Baseball Playoff Preview

Before I start, I'd like to reiterate that my preseason pick to win the World Series was the Dodgers.  I could've sworn I said Dodgers-Tigers back in March, but I just went back and checked it and saw that I actually had Detroit losing to Texas in the ALCS.  Whoops!  (For the record, I correctly called four of the five NL teams, missing only with the Braves, who I had instead of the Pirates, but only went 2-for-5 in the AL, hitting with Anaheim and Detroit.)

Anyway, I meant to say Dodgers-Tigers six months ago, and I don't see any reason to go any different way now.  I simply think LA and Detroit are the two best teams...and they're both built for October.  So, instead of leading up to the big reveal, the World Series pick came at the beginning.  As for how I think the rest of October will go...

AL Wild Card: The Royals are such a great story.  It's so good to see them in the playoffs for the first time in nearly 30 years.  As for the A's, it's almost too generous to say they limped into the playoffs (I can't say into October, since they technically might not even make it to October).  I guess that's what they get for preparing for the playoffs in July and trading their cleanup hitter for absolutely no reason.  At least they're not going to have to worry about losing Game 5 to the Tigers!  Speaking of trading Cespedes, Jon Lester gets the ball in the Wild Card Game.  This is why Oakland got him.  But Kansas City is countering with James Shields, which is the reason they got him.  Combine that with an absolutely electric crowd and a team that actually played well down the stretch, and I think we see the Royals moving on to play the Angels.

ALDS: Kansas City winning the Wild Card Game would be good for the Angels.  Because I think Oakland is more inclined to give Anaheim a series than the Royals would be.  That assessment is based simply on pitching depth.  That Oakland rotation is probably better than Anaheim's, which has very little behind Jered Weaver and C.J. Wilson (especially with Garrett Richards out).  The Royals, though, wouldn't be able to use Shields until Game 3.  Regardless, the Angels are better than both the Royals and the A's, so I think they win the series either way.  Let's say they sweep Kansas City or beat Oakland in four.

Tigers-Orioles is interesting.  Because Detroit's strength is its pitching and Baltimore's strength is its hitting.  I don't care that the Tigers won "only" 90 games or that they're starting the series on the road.  They're built for the postseason, even more so that they have David Price now.  Their rotation is so deep that Anibal Sanchez will likely head to the bullpen in the playoffs.  Baltimore led the Majors in home runs and was the kings of the walk-off (maybe that was just against the Yankees), but runs are always harder to come by in the playoffs.  The Tigers have won a Game 5 in Oakland in each of the last two years.  This year Game 5's in Baltimore, but I don't see the result changing.

ALCS: It's in the ALCS that the Angels' pitching will hurt them.  Because the Tigers have a definite advantage in that department.  Plus, an Angels-Tigers ALCS would give us the added fun of Cabrera vs. Trout live on the field.  This is the Angels team everyone was expecting when they got out and signed Albert and Josh Hamilton.  But you also have a sense that the Tigers know their window is closing.  They've won four straight division titles, but only been to the World Series once (and got swept).  And if they don't go this year, I have a feeling they might blow the whole thing up this offseason, when Max Scherzer will be a free agent.  Plus, I'd really like to see Torii Hunter in the World Series.  As for a number of games, let's play it safe and say Tigers in six.

NL Wild Card: I'd love to say I see the Pirates doing the trick two years in a row, but I honestly can't.  Pittsburgh burned Gerrit Cole on Sunday, while San Francisco is riding its horse, Madison Bumgarner.  The Pirates have been the better team since the All-Star Break, but the Giants are probably the better team overall.  I'm Bumgarner wasn't pitching, I'd probably say Pittsburgh, but his presence on the mound gives the edge to San Francisco.  Besides, it's an even-numbered year.  The Giants win the World Series in even years.

NLDS: If any team in the National League is going to stop the Dodgers, it'll be the Nationals.  Washington's better than it was two years ago, when they got upset by the Cardinals in the Division Series.  Jordan Zimmermann was an All-Star who threw a no-hitter yesterday...and he's their Game 3 starter.  It's an uphill climb for whoever comes out of that Wild Card Game.  Neither one of them has the horses to hang with the Nationals.  San Francisco probably has a better chance with Bumgarner and Tim Hudson, but I think Washington has a pretty easy time with either one.  Nationals in four.

You know the Dodgers wanted home field very, very badly.  If only because it meant playing the wild card winner instead of the Cardinals.  LA was better than St. Louis last year, but the Cardinals won the NLCS.  On the other hand, that might be a good thing.  Because Clayton Kershaw wasn't very good in that series, and the last thing St. Louis needs is the best pitcher in baseball to have extra motivation.  St. Louis is throwing Wainwright against him in Games 1 & 5, and the Cardinals annoyingly win in the playoffs every year.  If you want to get them, you're better off facing them in a five-game series.  And with Kershaw and Greinke throwing three of those five games, I like the Dodgers' odds of doing just that.  LA in five.

NLCS: This was my preseason call for NLCS, and they're far and away the two best teams in the National League.  I hope it happens, too.  Because it has the potential to be an epic playoff series.  (And because it would finally end the San Francisco-St. Louis back-and-forth cycle.)  They've both got excellent pitching, they've both got excellent hitting, and they've both got pretty good stories.  The Expos/Nationals franchise has never been to the World Series (one of only two teams that hasn't), while, amazingly, it's been 26 years since the Dodgers have been there.  Like the Tigers, the Dodgers have come agonizingly close over the past few seasons, only to come up short.  Not this year.  By just a hair, I'll take Kershaw, Greinke, Hanley and Puig over Strasburg, Gio, Harper and the Zimmerman(n)s.  Dodgers in seven.

World Series: Justin Verlander deserves a chance to get back to the World Series and finally earn a win on baseball's biggest stage.  He's 0-3 all-time in the Fall Classic, and the Tigers won just one game against the Cardinals (2006) and Giants (2012).  Verlander was the best pitcher in baseball a few years ago.  Now that title belongs to Clayton Kershaw.  And, regardless of what the final standings said, the Los Angeles Dodgers are the best, most complete team in baseball.  For both the Dodgers and Tigers, it's World Series or bust.  Unfortunately, only one of them can win.  I've thought all season that the Los Angeles Dodgers would be that team.  Not only do the Dodgers have the dominant starting pitching, they have an advantage none of the other National League teams would have in the World Series.  Their four outfielder problem won't be a problem in the World Series.  Because all four of them can play.  Insert Ethier at DH and the lineup becomes that much deeper.  The Tigers, meanwhile, would definitely be hurt by the lack of a DH at Dodger Stadium.  Because they'd have to figure out a place to put Victor Martinez (left field?) or lose his bat entirely.  That's enough to make a difference.  The Dodgers win the World Series.  In six.

The Rest of Week 4

I've got a bone to pick with the NFL.  Every team gets a Thursday night game.  I get that.  I'm fine with that.  So, why then, knowing the baseball schedule and knowing that Derek Jeter's final home game was going to be on Thursday night, did they schedule the Giants' Thursday night game opposite Jeter's Yankee Stadium finale?  Why couldn't the Thursday night game be Cincinnati-Cleveland or another matchup New Yorkers don't care about?  No!  Instead they make us choose between Derek Jeter and the Giants.  Not cool.

Anyway, rant over.  At least the Giants won, making 3-for-3 in blowouts on Thursday nights (4-for-4 if you count Seahawks-Packers, but I'm only talking about CBS Thursday night games here).  You know what, rant not over.  Because this week is the start of byes and I can't, for the life of me, figure out why there are six.  You made it a point to have eight divisions of four, so why aren't there four byes each week for eight weeks?  Instead you've got a couple weeks with six, a couple weeks with two and a couple weeks with four.  It makes no sense!  And, as a result of the six byes, there are only 10 games on Sunday afternoon this week.

Thursday Night: Giants (Win)

Packers (1-2) at Bears (2-1): Chicago-What's wrong with the Packers?  That's the question a lot of people have been asking at this early point in the season.  It's not time to worry about Green Bay yet, but those concerns do seem valid after barely beating the Jets at home and losing to the Lions (without putting up much of a fight).  Chicago has recovered since that Opening Day loss to Buffalo, but the Bears won't have the national spotlight shining on them this week.  Regardless, Jay Cutler is my backup fantasy quarterback who I'm starting this week during the Broncos' bye, so I need another big game from him and the Bears offense.

Titans (1-2) at Colts (1-2): Indianapolis-See, all it took was playing a division game for the Colts' offense to look like the Colts' offense.  They play another one this week.  Look for the Colts to be 2-2 and right back in the thick of the AFC South race.

Dolphins (1-2) vs. Raiders (0-3): Miami-The first of three London games this year, and this is rough trip for Oakland, which is the "home" team in this one despite it taking place more than 5000 miles away...and at 10:00 in the morning local time.  What makes the trip worse for the Raiders is that they were in New England last week...so they haven't been in California since last Friday.  Oh, and did I mention the Raiders aren't good?  Yeah, all signs point to a Dolphins victory.

Lions (2-1) at Jets (1-2): Detroit-Detroit and the Jets.  Not sure what to make of this one.  The Lions are probably a little better than I think, and the Jets certainly aren't as good as they think.  They almost beat the Packers, then came close against the Bears, and I forget who the Jets player was that said it, but he blamed both losses on the officials (even though another Jets score would've only tied each game).  I wonder whose fault it'll be when the Lions win 27-10.

Buccaneers (0-3) at Steelers (2-1): Pittsburgh-The Bucs have had plenty of time to recover from last Thursday night's shellacking at the hands of the Falcons.  Tampa Bay's one of only three winless teams, joining Jacksonville and Oakland.  A trip to Pittsburgh doesn't improve their chances of finally breaking into the win column.

Panthers (2-1) at Ravens (2-1): Carolina-One of the better games of this week involves two of the three teams most embroiled in the NFL's domestic violence problems.  They both seem to have weathered the storm to an extent, although Carolina's defense certainly had its flaws exposed last week against the Steelers.  Even with the game in Baltimore, I think the Panthers rebound and get the W this week.  Cam Newton will get it done.

Bills (2-1) at Texans (2-1): Houston-Both of these teams suffered their first loss last week, the Bills falling to San Diego and Houston getting its butts kicked by the Giants.  The Texans haven't been home since Week 1, so you can bet they're chomping at the bit to get back to Reliant Stadium.  And they've got J.J. Watt.  With a victory, Houston will be the first team in the NFL to better last season's win total.

Jaguars (0-3) at Chargers (2-1): San Diego-If we've learned anything about the Jaguars over the first three weeks of the season, it's that their defense is still terrible.  I'm not sure their offense is much better, either, but at least they're scoring points this season.  Regardless, they're not flying cross country and winning in San Diego.

Falcons (2-1) at Vikings (1-2): Atlanta-Matt Cassel broke his leg and is out for the year, which means the Vikings are Teddy Bridgewater's team now.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.  Because Bridgewater's going to be the quarterback as the Vikings begin life without Adrian Peterson, and life without Adrian Peterson begins now.  Because he's not coming back.  At least not this season.  And the Vikings have absolutely no clue what they're doing without Adrian Peterson.

Eagles (3-0) at 49ers (1-2): San Francisco-Philadelphia's the only undefeated team in action this week, and they've got a tough trip to Santa Clara for a matchup with a 49ers squad that's desperate for a win.  This really is almost a must-game for San Francisco after back-to-back losses to Chicago and Arizona.  When the 49ers' backs are against the wall, they tend to play well.  I don't see that changing this week, and we'll only have two undefeated teams by Sunday night.

Saints (1-2) at Cowboys (2-1): New Orleans-Speaking of Sunday night, this should be a fun one between New Orleans and Dallas.  The Saints finally got their first win last week against Minnesota, while Dallas made that amazing comeback after falling behind 21-0 in St. Louis.  The Cowboys are 2-1, and both of their victories came on the road, but they beat two teams that aren't the caliber of New Orleans.  Now that the Saints finally have a win, I think they're just getting going.

Patriots (2-1) at Chiefs (1-2): New England-The Royals are going to the playoffs!  Congratulations to them.  They'll probably be hosting the AL Wild Card Game on Tuesday night.  As for the Chiefs' game across the parking lot on Monday night, I don't see it going very well for the home team.  They are, after all, playing the Patriots.

BYE: Arizona (3-0), Cincinnati (3-0), Cleveland (1-2), Denver (2-1), Seattle (2-1), St. Louis (1-2)

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-5
Season: 30-19

A Finish 2 Remember

Of course Derek was going to do something memorable in his final game at Yankee Stadium.  Is anyone surprised?  If there's one guy who you know is always going to rise to the occasion and do something special, it's Derek Jeter.

His Yankee Stadium farewell is certainly going to go down as one of those classic Jeter Moments, and you know this game is going to be seen on Yankees Classics sooner rather than later.  Just like a bunch of Derek's other classic games.  This one will definitely be taking a prominent place in the memory bank.  We'll never see another player like Derek Jeter, and we never will again.  And I'm choosing not to be sad.  I'm choosing to celebrate the career of the last Yankee ever to wear a single-digit number.

The Derek memories are vast, and everyone has their favorites and their reasons why.  For example, the Flip Play is one of his signature moments.  But I, personally, hate the Flip Play.  I think it's incredibly overrated.  Every time I see it, it annoys me.  Because every time I sit there yelling "Slide!"  (Think about it, if Jeremy Giambi slides like he's supposed to, that play never happens.)  Anyway, here are my favorite Jeter Moments, in no particular order, with today's game jumping right onto that list.

• Opening Day, 1996: His first day as the Yankees starting shortstop.  His rookie year, Opening Day in Cleveland.  And Derek goes yard.  It was just the start of something special.
• Mr. November: It took Tino Martinez to set it up, but in Game 4 of the 2001 World Series, we had November baseball for the first time in history.  And it didn't take long for Derek to become "Mr. November," belting a walk-off homer in the bottom of the 10th to tie the series.
• 3000: Derek sure had a flare for the dramatic didn't he?  Why wouldn't his 3000th hit be a home run?  And why wouldn't it come off a brand-name pitcher like David Price?  As Michael Kay said on YES that day, "History, with an exclamation point!"
• The Farewell Speech: When the Yankees closed the Old Stadium, you knew it was going to be special.  (They played the Orioles in that one, too.  Baltimore picks good years to end the season in the Bronx.)  When the game ended in a Yankees win, with all of the stars through the years there, you knew there was going to be one last magic moment.  And that moment wasn't even a play.  It was The Captain speaking for all those generations of Yankees, taking the microphone and thanking the fans.
• Mariano's Farewell: Did he draw some inspiration from seeing his friend and fellow Core Four member hang it up last season?  I think so.  Derek's goodbye was completely different, but his role in Mariano's was equally special.  Derek and Andy Pettitte came out of the dugout to take Rivera out of the game, Derek told Mo, "It's time to go," and Rivera wept on Pettitte's shoulder.
• Game 4, 2000 World Series: The Mets had won Game 3 to get back in the series, but Derek sent a message leading off Game 4, sending a blast over the left field wall at Shea Stadium.  The Yankees won the game to go up 3-1, then clinched their third straight title a night later.  And Derek was named World Series MVP after hitting .409 in the five games.
• Breaking Lou Gehrig's Yankees Hits Record: It was probably the first great moment at the New Stadium.  On September 11, 2009, Derek hit one of his trademark inside-out singles to the opposite field for his 2,721st career hit, breaking Lou Gehrig's franchise record.
• Breaking Gehrig's Yankee Stadium Hits Record: A year earlier, Derek broke another one of Gehrig's records.  On the Yankees' final homestand at the Old Stadium, Derek rose to the top.  In the 85-year history of the Old Yankee Stadium, with all the Hall of Famers and baseball legends that have worn Yankees pinstripes in that time, no one had more hits than Derek Jeter.
• His Final All-Star Game: To all the idiots who said that Jeter didn't deserve to be on the AL All-Star Team this year, you simply don't get it.  Yes, he deserved to be there.  And yes, he deserved to start.  And the ending John Farrell gave him was perfect, too.  He went out to his position in the top of the fourth, only to have Alexei Ramirez of the White Sox come in before the inning started so Derek could get the ovation he richly deserved.  (It reminded me a little of the 1999 All-Star Game in Boston, when he started, then gave way to Nomar.)
• Jeffrey Maier: It's weird that a lot of Derek's memorable plays have come against the Orioles, isn't it?  This one, of course, is his walk-off home run in Game 1 of the 1996 ALCS that was "helped" over the fence by the 12-year-old Jeffrey Maier.  The Yankees won the series in five, and a dynasty was born.
• His First Hit: Honestly, I don't actually remember his first hit.  It was in May of 1995.  I was 13 years old.  And the game was in Seattle, so I was probably in bed when it happened.  But it was the first of many.  Only five men in history have had more.
• His First Grand Slam: For years, every time he came up with the bases loaded, they'd throw up that stat saying how many at-bats he had without a grand slam.  It was getting to the point where it was ridiculous.  Until 2003.  When the Yankees were playing the Cubs at the Old Stadium and Derek finally got rid of that zero, crushing one to left center for his only career grand slam.
• Tonight: Yes, it goes on the list.  How could it not?  It was a very Jeterian ending.  Just like a single through the hole to right field or a leaping throw from the outfield grass to nab a runner at first.
• Homering In His Return From the DL Last Season: The 2013 season is one Derek would love to forget.  It was completely derailed by injuries.  But that didn't stop Derek from producing a very Jeter moment in one of the few games he did play.  The first pitch of his first game back from one of his many DL stints, and he hits one out.
• His Last Home Run: At least I hope it's his last.  This one is a little more personal for me...because I was sitting in the stands last Thursday against Toronto when he belted his only Yankee Stadium home run of the year.  The best part was I got it on video.

All of those moments were great in their own right, but I have a favorite that stands out above the rest.  The date was July 1, 2004.  It was the height of the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry.  The game was an absolute classic.  John Flaherty, the last man on the bench, ended it with a walk-off single in the 13th.  Flaherty was batting in Jeter's lineup spot.  Jeter was out of the game because, in the top of the 12th, he made a running catch to end the inning, and crashed face-first into the box seats along the third base line.  He emerged with the ball, bleeding from his cheek, and he probably would've stayed in if he wasn't due up second in the bottom of the 12th.

Of all the memories Derek Jeter provided us Yankees fans over the years.  Twenty seasons, five championships, seven pennants, more than 3700 hits, there's no one like No. 2.  Not even close.  The Face of the Yankees, the Face of Baseball, one of the classiest men ever to play the game.  He will be missed.

The Asian/Pacific Games?

Currently taking place a long way away from here (Incheon, South Korea to be exact) and a long way from Americans' collective radar are the Asian Games, the largest international multi-sports event in the world outside the Olympics.  This is a very interesting time for the Asian Games.  Incheon spent millions, and Hanoi, Vietnam, which was supposed to host the next edition in 2019 pulled out as host due to the cost.  Instead, the next edition was moved up to 2018, and Jakarta, Indonesia has been announced as the replacement host.

But, the hosting issues aside, the most interesting news coming out of the Asian Games is that they might not be the "Asian" Games much longer.  Or, I should say, just the Asian Games.  They've already approved letting the countries from Oceania participate in the Asian Indoor Games, and you'd have to figure participation in the Asian Winter Games, as well as the Asian Games themselves isn't far behind.

I have to say, that makes a lot of sense for everyone involved.  When we say "Oceania," we of course mean Australia and, to a lesser extent, New Zealand.  Tuvalu and Palau and Fiji and all those other Pacific islands would obviously be included, too, but they're not the reason this is being discussed.  This is being discussed because the Asian Games sees the value of adding Australia.  And Australia would undoubtedly benefit from the increased competition they often fail to get in regional events, where New Zealand is usually the only nation that's remotely close to the same class.

That overall lack of competition is the main reason why the Australian soccer team left Oceania for Asia following the 2006 World Cup.  That move has paid off very nicely.  Australia has qualified for the last two World Cups and become one of the top teams in the region.  New Zealand, meanwhile, which became the top team in Oceania by default, languishes in the 50s with its world ranking, and its World Cup chances are left to a playoff against another region, which is obviously going to be a very strong opponent (they drew Bahrain in 2010 and won, but lost to Mexico in 2014).

For Australia and New Zealand, being stuck in regional competition with all the small Pacific islands doesn't help them when it comes to bigger events and the opponents are obviously significantly stronger.  It also doesn't help them that the populations of countries like Tonga and Kiribati are so small that they can't even field a team in a lot of sports. 

And forget about winter sports.  There's no competitive forum for Australian winter athletes other than the worldwide international events.  Despite this significant obstacle, Australia's winter sports programs have gotten significantly stronger.  They sent 60 athletes to Sochi and won three medals, the sixth straight Winter Olympics in which Australia won at least one medal.  (In fact, it was the first time since 1998 that Australia didn't win at least one gold at a Winter Olympics.)

Asia and Oceania being combined in sporting competition isn't unprecedented.  The IAAF Continental Cup just ended, and Asia/Pacific was a combined squad.  (So were the Americas for that matter.)  And from a competitive standpoint, it would obviously help Australia, but you'd have to think it would also help the Asian athletes to have Australia there, even if it means there'd be less medals available to some of the smaller Asian countries.

Most importantly, it makes financial sense for the Olympic Council of Asia, which runs the Asian Games.  Australia is a first-world nation that obviously has a very strong economy.  Incheon's going extremely over-budget and the Hanoi situation has made it clear that some of these smaller Asian nations simply can't afford to host these events.  Australia would have no problem taking on those costs, and there are plenty of Australian cities that would make capable hosts of an Asian Games or similar event.

With the next two Olympics after Rio taking place in Asia (and two of the three finalists for 2022 also being from Asia), as well as the 2018 World Cup currently scheduled for Qatar, it's clear that Asian nations are willing to take on the highest-profile events.  But the Asian Games are a different story.  Adding Oceania could raise their profile, especially given how much Australians love their sports. 

Who knows, maybe adding Oceania to the Asian Games would lead to a greater cooperation between the two regions.  Maybe it would even result in Asia/Oceania eventually merging into a single confederation across the board.  The way I see it, that would benefit everybody.

The Best Sports Cities

ESPN The Magazine just released its annual list where it ranks all 122 teams in the four major sports.  This list is pretty comprehensive.  They take everything (I totally just felt like Stefon there) into account, from ticket prices to likeability of the players to how close they are to winning a championship.

The San Antonio Spurs had the best ranking in nine of ESPN's 18 categories and ended up in the top spot overall.  I can't argue with that.  The Spurs are a class organization that's well-run and obviously has a championship pedigree that I think can continue even after Tim Duncan finally retires (whenever that may be).  The rest of the top five was the Ducks, Seahawks, Grizzlies and LA Kings.

On the opposite end of the spectrum was the Toronto Maple Leafs, who came in 122nd.  Then there's the New York teams.  We've got a lot of them here in the Big Apple.  Eight teams across the four major sports, nine if you count the Devils.  And four of those teams (the Jets, Mets, Islanders and Knicks) occupied spots between 113 and 121.  At least it's diverse (one from each sport).  It's not like it's much better for the higher-ranked New York teams, though.  The highest was the Rangers at 70 (or the Devils at 47). 

In fact, the big cities with multiple teams in multiple sports actually occupied a lot of the lower places, probably due in no small part to the ticket prices and the fans' perception of the players on those squads, which is much different than it is in, say, Oklahoma City.

It's fairly obvious that New York doesn't rank as the top overall sports city in the eyes of ESPN.  But which city does?  Well, I decided I was going to try and figure it out. 

There are 12 cities that have at least one team in each of the four leagues (I'm counting the Sharks as part of San Francisco/Oakland for the sake of this exercise).  LA, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Houston are among the cities/areas that are represented in three of the four (Milwaukee also counts if you include the Packers).  Since Toronto is represented in three of the four sports, as well, they're also included.

I took ESPN's ranking for each team that plays in one of these cities, then divided by the number of pro teams that city has to come up with an average.  The lowest average is the unofficial "Best Sports City In America."

So, how do the cities stack up?  Let's see:

Cities In All Four Leagues
Dallas 45.5 (Number of Teams: 4-Rangers 54, Cowboys 107, Mavericks 9, Stars 12)
Phoenix 48.3 (Number of Teams: 4-Diamondbacks 30, Cardinals 58, Suns 64, Coyotes 41)
San Francisco 51.8 (Number of Teams: 6-Athletics 50, Giants 32, Raiders 119, 49ers 27, Warriors 52, Sharks 31)
Denver 55.5 (Number of Teams: 4-Rockies 91, Broncos 17, Nuggets 98, Avalanche 16)
Boston 57 (Number of Teams: 4-Red Sox 80, Patriots 43, Celtics 66, Bruins 39)
Chicago 62.8 (Number of Teams: 5-White Sox 57, Cubs 117, Bears 77, Bulls 53, Blackhawks 10)
Detroit 68.3 (Number of Teams: 4-Tigers 37, Lions 111, Pistons 105, Red Wings 20)
Minneapolis 75.8 (Number of Teams: 4-Twins 62, Vikings 103, Timberwolves 114, Wild 24)
Philadelphia 76.3 (Number of Teams: 4-Phillies 83, Eagles 69, 76ers 93, Flyers 60)
Washington 81.8 (Number of Teams: 4-Nationals 51, Redskins 109, Wizards 73, Capitals 94)
Miami 85 (Number of Teams: 4-Marlins 96, Dolphins 108, Heat 34, Panthers 102)
New York 91.8 (Number of Teams: 9-Yankees 86, Mets 118, Giants 79, Jets 113, Knicks 121, Nets 76, Rangers 70, Devils 47, Islanders 116)

Cities In Three Leagues
Pittsburgh 28.3 (Number of Teams: 3-Pirates 22, Steelers 38, Penguins 25)
Los Angeles 38.2 (Number of Teams: 6-Angels 15, Dodgers 61, Lakers 87, Clippers 59, Kings 5, Ducks 2)
St. Louis 39.3 (Number of Teams: 3-Cardinals 19, Rams 88, Blues 11)
Tampa 41.7 (Number of Teams: 3-Rays 35, Buccaneers 84, Lightning 6)
Milwaukee 50.3 (Number of Teams: 3-Brewers 23, Packers 8, Bucks 120)
Atlanta 53.3 (Number of Teams: 3-Braves 45, Falcons 67, Hawks 48)
Houston 72 (Number of Teams: 3-Astros 95, Texans 72, Rockets 49)
Cleveland 85.7 (Number of Teams: 3-Indians 46, Browns 110, Cavaliers 101)
Toronto 92.3 (Number of Teams: 3-Blue Jays 81, Raptors 74, Maple Leafs 122)

There you go, it's Pittsburgh.  Which actually makes a lot of sense.  Because all three teams are good, all three teams are likeable, and Pittsburgh's a blue-collar town, which means games have to be fun and affordable.  Although, the top spot probably would've gone to LA if it wasn't being dragged down by the Lakers.

As for the four-sport cities, I'm a little surprised Dallas ended up on top.  Another things the fans can thank Mark Cuban for, I guess.  The Mavericks and Blackhawks are the only teams among the 56 that play in four-sport towns that ranked among ESPN's Top 10.

The Rest of Week 3

So...that Thursday night game was really close, huh?  It kind of reminded me of the Super Bowl.  Speaking of the Super Bowl, rematches in the following regular season just don't happen that often.  In fact, this is the first time in 17 years that we're getting one.  It's a little weird that it isn't the Sunday night game (and Steelers-Panthers is).  Regardless, Broncos-Seahawks is obviously the game of the week.

Thursday Night: Atlanta (Win)

Chargers (1-1) at Bills (2-0): San Diego-How 'bout them first place Buffalo Bills?!  I'm going to enjoy it while it lasts.  Because I don't expect it to last much longer.  Especially with the way San Diego played in knocking off Seattle last week.  The Chargers are simply a better team than the Bills.  Although, they are a West Coast team flying cross-country for a 1:00 game.

Titans (1-1) at Bengals (2-0): Cincinnati-I don't understand why some people are surprised Cincinnati is off to a 2-0 start.  I think the Bengals are one of the best teams in the AFC, if not the entire NFL.  Now they get to play a Titans team that they should be able to handle at home.  Move Cincinnati to 3-0.

Ravens (1-1) at Browns (1-1): Baltimore-It's been a long time and a lot of negative publicity since the Baltimore Ravens last played, and I bet they're chomping at the bit to finally get back on the field.  This was originally supposed to be the game when they got Ray Rice back, but it's now just another game since they've moved on from the former face of the franchise.  Normally against Cleveland I wouldn't think that would matter, but the Browns have been surprising this year, almost winning in Pittsburgh then beating the Saints.  I wouldn't be surprised to see another Cleveland victory here, but I'm going with the Ravens because of that extra rest.

Packers (1-1) at Lions (1-1): Green Bay-What happened to that Lions team that thoroughly dismantled the Giants on the opening Monday night?  Because they just looked plain awful last week in Carolina.  The Packers survived a scare against the Jets and possibly only won because of that Marty Mornhinweg timeout that should've have been.  But they did.  That's what good teams do.  And the Packers are a good team.

Cowboys (1-1) at Rams (1-1): Dallas-I'm going to give the Tampa Bay Bucs credit for the Rams' win last week.  Because, after Thursday night, it's pretty clear I think I could get 10 friends together and we might be able to score a touchdown on the Tampa Bay defense.  Dallas will continue to do what it always does.  Show up against bad teams, not show up against good teams.  Against St. Louis, that should equal a Dallas win.

Raiders (0-2) at Patriots (1-1): New England-The Patriots were nice enough to spot the Vikings a touchdown last week...then outscored them 30-0 over the rest of the game.  Now they get the Raiders in their home opener.  Do I really need to say any more than that?

Vikings (1-1) at Saints (0-2): New Orleans-The fact that Minnesota was originally going to let Adrian Peterson suit up for this game still sickens me.  But that's a discussion for another day.  We saw last week how inept the Vikings offense is without him, which means this might be a long year in the Twin Cities.  The Saints badly need a win, especially after being upset last week in Cleveland.  They should get it here.

Texans (2-0) at Giants (0-2): Houston-I, for one, am not really surprised that Houston is 2-0.  Granted, they've played the Redskins and the Raiders, but that record is more than simply playing two weak opponents.  As much as it pains me to say it, the Texans might be playing a third straight weak opponent in the Giants.  ESPN SportsNation had a poll asking if they should bench Eli Manning, and the majority of people said "Yes."  Which is ridiculous.  It's not Eli's fault the running backs can't hold on to the ball and the special teams can't tackle anybody!

Redskins (1-1) at Eagles (2-0): Philadelphia-Surprise, surprise, Robert Griffin III is hurt.  Again.  And out for at least a month.  DeSean Jackson is hurt, too, but he's determined to play against the Eagles.  Especially in Philadelphia, where he's probably not going to receive much brotherly love after going to Washington.  Both these teams beat Jacksonville, but the Eagles also had that impressive comeback against a Colts team that's actually good on Monday night.

Colts (0-2) at Jaguars (0-2): Indianapolis-Speaking of the Colts and Jaguars, they'll break their tie for last place in the AFC South this week.  Although, they're completely different 0-2s.  The Colts' two opponents were fellow 2013 division winners who very well might be again.  The Jaguars, meanwhile, have reverted to the Jaguars of old.  They've been outscored 75-10 since taking that 17-0 lead in Philadelphia.  And this week, they get to play inside their own empty stadium for the first time this season.

49ers (1-1) at Cardinals (2-0): San Francisco-An early showdown that could go a long way in determining who wins the NFC West.  Especially because Arizona isn't going away.  They proved that last week when they went to New York and beat the Giants.  As for the 49ers, I really have no idea what happened last week.  All I know is they collapsed on Sunday night and the Bears spoiled the opening of Levi's Stadium.  This will be a very interesting one.  I think the winner has to be considered the favorite to challenge Seattle in the division.

Chiefs (0-2) at Dolphins (1-1): Miami-For some reason, they felt the need to make this a second late game on CBS, preventing Broncos-Seahawks from being shown nationally.  Which I'm sure the people in South Florida, Western Missouri and Kansas are oh so grateful for!  Anyway, I'm going Dolphins simply because I think they're better than the Chiefs.

Broncos (2-0) at Seahawks (1-1): Seattle-I'm sure there are some people that are upset they don't both go into the rematch at 2-0, but I'm more upset it's taking place so early in the season.  (And in honor of the announcers of the Seahawks-Chargers game repeatedly pointing out how many days it's been since Seattle's last loss, which included six months of not playing any games at all, I will now note that Denver's last loss came to the Seahawks in the Super Bowl.)  During the Chargers game, they kept saying how San Diego was exposing Seattle's defense.  The Seattle defense is the primary reason they dominated the meeting in New York in February, but let's not forget the role the Seahawks offense played.  The Broncos' defense is much better, and you know Peyton is eager to get redemption for one of his worst games as a pro.  For those reasons, I think this one will be much closer than the Super Bowl blowout.  However, the Seahawks don't lose at home, and the 12th Man is going to remind the Broncos who won that banner they'll be looking up at the whole game.  I can't wait to watch it.

Steelers (1-1) at Panthers (2-0): Carolina-I'm not really sure what to make of the Steelers.  They almost lost to Cleveland at home, then got whooped in Baltimore.  The good news is they've had 10 days off to fix what went wrong against the Ravens.  The bad news is they're going to Carolina to face the undefeated Panthers.  Many experts thought Carolina would come back to the pack in the NFC South, and some still aren't that impressed.  I am, though.  They romped all over the Lions, and they're much better with Cam Newton than without.  Keeping those two things in mind, I'll say Carolina.

Bears (1-1) at Jets (1-1): Chicago-The Monday night game pits two teams that we still don't really know how good they are.  The Bears lost at home to Buffalo, which they shouldn't have, but had that crazy comeback win over a good 49ers team in Santa Clara.  The Jets think they're better than they actually are (they beat the Raiders at home), but they did show me something in Green Bay.  And you know they always get up for national TV appearances.  Problem is, so do the Bears.  The Jets are favored, but it would surprise absolutely no one if Chicago went into MetLife Stadium and came out with a win.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-8
Season: 19-14

Sporting Implications of Scottish Independence

By this time tomorrow, we'll know the results of the historic vote taking place in Scotland.  The vote, of course, is whether or not Scotland will remain a part of Great Britain.  A simple majority and Scotland will break off into an independent country.  While I obviously don't have a horse in the race, I think Scottish independence is a bad idea.  My opinion, of course, doesn't matter, but the sporting implications, just like the economic and political ones (which are the main reasons why I think it's a bad idea), of this vote are vast.

Let's start with the most obvious: the Rio Olympics.  The IOC made it a rule a few years ago that you need to be recognized by the UN in order to receive IOC recognition.  Scottish leaders predict that, if the referendum is successful, it'll take 18 months for Scotland's government to become fully operational and the country to become a full voting member of the European Union.  That timetable brings us to March 2016...just four months before the start of the Rio Games.  Which is simply not enough time for an independent Scottish Olympic team to go to Rio.

There are other things necessary for a nation to become eligible to field an Olympic team.  For starters, a National Olympic Committee needs to be established.  That part doesn't seem too hard, seeing as Scotland sends its own team to the Commonwealth Games, but it's also worth noting that South Sudan has been an independent country for almost three years and still doesn't have an NOC!  They also need to have a certain number of national federations recognized by the international federation in the given sport.  Again, this doesn't seem like it would be much of a problem for Scotland, which already fields its own national team in soccer, rugby and a number of other sports.

It shouldn't be a problem for Scotland to get any of this put in place.  Except for the tight timing.  I'm sure some of the steps would be made during those 18 months, but that doesn't change the qualifying window.  And there's no guarantee that Scotland would be able to have the most important thing it needs--the recognized NOC.

Regardless, the IOC has promised protection to those Scottish athletes who qualify for Rio.  If there's no Scottish team in Rio, they'd all still be allowed to go.  After all, they'd remain British citizens, so the option to compete for Great Britain would always be there (I'd imagine it'd be a situation similar to that of Northern Ireland, whose athletes have the option of representing Great Britain or Ireland, which golfer Rory McIlroy will do in Rio).  At worst, Scottish athletes would be able to compete under the Olympic flag, which is what the South Sudanese athletes did in London and the Indian athletes did at the Opening Ceremony in Sochi.

Speaking of Scottish athletes, there were 16 that won medals in London.  The most famous of which is Andy Murray, who became a British national hero with his gold medal in tennis, followed by ending the home country's Wimbledon drought in 2013 (that would still count as a British win even if Scotland does secede).  Swimmer Hannah Miley, meanwhile, is the reigning European champion in the 400 IM, an event in which she finished fifth in London.  There are also a number of track & field stars from Scotland, most notably 400 meter hurdlers Eilidh Child and Dai Greene, as well as European 800 meter champion Lynsey Sharp.  Plenty of top-ranked golfers are Scottish, too, although none would qualify for Rio as members of a British team.

In fact, Britian's most successful Olympian ever is Scottish.  Sir Chris Hoy won seven career Olympic medals in cycling, including six golds, two of which came in London.  Interestingly, though, Hoy has spoken out about against Scottish independence.  He warned that it would negatively affect Scottish athletes, who would no longer have access to the world-class training facilities in England.  Or get a cut of the lottery money that funds the British Olympic team and is a big reason why Great Britain has been so successful in recent Games.

Of course, that's not something the Scots are thinking about.  Those that favor independence are caught up in nationalistic pride, and they'll point to the Scottish success at the recent Commonwealth Games, which they hosted in Glasgow.  Scotland won 19 gold medals and 53 overall, which were each the highest total in their history.  Although, success at the Commonwealth Games needs to viewed cautiously.  A number of those medals were won in sports that aren't in the Olympics, and the competition at the Commonwealth Games is significantly weaker.

And I haven't even brought up the impact it would have on golf.  Golf was invented in Scotland, and the British Open alternates between Scotland and England every year, with a regular stop at the sport's Holy Grail, the Royal & Ancient in St. Andrews.  You'd have to wonder whether Scotland would be removed from the rotation or if they'd work out some sort of arrangement to keep things as is.

I'm also worried for a British Davis Cup team that wouldn't include Andy Murray.

Whatever happens, there's little doubt that the Scottish independence referendum will have some sort of impact on the world of sports.  Could an independent Scotland succeed athletically?  Yes, depending on the sport.  Would Scottish athletes be better off if the country remained a part of Great Britain?  The answer to that one is a much more definitive "Yes."  For their sake, I hope the referendum fails.  Because otherwise, it might be a long road for even the elite Scottish athletes.

Image Is Everything

Remember those Canon commercials with Andre Agassi from the early 90s?  The ones with the tagline "Image is everything?"  It's pretty clear that the NFL doesn't.  Because the most image-conscious league of them all has a serious image problem on its hands.  And what's worse, they seem completely unable or unwilling to do something about it.

From Josh Gordon to Ray Rice to Greg Hardy to Adrian Peterson, no news is good news coming out of the NFL right now.  Yet Roger Goodell is nowhere to be seen.  He's letting the inmates run the asylum.

The NFL's personal conduct policy was put into place for situations like these.  Things that take place off the playing field, but are serious enough to warrant league discipline.  Goodell alone has the power to suspend players under the personal conduct policy, and he sure didn't hesitate to use that power once it was given to him.  But ever since he went overboard on the penalties for the Saints players involved in Bountygate, he's been hesitant to drop the hammer.  Even in the situations where it's most warranted.

Of course, Bountygate isn't the only situation where Goodell has blown it.  Even he has admitted that giving Rice only a two-game suspension was far too lenient.  Especially now that that video has been released.  How is it possible that he never saw the actual video from inside the elevator before TMZ leaked it?  Not only does he look soft, he looks totally clueless or, worse, blissfully ignorant.  It was only after the extended video came out that Goodell extended Rice's suspension indefinitely.  Rice will appeal on the grounds that he's being punished a second time for the same offense.  As much as Ray Rice has no place in the NFL right now, I actually think his appeal has some merit.  This isn't new evidence.  It's just evidence that nobody bothered to find before.  Regardless, Ray Rice doesn't have a team to play for (because the Ravens did the right thing and released him), so it really doesn't matter if he's technically allowed to play in the NFL or not.

Then there's Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy.  Hardy didn't play last week in wake of his July 15 conviction for assaulting and threatening a woman.  But the decision to deactivate him was made by the Panthers.  The NFL hasn't said "Boo" about the Greg Hardy situation.

At least the Panthers did the right thing by deactivating Hardy and keeping him out until who knows when.  That's more than I can say for the Minnesota Vikings.  Because it's an absolute joke that Adrian Peterson will be allowed to participate in a professional football game on Sunday.  What Peterson did is worse than what Ray Rice did.  He hit a four-year-old child.  With a switch.  Hard enough to warrant charges being pressed against Peterson in Texas.  And it wasn't the first time! 

Peterson's punishment for all this?  One game.  He had to sit out the Vikings' home opener against the Patriots on Sunday, but will be back in uniform when Minnesota plays New Orleans next week.  (And don't get me started on how wrong and disturbing it was that Vikings fans made a joke of it by showing up to the Patriots game wearing Peterson jerseys and carrying tree branches.)

Contrast all three of these situations to that of Josh Gordon.  Gordon is currently suspended for the entire year.  For smoking pot.  There's more to it than that, but essentially, it's because he failed a test for marijuana, which was his second failed test.  And that's where Goodell's critics get their most ammunition.  Gordon gets 16 games for getting high, Rice gets two! for beating his fiancée, Peterson gets NONE for beating his child.  It looks like Gordon's suspension will probably get reduced to eight games, but that hardly seems to matter.  The point remains.

Now, don't get be wrong.  I do believe that Gordon deserved to be suspended.  He was, after all, arrested for engaging in an illegal activity.  But I don't think there's a single person out there who thinks what Josh Gordon did is even remotely close to in the same league as what Rice, Hardy and Peterson did.  Yet Gordon gets suspended for the whole season and the other three get a slap on the wrist?  Something doesn't add up here.

Perhaps the biggest problem with all of this is the clear double standard being set.  Adrian Peterson and Ray Rice are superstars, so they get off easy.  Josh Gordon is a "problem," so the hammer comes down on him for what, in comparison, is a minor offense (which isn't even illegal everywhere).  If we want to take the double standard a step further, Colts owner Jim Irsay was booked for a DUI over the summer...and he was only banned for six games (or, 10 less than Josh Gordon).  Shouldn't the owners should be held to a higher standard than the players?

Simply put, Roger Goodell doesn't get it.  I'll give him credit for admitting he dropped the ball on Ray Rice, but where's he been with the other guys?  And that domestic violence policy the NFL drafted during the Rice fallout was too little, too late.  Sponsors are falling by the wayside and every NFL-related headline is negative.  Yet he can't come out and say what everyone else is already thinking. 

The NFL has a serious problem on its hands, and it needs to get fixed.  ASAP.  It's times like these when a good leader leads.  Take Adam Silver with Donald Sterling.  Yet with his league's and his own reputation at stake, Roger Goodell says and does nothing.  That says all you need to know.

Brian Cashman's Greatest Hits

A bunch of people I know went to go see Yankees GM Brian Cashman speak last week.  (It was on Monday, so I decided to go home and watch the US Open final/Giant game instead of waiting around for the speech.)  Anyway, when they were telling me about it afterwards, the Q&A period was brought up.  Cashman was asked something along the lines of "What transaction do you regret?," and a number of people in the audience immediately started with the cough...Carl Pavano...cough.

It always bothers me when people immediately bring up Carl Pavano as this giant black mark against Cashman.  Sure, it didn't work out.  But who could've foreseen Pavano being injured for basically his entire Yankees career?  On paper, he saw a guy who filled a need that could help the team.  And if you look at what Pavano did in Florida before he came to the Yankees and in Minnesota since he left, you can see why he wanted him.  It's not Cashman's fault Pavano couldn't stay healthy, and it's unfair to blame him for that fact.  Especially since he's made plenty of other moves that turned out a lot worse than Carl Pavano.

Just a few examples...

Kei Igawa: I'm not blaming him for Hideki Irabu because that was all George Steinbrenner, but Cashman definitely deserves a good portion of the "credit" for Kei Igawa.  He was so good in Japan, that the Yankees paid a $26 million posting fee just to talk to him, then gave him a five-year, $20 million contract.  And what did they get for that $46 million investment exactly?  A 2-4 record and 6.66 ERA, followed by three years in the minors.

Josh Phelps: The Yankees took Phelps in the 2006 Rule 5 Draft, meaning he had to stay on the big league roster all season or they'd lose him.  And with Phelps guaranteed a roster spot, that meant there was no room for Bernie Williams.  So I already didn't like him, then he didn't exactly do anything to change that perception.  He was released in mid-June, which means Bernie Williams was cut so that this schmo could be on the team for two months.

Nick Johnson: One of the reasons I give Cashman a break on Carl Pavano is because there was no way to predict Pavano would be so chronically injured.  Not so with Nick Johnson.  This guy occupied a permanent place on the disabled list of the Expos/Nationals and Marlins after leaving the Yankees, yet for some reason was brought back as a free agent in 2010.  And guess what happened.  A season-ending wrist injury on May 8.  Shocking, I know!

LaTroy Hawkins/Kyle Farnsworth: They're lumped together because there's very little to differentiate them.  They both sucked.  Hawkins holds a slightly higher ranking in my mind because on top of not being good, he wore Paul O'Neill's number for a week and didn't understand why the fans didn't like that.  There were two reasons, LaTroy.  Farnsworth was never good, yet somehow lasted three seasons before the Yankees turned him into Pudge Rodgriuez, who was a strange acquisition in his own right.

Ian Kennedy/Phil Hughes/Joba Chamberlain: Likewise, it's very difficult to make a distinction between this trio.  It was his bright idea to have all three of them in the starting rotation as rookies in 2008.  It was a noble effort, but it didn't work, and the Yankees missed the playoffs for the first time since 1993.  Kennedy was traded to Arizona in the Curtis Granderson trade and has actually had a decent career.  Same with Phil Hughes, who found a fair amount of success in Pinstripes.  Then there's Fatso.  They messed with his head with that whole "Is he a starter, is he a reliever?" nonsense, and he was consistently inconsistent after that lights out 2007 rookie year.  The Yankees had absolutely no interest in bringing back either Hughes or Chamberlain when they became free agents after last season.

But, to be fair, Cashman has also been responsible for some moves that really paid off.  That even includes all of those moves last season that kept them in the race a lot longer than they should've been, from picking Vernon Wells and Lyle Overbay up off the scrap heap to the midseason trade for Alfonso Soriano.  So what if Soriano was released in the middle of this season after becoming an automatic strikeout.

Aaron Boone: Let's go back to 2003.  The Yankees traded Robin Ventura and needed a new third baseman, so they made a trade with the Reds to get Aaron Boone.  And in October he permanently entered Yankees lore while also earning a new middle name in Boston.  Then in the offseason he hurt his knee playing basketball, which gave the Yankees an excuse to trade for Alex Rodriguez.  Take your personal feelings about Alex Rodriguez today out of the equation.  That was a steal 10 years ago.

Bobby Abreu: Much like the last two seasons, everybody was injured in 2006.  So at the trade deadline, Cashman pulled off one of the shrewdest deals of his entire tenure by getting Abreu from the Phillies for four low-level minor leaguers.  And he had a great two-and-a-half years in Pinstripes.  Abreu hit .295 for his Yankees career, had 100 RBIs in both 2007 and 2008, and he finished second in the AL in runs in 2007.

Raul Ibanez: We're looking at the second straight year of the Yankees missing out on the playoffs.  They haven't won a playoff game since Game 5 of the 2012 ALDS against Baltimore, and they wouldn't have won that series without Raul Ibanez.  If not for Ibanez, Derek Jeter might not have broken his ankle in Game 1 of the ALCS against Detroit, either.  His big postseason home runs stand out the most, but his regular season was pretty good, too.  Signed to be a part-time DH, the 40-year-old got a lot more playing time than expected, especially in the outfield, and hit 19 home runs, many of the dramatic variety.

Orlando Hernandez: El Duque was his first big free agent signing, and he was arguably the best.  He came over from Cuba in 1998 and went 12-4, finishing fourth in Rookie of the Year voting.  He was even better in the playoffs, winning his first eight postseason starts for the 1998, 1999 and 2000 World Series champions.  Hernandez was also MVP of the 1999 ALCS.

CC Sabathia/A.J. Burnett/Mark Teixeira: After missing the playoffs in 2008, the Yankees went out and spent big in the offseason.  And the three pieces they got were integral in winning the World Series the following October.  They got an ace and a slugging, switch-hitting first baseman.  And say what you want about A.J. and how his Yankees career ended, but there's no denying how valuable he was in 2009.  They don't win that World Series without him.

That's just a sampling of the good and the bad during Brian Cashman's tenure as Yankees GM.  There are plenty more that could've fit into either category.  There are also some moves that are still to be determined, although the Masahiro Tanaka signing and the Michael Pineda/Jesus Montero trade are both looking pretty good for the Yankees right now.

The Rest of Week 2

I had an OK Week 1.  10-6.  Not great, but enough for a wild card.  I'll take it, though.  Especially since I got a real scare when Jacksonville took a 17-0 lead on the Eagles in my survival game.  Fortunately the Eagles pulled it out and somewhat salvaged my week.

...Then I go pick the Steelers on Thursday and they get slaughtered.  So it looks like I'm going to need a good Sunday/Monday to redeem myself.

Thursday Night: Pittsburgh (Loss)

Dolphins (1-0) at Bills (1-0): Miami-After both recording upsets last week, the Dolphins and Bills are tied for first in the AFC East.  (OK, technically Miami's in first place since they won a division game, but that's besides the point.)  A lot of things are going well for the Bills right now.  They're 1-0.  It's the home opener.  It's Dolphins Week.  And Sabres owner Terry Pegula is going to buy the team and keep it in Buffalo.  All signs are pointing towards a Bills victory here.  But I'm going to play the odds and take the favored Dolphins.

Falcons (1-0) at Bengals (1-0): Cincinnati-How impressive was Atlanta last week?!  I knew the Falcons were going to show they actually aren't as bad as they were last season, and a win over New Orleans went a long way towards proving that.  As for Cincinnati, I don't know why people are surprised they went into Baltimore and won.  The Bengals are good.  Probably the best team in the AFC North.  And they're looking at 2-0.

Saints (0-1) at Browns (0-1): New Orleans-It might sound weird to call Week 2 a "must-win," but you've gotta think the Saints are already feeling the pressure after losing to the Falcons.  Especially since Carolina won without Cam Newton last week.  Fortunately for the Saints, they're playing the Browns.  Cleveland came close to pulling off the upset in Pittsburgh, and very well might again this week.  But once again, I think they'll come up short and the better team will win.

Cowboys (0-1) at Titans (1-0): Dallas-This was perhaps the hardest game of the weekend to pick.  Dallas got thumped by the 49ers, while the Titans went into Kansas City and pulled out a win.  Total toss-up here.  The Cowboys are one of the most schizophrenic teams in football.  If the Good Cowboys show up, they should be able to beat the Titans.

Patriots (0-1) at Vikings (1-0): New England-When's the last time the Patriots were in sole possession of last place in the AFC East?  (You have no idea how wonderful it felt to type that!)  After losing in Miami, they now head to Minnesota for the Vikings' opener at their home-away-from-home for the next two years.  Hopefully this game goes better than that Monday nighter they played at U of M a couple years ago and the Bears effectively ended Brett Favre's career.  Anyway, New England never loses two in a row, and I don't see them starting now.

Cardinals (1-0) at Giants (0-1): Giants-They both played on Monday night, so there's no rest advantage here.  Except the Cardinals played the later game and are flying cross country for a 1:00 start.  The Giants were bad against the Lions, and last year they were done in by their incredibly slow start.  They can't have that happen again.  That's why they really need a victory over an Arizona team that's better than they are and probably should win.

Jaguars (0-1) at Redskins (0-1): Washington-The Jaguars visit an NFC East opponent for the second straight week, while the Redskins take on their second straight AFC South foe.  I can't really say much more about the No. 6 regional game on CBS that you'll only be able to watch in DC and North Florida.  The Redskins are home.  Let's say they win.

Lions (1-0) at Panthers (1-0): Carolina-Cam Newton comes back for a Carolina team that picked up a division road win without him.  The Lions looked mighty good in their Monday night demolition of the Giants, though.  Unfortunately for Detroit, Carolina has a much better defense than the Giants, and this week they're on the road.  We'll see if that extra day off has an impact, too.  That's why I'm going with the Panthers.

Seahawks (1-0) at Chargers (0-1): Seattle-It seems like forever since the Seahawks-Packers season opener, doesn't it?  Baltimore and Pittsburgh have played twice since then!  Anyway, this is a tough draw for a Chargers team that lost a game it could've (and maybe should've) won in Arizona on Monday night.  Thursday night vs. Monday night.  How'd that happen?  That's not fair to the team on short rest.  Especially when their opponent is the defending champions.  Seattle's 2-0 going into the Super Bowl rematch.

Rams (0-1) at Buccaneers (0-1): Tampa Bay-If the Rams without Sam Bradford are the team we saw last week, it's going to be a long season in St. Louis.  Tampa Bay, meanwhile, looked good last week despite losing to Carolina.  Now I can see why all those people were so high on the Bucs.  Lovie gets his first win with his new team.

Chiefs (0-1) at Broncos (1-0): Denver-Kansas City's not as good as they were last season, and they're not going to have the same benefit of an easy schedule.  Last year, these two met twice in three weeks, and Kansas City was undefeated going into the first one.  Three weeks later the Chiefs had two losses and everyone knew who the best team in the AFC West was.  That hasn't changed.

Jets (1-0) at Packers (0-1): Green Bay-The records here are deceptive.  The Packers opened in Seattle.  Most people expected a Green Bay loss in that game.  The Jets opened at home against the Raiders.  They were impressive, but consider the opponent.  If they can repeat the feat in Green Bay, then we can talk.  But there's a reason why the Packers were a popular preseason Super Bowl pick.

Texans (1-0) at Raiders (0-1): Houston-Like the Falcons, I think the Texans are on their way to a much better 2014 than 2013.  Of course, they haven't had the most difficult of opponents so far this season, but you play who's on the schedule.  And it's good that they're getting games like this out of the way now, especially since Jadeveon Clowney will be out at least a month.  At the same time, this is a great opportunity for the Raiders to get in the win column.  I don't see it happening, though.

Bears (0-1) at 49ers (1-0): San Francisco-We stay in the Bay Area for the Sunday night game, which will be the opener of the 49ers' new stadium in Santa Clara.  I'm surprised Chicago lost at home to Buffalo, and it doesn't get any easier for them against the 49ers.  While I expect this game to be competitive, I seriously doubt the 49ers are gonna let the Bears come into their shiny new home and spoil the Grand Opening party.

Eagles (1-0) at Colts (0-1): Indianapolis-Back to one Monday night game, and the NFL hooked us up with a good one.  I'd expect a lot of points to be scored with Philadelphia and Indianapolis both on the field.  It might be a case of who has the ball last wins.  Although, after seeing Andrew Luck almost steal that game in Denver last week, I'm not going to count him out.  (He's starting to build a reputation very similar to the previous Colts quarterback.)  Two of the better teams in the league will both be 1-1 at week's end.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 10-6
Season: 10-7

Schedules, Schedules Everywhere

The 2022 World Cup is back in the news.  FIFA still hasn't taken it away from Qatar, and some people are now questioning whether or not they even will, so the timing of the event is once again a source of debate.  FIFA President Sepp Blatter (who was taking advantage of the opportunity to announce he'll run for a fifth term) has previously said that he'd rather have the World Cup later in the year (October/November) as opposed to earlier (February) so that it wouldn't conflict with the Winter Olympics.

Well, the various winter sports federations aren't happy with the October/November plan, either.  Their reasoning: because it's the start of their season.  Seriously?  This is the reason they're opposed to that timeframe?  Would they actually prefer February?  During the Olympics?  The marquee event in the sports in question?  Talk about stupid.  While I still think the whole idea of holding the World Cup in Qatar is ridiculous, if the only choices are holding it in February and holding it in October/November, I think most people would agree that October/November isn't just the better option, it's the only option.

But that wasn't the end of the bellyaching about schedules for the day.  Major League Baseball released its 2015 schedule, and everyone's getting their panties in a bunch about the fact that the season's going to extend into November this year.  It's guaranteed.  Game 4 of the World Series is scheduled for November 1.  This is a problem why?  The season's ended in November before, and it will again.  I honestly don't see how this is a big deal.

And did people seriously not see this coming?  Baseball season starts on the same day every year.  The season starts on the first Monday in April, unless March 31 also falls on a Monday (like it did this year), in which case the season starts on March 31, and lasts 26 weeks.  Since this year was the earliest possible start, the playoffs will actually start in September, and the World Series will start and end on the earliest possible date (same with the Super Bowl, by the way, earliest possible date this season, latest possible next season).  Next year's the latest possible start to the baseball season, which means the last weekend of the season is the first weekend in October.  That also means the playoffs will start later.  Again, I don't really see why playing a World Series game or two in November is a big deal.

My disappointment with the release of the baseball schedule was the lack of that big surprise Bud Selig promised us.  The Commissioner implied we might see the regular season start somewhere untraditional, which got people speculating as to where.  The common consensus was Europe, specifically the Netherlands.  Except there were no games on Dutch soil in the schedule announced today.  In fact, there are no games scheduled anywhere outside of the 30 Major League cities.  Of course, there's still plenty of time to work things out and make that happen, but I'm not getting my hopes up.  They normally announce that sort of stuff before the entire schedule comes out, not after.

Another big question I had about the Major League schedule involved interleague play.  Next season is the first one under the new interleague format where it's East vs. East, Central vs. Central, West vs. West.  That means you're playing the division that includes your natural rival, so you're only going against five teams from the opposite league instead of six.  The way I thought they would handle it is exactly what they ended up doing. 

Instead of the four game home-and-home it's been for the past two seasons, we go back to six games between natural rivals next season.  That also means they can play each other on weekends again, which is a good thing.  The natural rival was simply replaced by another team for that second four-game home-and-home (which is needed for the three-series week).  The best part is that you only play one team just at home and one team only on the road.  So, when you play the corresponding division in the other league, you're hosting four of the five teams.  I'm sure a number of teams will appreciate the reduced travel, as well, especially after the NL East played the AL West this year.

Year-round interleague play is something we've all gotten used to, but it still has its quirks.  The best of which is the season-opening series between the Red Sox and Phillies in Philadelphia, presenting a little problem about David Ortiz right off the bat.  (Boston home opener is also interleague, vs. Washington.)  And you have the Pirates playing their home opener against the Tigers (who are actually considered their natural rival). 

As for the Subway Series, which is one of the reasons interleague play was created in the first place, I've never seen it scheduled so uniquely before.  Next year it'll be both the earliest and latest it's ever been.  The Yankees and Mets play at Yankee Stadium in late April, but don't play at Citi Field until mid-September (Subway Series vs. Sunday Night Football).  Dodgers-Angels only gets one weekend(July 31-August 2), though.  We're back to six on all the ones you'd expect (Cubs-White Sox, Giants-A's, Reds-Indians, Marlins-Rays, etc.), as well as the less-natural rivals that are needed to balance out the pairs (Rockies-Rangers, Diamondbacks-Astros, Phillies-Red Sox, Braves-Blue Jays).

In other notable series, the Cubs celebrate the 100th anniversary of Wrigley against the Cardinals (who else?), the Blue Jays host the Rays right after the All-Star Break but are otherwise away for the duration of the Pan Am Games, the Mets are only home during the first three days of the US Open as opposed to the entire first week, and the Astros will complete their first cycle of interleague play as an American League club by playing the whole NL West for the first time since switching leagues.

Cincinnati once again hosts its traditional Opening Day afternoon game, this time against the Pirates.  But the biggest game of the year in Cincinnati will be the All-Star Game on July 14.

The Rest of Week 1

Here we go.  After seven long months away, the NFL is back.  And since the NFL is back, so too are my weekly NFL picks.

Things, of course, got started the other day with the Seahawks in the traditional Super Bowl champion Thursday night opener, but this is the first Sunday of football games that count.  And, also in true NFL tradition, most of the better games in Week 1 are reserved for the national TV slots.  Nevertheless, we've got almost a full slate of Sunday games (13 to be exact).  The NFL didn't make it easy for us either.  I had a hell of a time choosing my Survival game.  Because a lot of these matchups, while they have a clear favorite, feature two good teams and could easily go either way.

I also have a confession to make.  I'm not sure how much football I'm going to watch on Sunday.  We've got Derek Jeter Day and Serena vs. Woz in the US Open final.  If not for Red Zone, my only option at 1:00 would be Jets-Raiders, so thank God I have more football choices than just that.  But with Peyton vs. the Colts on Sunday night, you know I'll at least be watching that one.

Thursday Night: Seattle (Win)

Saints at Falcons: New Orleans-The Falcons aren't as bad as their record last year indicated.  That was the result of simply too many injuries to key personnel to overcome.  We'll immediately get to see if this season will be more like 2012 or more like 2013, as they open the campaign against the rival Saints.  New Orleans is one of that handful of teams that has to be considered a legitimate Super Bowl contender.  I've gotta think the Saints start 1-0.

Bills at Bears: Chicago-This is the first game that is affected by the new TV deal.  Since the Bills are the visiting team, this game would normally be on CBS.  But it'll be on FOX instead to balance out the games between the networks.  Anyway, the Bears usually wait until November/December to throw away their season.  In September and October, they usually look like a playoff contender.  I don't see them losing to Buffalo at home.

Titans at Chiefs: Kansas City-This is one of those tough ones I was talking about.  On paper, Kansas City should win it easily, but I don't think the Chiefs are as good as they were last year and the Titans might be a little bit better.  Nevertheless, I don't think Tennessee has made up the gap enough to expect to come out of Kansas City with a win.

Vikings at Rams: St. Louis-The team that was most affected by a preseason injury is, obviously, the St. Louis Rams, who'll be without Sam Bradford for the year.  That took away any chance they had at contending in the loaded NFC West, but playing Minnesota at home in Week 1 at least gives them a chance to get the season started on a winning note.

Patriots at Dolphins: New England-If there's one team in the AFC East that actually has a chance at ending the Patriots' dominance, it's the Dolphins.  And they can certainly make a statement by making New England start the season in last place.  This is a tough assignment for Brady and Co. in Week 1, especially considering it's a 1:00 game and that notorious September Miami heat.  I think the Patriots know the potential pitfalls, though.  I just don't see them letting a chance at making an early statement get away.

Raiders at Jets: Jets-I feel bad for my fellow New Yorkers who don't have NFL Red Zone.  Because they don't have another option at 1:00.  Of course, there are also some Jets fans who don't care they're playing the Raiders and will be more than happy to see them start the season 1-0.

Jaguars at Eagles: Philadelphia-After much deliberation, I ended up going with this matchup as my Survival game.  The Eagles were a playoff team last season, and there's no reason to think they're going to drop off.  Nor is there any reason to think they're going to lose at home to the Jaguars.

Browns at Steelers: Pittsburgh-If you've watched CBS at all in the past six weeks, you know the Steelers are playing the Ravens on Thursday night.  Psst, CBS, you've got a bunch of games on Sunday first.  One of those games also involves Pittsburgh--against rival Cleveland.  I see the Steelers going into that Thursday night matchup 1-0.

Bengals at Ravens: Cincinnati-As for the Ravens, I don't think they'll be 1-0 going into that Thursday night showdown.  Baltimore is favored in this game, but I'm taking Cincinnati in the upset.  The Bengals have made the playoffs in each of the past two years and look just as strong this season.  And they absolutely caught a break by going to Baltimore while Ray Rice is suspended.  That's why I give the edge to the Bengals.

Redskins at Texans: Houston-This is another tough one.  Both of these teams won their division in 2012 and underachieved last year.  Except for the Texans, that was more a result of injuries.  Washington had injuries, too, but I think there 2012 success was more lightning in a bottle.  The Texans are definitely more equipped to make a run back to the top.  Plus, they're the better team.

49ers at Cowboys: San Francisco-Remember when this was the can't miss matchup of every NFL season?  We get a little bit of that feeling back with Dallas and San Francisco meeting in the national game at 4:30 on FOX.  San Francisco's becoming a staple of this game, although this is the first time in two years they aren't playing Green Bay.  It's also weird to not see the Cowboys not in the opening Sunday night game.  As for the winner, I'll go with the team that's looking to make its fourth straight NFC Championship Game appearance.

Panthers at Buccaneers: Carolina-The other late game is in Tampa Bay, as the Panthers visit the Bucs.  Carolina was the breakout team of last season, while Tampa Bay is a chic pick to be this year's breakout team.  Lovie's definitely going to get them going in the right direction, but the NFC South is simply too good.  Maybe if the Bucs win this game, I'll be more accepting of them as an NFC South contender.  My gut tells me the defending division champs get it done, though.

Colts at Broncos: Denver-Last season, in Peyton's well-publicized return to Indianapolis, the Colts controlled the game and handed Denver its first loss of the season.  As a result, Indy remains the only team Manning has never beaten in his career.  The Broncos' most recent memory, of course, is of that debacle at Giants Stadium known as Super Bowl XLVIII.  Now they finally get a chance to move on from that game.  And Peyton finally gets his chance to beat the Colts, who'll play a game without the owner that fired Manning watching for the first time in 30 years.  This game is made even more important because it could very well determine home field should they meet again in January (in fact, I've got this as my AFC Championship Game matchup).  (I have another Week 1 matchup, Packers-Seahawks, as my NFC Championship Game.)

Giants at Lions: Giants-The first Monday night game is quite a matchup.  The Giants and Lions can both probably be viewed as having an outside chance at the playoffs.  When they played last year, it was effectively the Giants that knocked the Lions out of the playoffs with a Week 16 win in Detroit.  It's Week 1, so it's obviously not a "must-win" game, but I think it's an important one for both as they look to get out to a good start.  The Giants always play well against the Lions and they're a good road team, so they're the pick.

Chargers at Cardinals: Arizona-Week 1 concludes with the two best third-place teams from last season squaring off.  The Chargers, of course, snuck into the playoffs on the final day, while the Cardinals ended up on the outside looking in despite going 10-6.  Both have realistic thoughts on getting there this season, so this is another important Week 1 matchup.  Since San Diego doesn't usually turn it on until later in the season, I'm going Cardinals at home.  (The weird thing about this game is that these two concluded the preseason against each other, so they're meeting for the second consecutive week.)

This Week: 1-0

2014 NFL Preview, NFC

When I did my AFC preview the other day, I put Indy in the AFC Championship Game pretty much by default because they're probably the second-best team in the AFC.  The only team in the AFC that has a legitimate chance at winning it all, in my opinion, is Denver.

That's not the case in the NFC, which has clearly emerged as the stronger conference.  In the AFC I had trouble finding six playoff teams because I didn't think there were enough that are that good.  I've got the opposite problem in the NFC.  So many good teams that six doesn't seem like enough (don't worry, we've got that unnecessary playoff expansion coming next year).  And the legitimate Super Bowl contenders in the NFC are almost as numerous: Seattle, Green Bay, New Orleans, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Carolina, and I'm sure I probably forgot somebody, too.  Just making the playoffs in the NFC this year is going to be an achievement.

East: What was once the NFC Beast has become the NFC Least.  It's not that the NFC East has become weak.  It's just that the other three divisions are loaded with good teams while the East isn't.  I think the NFC East will play out in a similar fashion to the way it has the past couple seasons.  Three of the four will hover around the 9-7/10-6 mark, and only the division winner will end up in the playoffs as these four rivals kill each other six times.  And it'll probably be the division record that decides it.  The slight edge I would say probably has to go to Philadelphia.  The Eagles won the division last year in Chip Kelly's first season and have only gotten better.  They have the fewest holes.  The Giants will once again hover around .500 and end up a game or two short of the playoffs (they play the Eagles in the finale, which could be for the division.  Dallas will also do the same thing it does every year.  Make everybody think this is the year they're actually going to make the playoffs, have a chance to do so, and lose their last game.  Everybody was jumping on the Redskins bandwagon two years ago when RG3 was this dynamic rookie who took them to the playoffs.  Last year he was hurt and Washington regressed significantly.  I think they're probably somewhere in the middle.  Problem is they're still the worst team in this division, which likely means last place.

North: The Packers are like the St. Louis Cardinals of football.  No matter what, no matter how far out of it they might seem, you know they're going to find a way to end up in the playoffs.  Take last year, when Aaron Rodgers missed half the season and they still won the division.  If Rodgers stays healthy all year, they're not just the favorites to win the NFC North.  There's a reason why Green Bay is a very chic pick to be in Arizona in February.  Winning the division is by no means a mere formality, though.  Because the Chicago Bears are good.  And I think they're going to be a real threat.  I know it seems like I say this about the Bears every year and every year they find a way to piss their season away.  It's very possible that will happen again, but they've definitely got all the pieces in place to challenge the Packers for the division title.  The Lions can't be counted out either.  Detroit choked worse than Chicago last season, going from division champs to out of the playoffs in a span of six days in December.  They've gotta play like the team that played the first 13 weeks of last season all year if they want to make the playoffs in a loaded NFC.  The Vikings enter another rebuilding year as they head to the University of Minnesota for two years while their new stadium is built.  How long has it been since Adrian Peterson was on a college campus?

South: I have no idea what's going to happen in the NFC South.  The standings could easily be exactly the same as they were last year.  But I don't think it would surprise anybody if they flipped completely.  Regardless, New Orleans is the deepest and most talented team in the division.  The Saints only got a wild card year because of how good the Panthers ended up being.  Carolina's not going to surprise anybody this year and the Saints have Drew Brees, so I'm giving them the edge in the division race.  But the Panthers are right there.  Any slip-up at all by the Saints, and we could easily see Carolina defend its division title.  A lot of people are also very high on the Bucs.  If they were in another division I might be too, but I question whether Tampa Bay has the talent to hang in there with New Orleans and Carolina all season.  Besides, what are those uniforms?  What do NFL teams in Florida have against the American public?  Seriously, why is the pirate flag on the helmets so big?  I miss Buccaneer Bruce, too.  As for the Falcons, they went from the best record in the NFC in 2012 to last place in 2013.  Atlanta had some big time injuries last year, which helps explain the subpar season.  Because the Falcons are a better team than that.  They're entirely capable of a bounce back year, especially if everybody stays healthy.  But I think the NFC South is too good for that to make much of a difference.

West: Until Sam Bradford tore his ACL in the preseason, there were four legitimate playoff contenders in the NFC West, which has emerged as football's best division.  Unfortunately for St. Louis, it looks like they're now destined for another last place finish, which says less about the Rams than it does about the rest of the division.  They're simply not going to be able to overcome being without their franchise quarterback while playing six games against three of the best teams in the NFL.  Speaking of the top, let's head to the Pacific Northwest and visit the defending Super Bowl champion Seahawks.  Seattle's young and has perhaps the best chance to repeat of any Super Bowl winner since New England's back-to-back titles 10 years ago.  It's also possible that the Seahawks might be even better this year, which is a scary thought for their opponents.  Seattle will have a tough time just to win its own division, though.  Don't forget, the 49ers have been to three straight NFC Championship Games, with a last-second Super Bowl loss thrown in.  The NFC Championship Game last season was Seattle and San Francisco.  It's not a stretch to think that could happen again.  Arizona might have something to say about that, though.  The Cardinals are the best third-place team in football, which is not a knock on them.  What I think a lot of people don't realize is that Arizona went 10-6 last year and just missed the playoffs.  (The Cardinals' record last year is probably one of the reasons that seven-team playoff talk got going again in the offseason.)  Sadly, I think they might be destined for a similar fate unless they find a way to move above the 49ers or Seahawks.  Which won't be easy.  Even for a team as good as the Cardinals.

Forgive me for kind of going with the chalk, but I'll go Eagles, Packers, Saints and Seahawks as the division winners.  And in a very close call for the wild cards, I'll say San Francisco and Chicago, although a tiebreaker involving Carolina and/or Arizona is definitely possible.  In fact, the Cardinals could end up 10-6 and not get in once again.  The top of the NFC is just that good.

As for the way these playoffs would play out, the upset possibilities are endless.  I'll say we end up with Packers vs. Seahawks in the NFC Championship Game, though.  And that one goes a little better for Green Bay than tonight's game is going.  The Packers move on to face the Broncos in the Super Bowl.

My Super Bowl matchup pits two future Hall of Fame quarterbacks against each other (just like the last time the Broncos played the Packers in the Super Bowl).  The NFC is the stronger conference, and surviving it would make Green Bay the favorite.  But the Broncos know how to overcome playoff disappointment.  They had that overtime loss to Baltimore in 2012, then won the AFC title last season, when they got shellacked by the Seahawks in the Super Bowl.  If they get another chance, I don't see them squandering the opportunity.  Peyton finally ties Eli with a second Lombardi Trophy.  At the very least, Denver keeps up its streak of having its season ended by the Super Bowl champions in the playoffs.

2014 NFL Preview, AFC

We're here.  We've reached the start of the NFL season.  Although, I've found it incredibly annoying during the US Open that CBS keeps plugging Thursday Night Football like it's nobody's business, yet there are still a whole bunch of games on CBS on Sunday...four days before their first Thursday night game.

Anyway, now that I've got that off my chest, I can assure you that the weekly picks will definitely be back this season.  But first, I've gotta do my annual season preview.  Once again, it'll be broken down into two parts.  I'll get it started today with the AFC, with the NFC preview coming in the next installment.  And I think the tide has shifted back the NFC's way.  Other than Denver, maybe Indianapolis and maybe New England, I can't think of any AFC teams I think are capable of winning the Super Bowl.  But I can think of three in the NFC West alone.  That's for another day, though.  Today, the AFC.

East: The Patriots are, of course, going to win the division.  One of the things that has annoyed me the most about New England during the Bradicheck dynasty is how cocky they've become.  They just assume they're going to be in the playoffs every year.  What they conveniently overlook, however, is that the reason they make the playoffs every year is because the rest of the AFC East is so bad.  That's the case again this year.  Miami's going to be good, and I think the Dolphins will contend for a wild card, but this division is still the Patriots and everybody else.  Unless something crazy happens (like the year Brady tore his ACL in the opener and they still went 11-5), the Patriots will win the division and host a playoff game once again.  As for the Dolphins, I'm saying 10-6, potentially with a win over New England included.  That might be enough for a wild card.  The Jets and Bills, however, will not be wild card contenders.  It was a minor miracle that the Jets ended up 8-8 last season, but Rex is coaching for his job again, and I don't think he's going to save it this time.  Buffalo, meanwhile, will have the ownership situation hanging over their heads for the early part of the season.  Once that's resolved, we'll know which direction the Bills are going and when they'll finally have a chance of ending the NFL's longest playoff drought.

North: It really is a toss-up, but I give the North a slight edge over the West as best division in the AFC.  We're likely to see at least one of the wild cards (maybe both like in 2012) come out of the North.  It says so much that the Pittsburgh Steelers are only the third-best team in this division.  Although, those top three teams are so close, that one injury could make the difference.  And I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the Steelers win the division.  I still put the Bengals in the role of division favorites, though.  They've made back-to-back playoff appearances and probably have the deepest roster of the four.  Baltimore got lucky with Ray Rice only receiving a two-game suspension, but those first two games that he's missing are against Cincinnati and Pittsburgh.  In a division race that's going to be incredibly tight, that might be enough to knock the Ravens out of the running for a division title.  The team that's already out of the running is the Cleveland Browns.  Once again, the Browns have no clue when it comes to hiring a coach (Mike Pettine?  Really?) and choosing a starting quarterback (Johnny Manziel's the next Tim Tebow).  The one clueless team in a division with three playoff contenders is destined for last place once again.

South: Everything I said about the Patriots could also be applied to the Indianapolis Colts.  The Colts will probably win the AFC South by default.  Because they're the only one of the four that resembles an actual NFL team.  Houston had won two straight division titles before hitting rock-bottom last year with all the injuries.  The Texans are a better team than they were last year, especially now that they have Jadeveon Clowney joining J.J. Watt on that defensive line.  If anybody's going to challenge Indy for the division title, it'll be Houston.  Then there's the other two.  Jacksonville somehow not only didn't finish with the worst record in football last season, they also somehow managed to not finish third.  But let's not kid ourselves.  The Jaguars are barely an NFL team, and those helmets are absolutely ridiculous.  The Titans, meanwhile, will have roughly the same season they've had for each of the past few years.  They'll look God awful in a handful of games, look unbeatable in a couple, and play just well enough to lose in the rest.  The end result will be another mediocre season for a mediocre team.  I'd say somewhere in the 7-9/6-10 range.

West: No team has made back-to-back Super Bowl appearances since the 2003-04 Patriots, and no Super Bowl loser has gotten back the following year since the Bills went to the last of their four straight.  The Broncos have a chance to change that, though.  Peyton has lost Eric Decker, and Wes Welker just got suspended for the first few games (he's injured anyway), but the Broncos still have plenty of weapons to overcome that.  And Peyton Manning's still Peyton Manning.  It's unrealistic to think he'll have the same otherworldly season he had in 2013.  But even with just a fraction of that, Denver's probably staring at no worse than 11-5.  San Diego and Kansas City both joined them in the playoffs last season, but if I had to pick one to get back, it would probably be the Chargers.  That was an impressive late-season run to clinch a playoff spot no one thought they'd come anywhere near, then they won a playoff game.  Kansas City, of course, was neck-and-neck with the Broncos for the first half of last season, but I think they'll come back to Earth a little bit.  One of the reasons they were undefeated so deep into the season last year was because they took advantage of an easy schedule.  The schedule's not anywhere near as easy this season (the AFC West plays the NFC West this year).  As a result, I don't think we can expect to see double-digit wins from the Chiefs again.  They'll tinker around .500 at best.  Then there's the Raiders.  The once-proud franchise hasn't been close to good since they got thumped in the Super Bowl a decade ago.  I'm fairly certain the Raiders will eventually be relevant again.  It just won't be this season.

So there you have it.  My division winners are New England, Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Denver, with San Diego and Pittsburgh picking up the two wild cards.  The two best teams in the AFC are probably the Broncos and the Colts, so I'm going to make that my AFC Championship Game matchup.  And what sweet satisfaction Peyton's going to feel when he beats the Colts to get back to the Super Bowl.