod is obviously very unlikable.  So is Barry Bonds.  And they're both superstars who were paid very handsomely to play baseball.  That's why A-Rod has been placed in that same category as Bonds and, to a lesser extent, Roger Clemens.  But are they any more guilty than the others?  No.

That's what irks me so much about this year's All-Star voting.  Melky Cabrera, obviously boosted by that ridiculous surge every Blue Jays player gets from the entire country of Canada, came very close to starting this year's All-Star Game.  Do people forget that two years ago, after winning MVP of said game, Cabrera failed a drug test, tried to get away with it by creating a fake website, was suspended for 50 games and was kept off San Francisco's World Series roster?  That was 2012.  It's now 2014.  What exactly has he done over the past two years to work his way back into the public's good graces?  And it's not the numbers he's been putting up.

Then there's Ryan Braun.  What Braun did was worse than what Cabrera did.  He failed a test, lied about it, appealed (and won), getting the arbitrator fired in the process.  Then last year, all the Biogenesis crap hits the fan, Braun admits he lied and accepts a 65-game ban.  Yet apparently none of that had any impact on his popularity in Milwaukee.  Because Ryan Braun was right up there among National League outfielders in fan voting for most of the balloting.  Why?  I figured that Ryan Braun especially would lose his "Golden Boy" status after the Biogenesis scandal.  Evidently I was wrong.

Some people even suggested that Braun should make the National League team as a reserve.  I guess that's part of the reason why he was still getting votes.  He's putting up numbers similar to what he did in the past, and it's without any sort of "enchancement" this time (at least you would hope). 

Same thing with Nelson Cruz, whose 50-game suspension last season ended just in time for him to play in the AL Wild Card Game.  It's probably because of Biogenesis that he couldn't find a team in the offseason before eventually getting a one-year deal with Baltimore.  Well, that deal's starting to look like a bargain.  Because Cruz leads the American League in home runs and RBIs.  While I personally couldn't bring myself to vote for someone that served a PED suspension last year, Cruz at least deserves to be an All-Star.  Even though his selection came as a surprise, that one I can at least make my peace with (especially because somebody other than David Ortiz is the AL DH).

And that brings me back to A-Rod.  After making several consecutive All-Star starts, he's been the Most Hated Player in baseball for several years now.  It all comes back to his history of steroid use and his general attitude towards it.  A-Rod rubs people the wrong way, and a lot of those who've labeled him a cheater refuse to ever view him any differently again.  But what makes Alex Rodriguez any different?  Why is he Public Enemy No. 1 when Melky Cabrera is out there collecting millions of All-Star votes?

Say what you want about Alex Rodriguez, but I don't think that's right.  While I'm all for second chances, they shouldn't be so arbitrary.  Everyone gets a second chance except for Alex Rodriguez?  Obviously there's much more to the A-Rod story, but it still seems wrong that he gets nothing but derision from fans while it's forgive and forget with so many others.

I'm not saying A-Rod deserves forgiveness.  I understand why so many people feel the way they do about him.  What I am saying, though, is that Melky Cabrera, Ryan Braun, Nelson Cruz and all the others deserve similar treatment, especially when it comes to All-Star voting.  Because, more than anything else, the support these players receive makes fans look like hypocrites.  If you're as disgusted with PEDs as you claim to be, don't turn around and vote for those guys for the All-Star team!  Otherwise, you're in no position to play judge and jury for the others.

Handicapping the 2022 Field

In news that came as a shock to absolutely no one, the IOC announced today three finalist cities for the 2022 Winter Olympics.  It's no surprise because these were the only three cities left in the running after Krakow, Poland; Stockholm, Sweden; and Lviv, Ukraine all dropped out.  So, with the contenders limited to just Almaty, Kazakhstan; Beijing, China; and Oslo, Norway, there was really no reason for them to cut the field any further.

Even though there's only three cities left in the running, it's still going to be interesting to see this race play out.  Beijing has absolutely no chance.  I think even they know that.  If the other cities had kept their bids alive, Beijing probably would've been cut.  For starters, they want to have the ice events in the city and the snow events 120 miles away.  Does anyone actually think that would work?

Beijing wants to be the first city to host both the Summer and Winter Games (which I don't ever want to see happen).  Except they hosted the Summer Games in 2008, just 14 years earlier.  That's way too soon to go back to the same city, even if it is in the opposite season.  But the biggest thing working against Beijing is the location of the 2018 and 2020 Olympics.  They're not going to go Korea, Japan, China three Olympics in a row.  Throw in Rio, and you've already got three straight Olympics outside Europe.  (Going back to the 2008 Beijing Games, it's five out of seven outside of Europe, including three in the Far East.)

That's why it was so important that Oslo stayed in the race.  There was some worry that it wouldn't, and the Norwegian government is still only 50-50 on the prospects of hosting the Olympics, but it was important to the Olympic community that there be a bidder from Europe, especially a European country so rich in Winter tradition.

It would've been a shame to have this be a two-horse race between Almaty and Beijing.  Because Oslo might have the strongest bid of the three, and the idea of the Winter Olympics in Norway just seems so right.  The Lillehammer Games were magical, and an Olympics in Oslo would be just as spectacular.  And after Sochi and Pyeongchang, which basically built winter sports resorts from scratch for the Olympics, it'd be nice to have a Winter Olympics in a city (and a country) that actually makes sense.  Norway's the first country a lot of people think of when they think of the Winter Olympics.

Oslo is also looking to become a two-time Olympic host.  Unlike Beijing, Oslo is bidding to host the Winter Games for the second time.  And unlike Beijing, Oslo's not trying to double-dip too soon.  The Norwegian capital last hosted the Winter Games in 1952.  Oslo would become just the third city to host the Winter Olympics twice, and Norway would be third country to have three or more Winter Olympics.

The third finalist city is perhaps the most intriguing--Almaty, Kazakhstan.  Almaty hosted the 2011 Asian Winter Games and will also be hosting the 2017 Winter Universiade, which could both serve as precursors to hosting the Olympics (Rio hosted a successful Pan American Games in 2007, then won its Olympic bid in 2009, and you know a Toronto Olympic bid will come soon if the 2015 Pan Am Games go well).  They've bid before, but never been a finalist until now, and Almaty might be considered a slight favorite right now due to the Oslo situation.

Almaty would open the Olympics to another new area, as no Central Asian nation has ever hosted.  However, Kazakhstan used to be part of the Soviet Union, and the Games were just in Russia.  So, you'd really just be going back and forth to pretty much the same place only eight years apart.  And with Pyeongchang, it would also be consecutive Winter Games in Asia (and three overall).

If, and it's a big if right now, Oslo can get the governmental support and make the financial guarantee, I think Oslo will be the overwhelming favorite in this race.  In fact, I'd be very surprised to see one of the other two cities win.  There's no official rotation among the continents, but 2022 would be Europe's turn, especially since the consensus is growing that 2024 should be in Africa.  

However, if this becomes a two-horse race between Almaty and Beijing, then it becomes Almaty's Olympics to lose.  I think they're positioned to host a very good and very successful Winter Olympics.  Just not yet.  If the opposition doesn't include Oslo, though, and the decision comes down to Almaty or Beijing, then I would give Almaty its shot. 

Either way, it'll be one of those two cities that hosts the 2022 Winter Olympics.  They won't be in Beijing, that you can be sure of.  (Although, stranger things have happened.)

Sports On Seinfeld

Today we celebrate the 25th anniversary of my favorite TV show of all time.  The first episode of Seinfeld aired 25 years ago today.  They covered a lot of nothing over nine years.  And we learned how much the four friends loved sports.  How much?  Let's see...

Tennis: Jerry's a very good tennis player, but he agreed to throw a match against Milos, the tennis pro at his club, so that no one would know how bad Milos was.  Newman also played tennis, which we found out when Elaine had to borrow his racket for Mr. Pitt's match against Ethel Kennedy.  But perhaps the most famous tennis-related storyline was in "The Lip Reader," when Jerry dates deaf US Open lineswoman Marlee Matlin.  This is, of course, also the episode where Kramer becomes the first "ball man" and ends up tripping Monica Seles during the finals.

Running: Jerry was very fast growing up, but he never joined the track team, saying instead "I choose not to run."  One day he beat Duncan Meyer in this big race and Duncan has hated him ever since, so they race again.  And Jerry wins thanks to Kramer's car backfire.  We also saw Elaine befriend Trinidadian marathon runner John Paul Jonpaul, who overslept and missed the Barcelona Olympics.  He ends up staying with Jerry the night before the New York City Marathon, only to oversleep again.  He leads the race, anyway, until splashing Kramer's coffee on his face near the finish.  Speaking of Kramer, he gets beaten up for refusing to wear a ribbon during an AIDS walk.

Boxing: It's not technically boxing, but who can forget "The Little Jerry," when Kramer buys a rooster, names it after Jerry, and it becomes a champion cockfighter.  George also gets into an argument with Kramer's friend Mike Moffitt when they're all going to Jerry's place to watch a fight, then gets in trouble with his boss, Mr. Morgan, when he tells him he looks like Sugar Ray Leonard.

Hockey: Puddy's a Devils fan.  And he paints his face in Devils colors because he's "gotta support the team."  After Elaine asks him to stop, he paints his chest instead.  Jerry and Kramer end up joining him in spelling out "DEVILS" after they can't get better seats to the Rangers-Devils playoff game because Jerry refuses to call the guy who gave them tickets to the last game and thank him over the phone.

Frisbee Golf: George is a big fan of "frolf," so he can't resist when some guys are playing in the park and ask him to join them for the back nine of their game during the "Summer of George."

Billiards: Frank Costanza puts a regulation pool table in George's old bedroom and invites Kramer and the Maestro over to play.  Only problem is the table takes up the entire room, so there's no room to actually play, until Kramer figures out he can use the Maestro's baton instead of a cue.

Swimming: Kramer can't do laps at his pool anymore because of senior water aerobics class, so he begins swimming in the East River instead.  Jerry has his own problems.  His pool guy, Ramon, doesn't like him, so Ramon's always in his way when he's trying to swim.  That is until Jerry pulls Ramon in and he gets knocked out by Newman's cannonball.

Basketball: We know that George is a "chucker" when he plays.  That's also how he broke his glasses.  Kramer played basketball with those strength shoes that Jimmy sold on and got confused for someone who's mentally challenged.  Kramer also goes to Knicks games a lot.  He ends up going with Joel Hornick after Jerry blows him off, then famously went to a strip club with Spike Lee and Reggie Miller after getting into a fight with Miller during a game.  And the whole gang hijacked a limo that they thought was taking them to Madison Square Garden for a Knicks-Bulls game, but was actually supposed to take O'Brien to the Aryan Union rally at the Theater at Madison Square Garden.

Football: The football on Seinfeld is very limited.  Maybe it's because Elaine's boyfriend got confused with a serial killer during a Giants game, prompting even Lawrence Taylor to do a double take.  And Jerry couldn't give away his Super Bowl ticket until Tim Whatley ends up taking it, only for Jerry to end up going to the game anyway...with Newman!

Golf: Kramer is a very good golfer, and it's one of the few things we know he has a passion for.  He gets invited to play at a private club in Westchester, has a shot at the Senior PGA Tour, and hits golf balls into the ocean for fun.  But the best Kramer golf moments are when his caddy screws up Sue Ellen Mischke's trial and when he drives Steve Gendison, who killed a dry cleaner after an argument with Kramer on the golf course, to see his fish in a low-speed chase.

Softball: Jerry leads his softball team to the championship game, but ends up having to miss it when his aunt dies after a remark he made about a pony during dinner.  The game gets rained out, but Jerry has a terrible game.  That's still better than what happened to George during a softball game.  He ran over Bette Midler at home plate, knocking her out of "Rochelle, Rochelle: The Musical."

Baseball: But it's baseball where we have our most memorable Seinfeld sports memories.  This is probably because the real Jerry is a pretty big Mets fan, although it's the Yankees George ends up working for.  And that gave us Larry David's George Steinbrenner.  It also led to plenty of cameos from real Yankees, my favorite of which was when he was teaching Derek Jeter and Bernie Williams how to hit home runs.

The best baseball guest star on Seinfeld, though, was featured in one of the series' classic episodes, "The Boyfriend."  Keith Hernandez.  So many wonderful things about that episode.  Kramer hates him.  Newman despises him.  All because he spit on them on June 14, 1987.  (Although, interestingly, the Mets didn't play the Phillies on June 14, 1987.)  Jerry has a theory that there's a second spitter, who eventually proves to be Roger McDowell.

And we've got plenty of other baseball-related storylines.  Kramer saw Joe DiMaggio at Dinky Donuts and punched Mickey Mantle while away at Fantasy Camp.  George loses his Phil Rizzuto keychain in a pothole and has to jackhammer it out, tries to get himself fired unsuccessfully, and is eventually traded to Tyler Chicken.  Elaine, meanwhile, refuses to take off her Orioles hat while sitting in the owner's seats at Yankee Stadium and is asked to leave.  Then there's Jerry, who ends up dating Miss Rhode Island after meeting her at a Yankees game.

Amazingly, there was never any bowling on Seinfeld, which is a shame.  Because can you imagine how awesome it would've been to have those four bowling?  Or the image of someone like Newman in a bowling shirt?  I also can't recall any instances of soccer being mentioned on Seinfeld.  See, there's still stuff they didn't do.  They easily could've had a 10th season.  Oh well.  Happy Anniversary, Seinfeld.

75 Years Later, We're the Lucky Ones

When I was little, Pride of the Yankees was my favorite movie.  To this day, four is still one of my favorite numbers.  As I got older and the more I learned about Lou Gehrig, the bigger a fan of his I became.  The fact that he died 41 years before I was born doesn't matter.  (By coincidence, my apartment is only a few blocks away from where he once lived.)

Lou Gehrig was such a remarkable man.  He wasn't just a great ballplayer.  He was a well-respected, beloved gentleman.  I've never heard a single ill word ever spoken about the man.  And even in death, he was a pillar of strength.

I still find it almost impossible to fathom.  He was suffering from a debilitating neurological disease that would eventually take his life for God knows how long, yet was still playing Major League Baseball at a high level every single day until he was no longer physically able to do so.  Stephen Hawking has been living with ALS for more than 50 years.  And has been confined to a wheelchair unable to speak for just as long.  Another former Yankee, Catfish Hunter, died a year after receiving his own diagnosis.  Yet Lou Gehrig, not knowing what was wrong or the seriousness of his illness, continued to play and was still physically able to perform.  Until he wasn't.

Of course, he's best known for his streak of 2,130 consecutive games over 14 years.  That streak ended on May 2, 1939, when Gehrig took himself out of the lineup.  About a month later he got the diagnosis--amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a condition that has been known as Lou Gehrig's disease ever since.  It's fatal and there's no cure (even with all the advancements in modern medicine, that's still the case today).

It was then that Lou Gehrig retired and Lou Gehrig Appreciation Day at Yankee Stadium was planned.  On that day, July 4, 1939, Lou Gehrig, the captain of the New York Yankees, a six-time World Series champion and a .340 career hitter with 23 career grand slams (which was the Major League record until A-Rod broke it last year), said farewell in one of the most memorable speeches in American history.  For all he accomplished during his Hall of Fame career, it might be his poignant farewell that was Gehrig's defining moment.

A man who knew he was dying stood in front of a microphone with a sellout crowd at the largest baseball stadium in the country listening intently to his every word.  And he called himself "lucky."  Gehrig had every right to be angry or any selection of similar adjectives.  Yet "lucky" is the word he chose.  One lasting reminder of how remarkable a man he truly was.

Major League Baseball honored the 75th anniversary of the speech by having every team wear a Lou Gehrig patch on their uniforms today.  They also made a video of all 30 first basemen and Derek Jeter, the current Yankees captain, reciting the speech.  Interspersed within that video was original footage of Gehrig's original speech.  It was beautiful and fitting.  And I bet there was more than a few people that got choked up while watching it, even though 95 percent of them are too young to remember it.

Since the Yankees were on the road today, they honored Gehrig on Wednesday.  It was Lou Gehrig Bobblehead Day.  Gates opened at 11:00 for the 1:00 game.  I got to the Stadium at 11:05 and the line was wrapped around the block at all four gates (don't worry, I got my bobblehead).  The line was just as long to get into Monument Park.  Everyone wanted to get a picture of the "4" on the wall and the Lou Gehrig monument.  And there was more than one Lou Gehrig jersey in the stands.

But the best part was the pregame ceremony.  The Gehrigs never had any children.  After Lou Gehrig's death, his wife dedicated the rest of her life to ALS research.  So, Lou Gehrig's legacy is truly the people who suffer from the terrible disease that took him much too soon.  The Yankees honored that legacy by welcoming ALS patients onto the field and making a donation to the ALS Foundation.

 

Even 75 years later, Lou Gehrig is still a big deal.  He might've declared himself "the luckiest man on the face of the Earth" in the face of certain death, but I think that it's actually us that are the lucky ones.  And that's thanks to Lou Gehrig.  He was a great ballplayer, yes, but he was a pillar of class and dignity who had strength and courage that the rest of us can only aspire to.  I can only hope to live my life in that same way.  If I do, then I'll consider myself lucky, too.

What a Ride

The U.S. team's World Cup journey may be over, but it sure was fun while it lasted.  If the 1994 World Cup was a game changer for futbol in the United States, so was 2014.  Twenty years ago, the U.S. was just looking for a seat at the table.  After this World Cup, simply being at the table isn't enough.  This team is serious contenders and expects to be treated as such.  Their rallying cry, after all, is "I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL WIN."

One of the things Juergen Klinsmann said after the loss to Belgium was that the U.S. is indeed capable of winning the World Cup.  This, of course, is the complete opposite of what he said prior to the tournament, for which he was publicly chastised.  Well, guess what?  He was right. 

And it wasn't like Klinsmann lacked confidence in his team (which is what I think a lot of people thought at first).  Rather, he didn't want expectations to get overly high.  Who can blame him?  The U.S. was in a very difficult group.  Qualifying for the second round wasn't guaranteed.  Well, they got out of the group and nearly won their Round of 16 game.  These are rightfully viewed as achievements on which the U.S. can build.

Klinsmann made a complete 180 in his press conference after the Belgium game.  He now believes that the U.S. is capable of winning the World Cup.  And so does the rest of the world.  The Americans aren't crashing the party anymore.  They're invited guests.  As he said about the draw for Group G, "They call it the 'Group of Death' because we're in it too."  I agree.  It's probably safe to say that none of the top teams want to see "United States" come up in their draw.

If there's one group that needs convincing that the U.S. is one of the big boys (or at least on the verge of becoming one), it might be the players themselves.  Klinsmann's assessment of the team's play in the tournament was spot-on.  Against Ghana they scored 30 seconds into the game, then sat back and defended for almost the entire game until Ghana tied the score, at which point they got aggressive again and ultimately won.  Against Portugal, they didn't get aggressive until they were behind.  Same thing against Germany.  And they were lucky to get out of that Belgium game 0-0 after regulation, because if not for Tim Howard, that's a 3-0 loss.  It was only after the Belgians scored twice in the first period of extra time that the Americans went on the offensive.

Each of the three European teams were allowed to dictate the pace.  That's why Germany and Belgium ultimately won, and probably why Portugal was able to score in the final seconds to earn a tie.  The Ghana game was the only one where the U.S. went in thinking it was the better team.  Even though they were probably right, that mentality needs to change.  Klinsmann said that they maybe gave their opponents too much respect.  Once again, he was right. 

For the U.S. to win the World Cup, whether it be in Russia or Qatar or some other time in the future, they can't do that.  You're playing Germany?  So what!  You're playing Brazil?  Bring it on!  That's the approach they had in the 2009 Confederations Cup, when they beat No. 1-ranked Spain in the semifinals.  If you want to be considered one of the best, you first have to consider yourself one of the best.  I'm not sure the Americans did that in Brazil.  In 2018, I guarantee they will.

This World Cup also represented a change for American soccer fans.  The convenient time zone of Brazil certainly may be a factor, but ratings were off the charts for the four U.S. games.  And what country had the greatest number of visitors travel to Brazil for the World Cup?  That would also be the United States.  Again, the fact that it's Brazil and it's convenient/easy to get there were probably big factors (I don't think they'll be lining up to go to Russia in four years, or as many people will be gathering in bars at 6 a.m. to watch games), but the enthusiasm this country showed for this team and this World Cup wasn't fake. 

When FIFA granted the U.S. the World Cup 20 years ago, one of their hopes was that this country would turn into a soccer nation.  Well, we're on the verge of that coming true.  Soccer's never going to be as popular as the other football, but it's not just some passing curiosity either.  Even if people were watching the games for no reason other than national pride, they were still watching the games.  (Ratings for the World Cup have been higher than they were for the NBA Finals.)  And they were still getting into them.  Landon Donovan not making the team was a national story.  Because people know who Landon Donovan is.

Of course, ESPN was hoping the ride would last a little longer.  The World Cup has been a ratings bonanza, mainly because of Team USA.  Now that the U.S. is out, will people keep watching?  Some critics say "No."  They think that people only cared about the World Cup because the Americans were doing well.  I disagree.  My optimistic guess is "Yes, people will keep watching."  Because this World Cup has been Exhibit A as to why soccer is called the "beautiful game."

Most of all, I want to thank Team USA for the ride they took us on over the past two and a half weeks.  This country feels a great amount of pride in their performance, and they deserve to hold their heads high.  Without question, there were some casual "fans" who simply jumped on the bandwagon and are now going to jump off just as quickly.  But not everyone.  And those who get it (of whom there are plenty) couldn't be more satisfied with the showing.  The only disappointment we feel is that it's over.  We wanted more.  We wanted Argentina.

I can't wait until 2018.  Because if this is the start of a soccer renaissance, losing in the round of 16 at the next World Cup will be a disappointment.  And that's a good thing.  USA Soccer is here to stay.  I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL WIN!  I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL WIN!  I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL WIN!