So, here we are. We've arrived at the dawning of another year. 2014 was a wonderful year in sports, as I detailed the other day. But there's one last thing that needs to be done before I can put a bow on Joe Brackets for the year 2014. It's the annual top games of the year post. And since the year coming to an end is 2014, it seems only right to put 14 games on the list...
14. Belmont Stakes-June 7, Elmont, NY: More than 102,000 people turned out hoping to see California Chrome make history. The Kentucky Derby and Preakness winner couldn't complete the Triple Crown, though. Chrome didn't have enough room (or enough legs) to make a run down the stretch and finished fourth behind winner Tonalist.
13. Maple Leafs 3, Detroit Red Wings 2 (NHL Winter Classic)-January 1, Ann Arbor, MI: The Winter Classic returned after a one-year absence with the biggest one ever. And it was also one of the best. More than 105,000 people crammed into Michigan Stadium to watch two Original Six rivals--the Red Wings and Maple Leafs prove why this event is so amazing. It was tied 2-2 after regulation, but Toronto ultimately prevailed on Tyler Bozak's game-winning goal in the final round of the shootout.
12. Women's 4x400 Meter Relay (NCAA Indoor Championships)-March 15, Albuquerque, NM: I'm sure this is the most obscure selection on this list for most of you, but it was also one of the easiest calls to make. Entering the final event of the meet, Texas and Florida had a 1.5 point lead on Oregon in the team standings. All three had teams entered in the 4x400 relay, which basically meant it was winner-take-all. Texas was the favorite and had the lead after three legs, but Oregon's Phyllis Francis caught the Longhorns on the anchor leg, leaning at the finish line to win by .02 seconds and clinch Oregon's fifth straight National Championship.
11. Ford EcoBoost 400-November 16, Miami: When NASCAR revamped the Chase for the Sprint Cup format this season, this is exactly what they had in mind. The final race of the season would determine the champion. Whoever finished the highest among Kevin Harvick, Ryan Newman, Denny Hamlin and Joey Logano would clinch the series title. And after a back-and-forth battle with Newman, Harvick won the race and his first Sprint Cup crown.
10. Boston Marathon-April 21, Boston: After the horror of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, the 2014 race was going to be special no matter what happened. Because of the bombings it was also one of the biggest Boston Marathons ever, with 36,000 entrants and over a million watching at the finish line. And that million saw an incredible three-way finish between American Meb Keflezeghi and two Kenyans. Keflezeghi ended up winning by 11 seconds, becoming the first American to win Boston in 30 years.
9. Canada 3, United States 2 (Olympic Women's Hockey Gold Medal Game)-February 20, Sochi, Russia: The United States was mere seconds from gold. They led 2-0 with under five minutes left when Canada scored to make it 2-1. The Canadians pulled their goalie and the U.S. sent one towards the empty net that would've clinched it. Except it hit the linesman before clanging off the post. Canada scored seconds later to tie the game, then won its fourth straight gold medal in overtime.
8. Baylor 61, TCU 58-October 11, Waco, TX: If only the Big 12 had been able to figure its own stuff out at the end of the season, Baylor might've been included in the playoff instead of Ohio State. Because this shootout ultimately gave the Bears and Horned Frogs a split Big 12 title. TCU led 58-37 in the fourth quarter before Baylor rallied for 24 unanswered points, winning on a 28-yard field goal as time expired.
7. Colts 45, Chiefs 44 (AFC Wild Card Playoff)-January 4, Indianapolis: The Legend of Andrew Luck grew in last season's Wild Card Game against the Chiefs. Kansas City led 31-10 at halftime and 38-10 early in the third quarter. But the Colts came all the way back, scoring five second half touchdowns. The Chiefs took a 44-38 lead on a field goal with 5:40 left, only to see Luck respond with a 64-yard TD pass to T.Y. Hilton three plays later. The extra point gave Indy its only lead of the day and 45-44 would hold up as the final score, as Indianapolis completed the second-greatest playoff comeback in NFL history.
6. Kentucky 78, Wichita State 76 (NCAA Tournament, Round of 32)-March 23, St. Louis: Wichita State came into the NCAA Tournament undefeated and on a 35-game winning streak. The Shockers got a No. 1 seed and easily beat Cal Poly in their first game, but drew the incredibly underseeded No. 8 Kentucky in the second round. And what we got was a classic. Wichita State led by six at halftime, but it was Kentucky that was in front, 78-76, with 7.1 seconds remaining. After a Wichita State timeout, Fred Van Vleet fired a three-pointer at the buzzer that clanged off the backboard and ended the Shockers' pursuit of perfection. Kentucky, of course, would go all the way to the National Championship Game, where they lost to UConn.
5. Netherlands 0, Costa Rica 0 (Penalty Kicks: 4-3, World Cup Quarterfinals)-July 5, Salvador, Brazil: There were so many great games during the World Cup that it was hard to narrow it down to just one. But I'm going with that excellent quarterfinal between Costa Rica and the Netherlands. Costa Rica was looking to become the first CONCACAF team to reach the semifinals since the United States in 1930 and held the powerful Dutch in check despite being outshot 20-6. The Dutch changed their goalie just before the penalty kick shootout, and the move worked, as he stopped Costa Rica's final shot to send the Netherlands into the semifinals for the second straight World Cup.
4. Blazers 99, Rockets 98 (Game 6, NBA Playoffs, First Round)-May 2, Portland, OR: Now, I'm not one to watch the NBA, as you know, but even I was impressed by how this game finished. Houston, trailing the series 3-2, took a 98-96 lead with less than a second left. But, on the inbound play after a Portland timeout, Damian Lillard drained a series-winning three-pointer at the buzzer that sent the Blazers into the second round.
3. Novak Djokovic vs. Roger Federer (Wimbledon Gentlemen's Championship)-July 7, Wimbledon, England: Federer and Djokovic have played some classics over the years, and the 2014 Wimbledon final jumped right to the top of the list. Neither had won a Grand Slam yet in 2014 when they met on Centre Court for the Wimbledon title, and they went at it for nearly four hours. Federer won the first set in a tiebreak, then Djokovic took the second and third. He got an early break to go up 3-1 in the fourth and was on the brink of the championship at 5-2, only to see Federer win five games in a row to force a fifth set. Leading 5-4, Djokovic earned two championship points on Federer's serve and converted, ending the classic, 6-7, 6-4, 7-6, 5-7, 6-4, and earning his second Wimbledon title.
2. United States 3, Russia 2 (Olympic Men's Hockey)-February 15, Sochi, Russia: The most anticipated game of the men's hockey tournament didn't disappoint. It was 2-2 late in the third period when it looked like Russia had won it, but the goal was waived off because the net was off its moorings. It ended up going to a shootout, which Ilya Kovalchuk leveled at 1-1 on Russia's last shot of the initial three. The shootout then became sudden-death, and the U.S. sent T.J. Oshie out there over and over again. Eventually, in the eighth round of the shootout (after Kovalchuk hit the post), Oshie was able to get one by Russian goalie Sergei Bobrovski for the game-winner.
1. Royals 9, Athletics 8 (American League Wild Card Game)-September 30, Kansas City: We should've known that the Kansas City Royals had magic on their side after this outstanding 12-inning thriller. Oakland had a 7-3 lead and Jon Lester on the mound in the bottom of the eighth when the Royals first showed the flashes that made America fall in love with them. Alcides Escobar singled, stole second and scored on Lorenzo Cain's single, then Cain stole second, Eric Hosmer walked and Lester was taken out. Billy Butler singled Cain home and Hosmer scored on a wild pitch, making it 7-6. In the ninth, Kansas City played small ball to score the tying run. Oakland took the lead again, 8-7, in the top of the 12th, but the Royals again came back. Hosmer tripled, then scored on a single by Christian Colon. After Colon stole second, Salvador Perez sent a single down the left field line that just got by Josh Donaldson, scoring Colon and sending the Royals to the ALDS. They, of course, eventually went all the way to Game 7 of the World Series, which could've been on the list in its own right. But without that Salvador Perez, none of that happens. A truly memorable game that started a truly memorable run. It was perhaps the most memorable game of 2014, which is why I rank it No. 1.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Monday, December 29, 2014
2014 Year In Review
It's been an eventful 12 months. It always is. The annual "Games of the Year" post is coming up to officially close out 2014 for Joe Brackets, but so much has happened this year that it's worth looking at 2014 as a whole. And with that I present, 2014, the year in sports.
Where do I begin? Peyton Manning got back to the Super Bowl, only to get thoroughly manhandled by the Seahawks defense. The UConn women put together another historic season, perhaps their best ever, going 40-0 and destroying undefeated Notre Dame in the National Championship Game. The UConn men's team won the title, too, giving them a double 10 years after doing it the first time. And the men went via the untraditional route, riding a 7-seed all the way to an unexpected championship. The Kings proved their on their way to becoming an NHL dynasty, coming back from 3-0 down against San Jose, beating the Blackhawks in seven, then knocking off the Rangers for their second Stanley Cup in three years. The San Francisco Giants trumped that, though, riding Madison Bumgarner's left arm to their third World Series crown since 2010. And lest we forget the Spurs, avenging their 2013 Finals loss and ending the LeBron era in Miami.
Sochi hosted an Olympics that was more well-known for its $51 billion price tag and concerns about Russia's anti-gay propaganda laws. Well, they delivered. Just like we knew they would. And once again there were plenty of memorable Olympic moments. Like Vladislav Tretiak lighting the cauldron, Russia's gold medal in the inaugural team figure skating event, former Korean Victor Ahn dominating the short track speed skating competition for the home team, Sage Kotsenburg and Jamie Anderson in the new snowboarding events, 18-year-old Mikaela Shiffrin winning gold in the slalom in what could be the sign of bigger things to come in Pyeongchang. And who's ever going to forget T.J. Oshie in that shootout to decide the USA-Russia hockey game?
During the summer, everyone was transfixed by the World Cup in Brazil. The Americans gave their fans a memorable ride starting with Clint Dempsey's goal in the first minute of the first game and ending with Tim Howard standing on his head in a round of 16 loss to Belgium. The USA got out of the "Group of Death," an achievement that will only help the growth of soccer in this country. Defending champion Spain stumbled, and host Brazil eventually did, also. Germany, though, proved to be the best team and was a deserving champion. The real winner was Brazil, though. They delivered a first-rate World Cup and eased some concerns about their preparedness for the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.
For all the good in sports over the past year, there was unfortunately a whole mess of negative news, too. Adam Silver's first act as NBA Commissioner was dealing with the Donald Sterling mess. And he handled it with flying colors, banning the Clippers owner for life and forcing him to sell the team. That's more than I can say for Roger Goddell and the NFL's domestic violence problem. From Ray Rice to Adrian Peterson, it kept getting worse, and so did Goddell's handling of everything. A revised personal conduct policy might not be enough to undo the damage that has been done. The NCAA took a hit, too. The Ed O'Bannon and full-cost-of-attendance rulings could greatly alter the landscape of college sports. So might the long-sought-after Power 5 autonomy that will be granted in some form soon.
Then there were the allegations of corruption and vote-buying surrounding the selection of Qatar to host the 2022 World Cup. FIFA cleared Qatar of any wrongdoing, paving the way for preparations to continue, but not doing anything to settle concerns that won't stop lingering anytime soon. One of those concerns regards the schedule, which could see the World Cup and Winter Olympics overlap in 2022. Those 2022 Winter Olympics that nobody wants to host. They started with six bidders. They're down to two. That black mark led to some long-awaited IOC reforms, including a revamped bidding process.
Don't worry. It wasn't all bad. We had plenty of inspirational stories, too. From Mone Davis kicking the boys' asses at the Little League World Series to Lauren Davis inspiring is all with her determination to play college basketball despite an inoperable brain tumor. Michael Sam came out, got drafted, and embraced the man he loved for all the world to see. The fact that he didn't make the Rams' roster isn't even relevant. And, on the 75th anniversary of Lou Gehrig's historic speech, the Ice Bucket Challenge, which was started by a former Boston College outfielder, did more for ALS awareness and fundraising than anyone could've possibly imagined.
The Derek Jeter Retirement Tour gave America a chance to say goodbye to the Face of Baseball, and Derek himself authored the most memorable of farewells with a walk-off single in his final game at Yankee Stadium. Another sporting icon, Roger Federer, was named Switzerland's Male Athlete of the Year despite not winning a Grand Slam title. He did, however, claim the only thing missing from his resume when Switzerland won the Davis Cup for the first time. Serena Williams, meanwhile, continued to defy the odds, cruising to the US Open title after losing early at the other three Grand Slams.
Jeter's on-field goodbye came in the same year that his friend and longtime coach Don Zimmer passed away. So did Tony Gwynn, in a much more unexpected fashion. No loss was more unexpected than that of Cardinals outfielder Oscar Taveras during the World Series, though. We also lost the likes of Ralph Kiner, Chuck Noll, Bills owner Ralph Wilson, Soviet hockey coach Viktor Tikhonov, and the great Jean Beliveau, among others, in 2014. Louis Zamperini died at 97 months before Unbroken, the movie about his incredible life came out.
And lest I forget LeBron's Cleveland homecoming after four years in Miami that yielded two championships and two other trips to the Finals. In baseball, Clayton Kershaw had a regular season for the ages, but it was Madison Bumgarner who became a World Series legend. Meanwhile, the Kansas City Royals ended 29 years of frustration with a thrilling run to Game 7 of the World Series. The Seahawks won their first Super Bowl and Vanderbilt finally won the College World Series after years of coming so close.
NASCAR changed its championship format to wonderful results, with Kevin Harvick clinching the title by winning the final race. We also came close to finally getting another Triple Crown winner after 36 years, but California Chrome couldn't get it done in the Belmont.
All of that's just a sampling of the wonderful year in sports that was 2014. There's plenty more that I could've mentioned but didn't. And we've got plenty in store for 2015, too, starting with the long-awaited College Football Playoff. Another long-awaited event is also on the 2015 sports calendar, as Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather are finally going to fight. The Women's World Cup is on tap, too. If it's anything like the 2011 event, we're in store for something pretty special.
There were some lows, but mostly highs in an eventual and exciting 2014. What's ahead in 2015? I can't wait to find out.
Where do I begin? Peyton Manning got back to the Super Bowl, only to get thoroughly manhandled by the Seahawks defense. The UConn women put together another historic season, perhaps their best ever, going 40-0 and destroying undefeated Notre Dame in the National Championship Game. The UConn men's team won the title, too, giving them a double 10 years after doing it the first time. And the men went via the untraditional route, riding a 7-seed all the way to an unexpected championship. The Kings proved their on their way to becoming an NHL dynasty, coming back from 3-0 down against San Jose, beating the Blackhawks in seven, then knocking off the Rangers for their second Stanley Cup in three years. The San Francisco Giants trumped that, though, riding Madison Bumgarner's left arm to their third World Series crown since 2010. And lest we forget the Spurs, avenging their 2013 Finals loss and ending the LeBron era in Miami.
Sochi hosted an Olympics that was more well-known for its $51 billion price tag and concerns about Russia's anti-gay propaganda laws. Well, they delivered. Just like we knew they would. And once again there were plenty of memorable Olympic moments. Like Vladislav Tretiak lighting the cauldron, Russia's gold medal in the inaugural team figure skating event, former Korean Victor Ahn dominating the short track speed skating competition for the home team, Sage Kotsenburg and Jamie Anderson in the new snowboarding events, 18-year-old Mikaela Shiffrin winning gold in the slalom in what could be the sign of bigger things to come in Pyeongchang. And who's ever going to forget T.J. Oshie in that shootout to decide the USA-Russia hockey game?
During the summer, everyone was transfixed by the World Cup in Brazil. The Americans gave their fans a memorable ride starting with Clint Dempsey's goal in the first minute of the first game and ending with Tim Howard standing on his head in a round of 16 loss to Belgium. The USA got out of the "Group of Death," an achievement that will only help the growth of soccer in this country. Defending champion Spain stumbled, and host Brazil eventually did, also. Germany, though, proved to be the best team and was a deserving champion. The real winner was Brazil, though. They delivered a first-rate World Cup and eased some concerns about their preparedness for the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.
For all the good in sports over the past year, there was unfortunately a whole mess of negative news, too. Adam Silver's first act as NBA Commissioner was dealing with the Donald Sterling mess. And he handled it with flying colors, banning the Clippers owner for life and forcing him to sell the team. That's more than I can say for Roger Goddell and the NFL's domestic violence problem. From Ray Rice to Adrian Peterson, it kept getting worse, and so did Goddell's handling of everything. A revised personal conduct policy might not be enough to undo the damage that has been done. The NCAA took a hit, too. The Ed O'Bannon and full-cost-of-attendance rulings could greatly alter the landscape of college sports. So might the long-sought-after Power 5 autonomy that will be granted in some form soon.
Then there were the allegations of corruption and vote-buying surrounding the selection of Qatar to host the 2022 World Cup. FIFA cleared Qatar of any wrongdoing, paving the way for preparations to continue, but not doing anything to settle concerns that won't stop lingering anytime soon. One of those concerns regards the schedule, which could see the World Cup and Winter Olympics overlap in 2022. Those 2022 Winter Olympics that nobody wants to host. They started with six bidders. They're down to two. That black mark led to some long-awaited IOC reforms, including a revamped bidding process.
Don't worry. It wasn't all bad. We had plenty of inspirational stories, too. From Mone Davis kicking the boys' asses at the Little League World Series to Lauren Davis inspiring is all with her determination to play college basketball despite an inoperable brain tumor. Michael Sam came out, got drafted, and embraced the man he loved for all the world to see. The fact that he didn't make the Rams' roster isn't even relevant. And, on the 75th anniversary of Lou Gehrig's historic speech, the Ice Bucket Challenge, which was started by a former Boston College outfielder, did more for ALS awareness and fundraising than anyone could've possibly imagined.
The Derek Jeter Retirement Tour gave America a chance to say goodbye to the Face of Baseball, and Derek himself authored the most memorable of farewells with a walk-off single in his final game at Yankee Stadium. Another sporting icon, Roger Federer, was named Switzerland's Male Athlete of the Year despite not winning a Grand Slam title. He did, however, claim the only thing missing from his resume when Switzerland won the Davis Cup for the first time. Serena Williams, meanwhile, continued to defy the odds, cruising to the US Open title after losing early at the other three Grand Slams.
Jeter's on-field goodbye came in the same year that his friend and longtime coach Don Zimmer passed away. So did Tony Gwynn, in a much more unexpected fashion. No loss was more unexpected than that of Cardinals outfielder Oscar Taveras during the World Series, though. We also lost the likes of Ralph Kiner, Chuck Noll, Bills owner Ralph Wilson, Soviet hockey coach Viktor Tikhonov, and the great Jean Beliveau, among others, in 2014. Louis Zamperini died at 97 months before Unbroken, the movie about his incredible life came out.
And lest I forget LeBron's Cleveland homecoming after four years in Miami that yielded two championships and two other trips to the Finals. In baseball, Clayton Kershaw had a regular season for the ages, but it was Madison Bumgarner who became a World Series legend. Meanwhile, the Kansas City Royals ended 29 years of frustration with a thrilling run to Game 7 of the World Series. The Seahawks won their first Super Bowl and Vanderbilt finally won the College World Series after years of coming so close.
NASCAR changed its championship format to wonderful results, with Kevin Harvick clinching the title by winning the final race. We also came close to finally getting another Triple Crown winner after 36 years, but California Chrome couldn't get it done in the Belmont.
All of that's just a sampling of the wonderful year in sports that was 2014. There's plenty more that I could've mentioned but didn't. And we've got plenty in store for 2015, too, starting with the long-awaited College Football Playoff. Another long-awaited event is also on the 2015 sports calendar, as Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather are finally going to fight. The Women's World Cup is on tap, too. If it's anything like the 2011 event, we're in store for something pretty special.
There were some lows, but mostly highs in an eventual and exciting 2014. What's ahead in 2015? I can't wait to find out.
Saturday, December 27, 2014
All of Week 17
We've hit the final week of the NFL season, and 10 of the 12 playoff berths have already been wrapped up. All that's left is deciding the best bad team in the NFC South, which will actually get to host a wild card game next week, and determining the last AFC wild card spot. Four teams are mathematically still alive for it, but I'd be surprised if it doesn't go to either San Diego or Baltimore. We've also got three division championship games in store, and the only places that are locked in are the AFC's No. 1 (New England) and No. 4 (Indianapolis) seeds. So, there's a lot to play for across the NFL in Week 17.
As per usual, I'm going to divide the Week 17 picks into the games that matter and those that don't. I'll start with the meaningless contests...
Colts (10-5) at Titans (2-13): Indianapolis-Thanks to their loss and the Bengals' win last week, the Colts are locked into the No. 4 seed in the AFC. The Titans, meanwhile, are playing for the No. 1 pick, which is theirs with a loss and a Tampa Bay win. Indianapolis doesn't care about this game, so you wonder how long Luck and Co. will play, but we saw a lot of Matt Hasselbeck last week during garbage time in the second half of that game in Dallas. Either way, the Colts don't want to go into the playoffs with two straight losses, especially if one is to the Titans. Besides, a Tennessee win costs them any shot at Marcus Mariota.
Jets (3-12) at Dolphins (8-7): Miami-Rex Ryan's final game as Jets head coach will be in Miami. I had high hopes for the Dolphins this season, but they're going to end up out of the playoffs once again. They can at least hang their heads on a 9-7 finish that includes a win over the Patriots. That's good towards building for next year. Come Monday, the Jets will have a lot of decisions to make regarding next year. But those decisions will be up to their new coach.
Bears (5-10) at Vikings (6-9): Chicago-Chicago has been one of my most disappointing teams in football this season. Coming into the year, I thought the Bears had the chance to be a playoff team. Now they're in a position where they have to win their finale just to get to 6-10 and avoid last place. (This while they see the Lions make the playoffs.) I think they do that, but I'm curious if, even if they do, this is Mark Trestman's last game as Chicago's head coach.
Bills (8-7) at Patriots (12-3): New England-How do you beat the Packers to put yourselves in a position to possibly sneak into the playoffs, then blow it by losing to the Raiders the following week? So is the case for the Buffalo Bills, who are now on 15 years and counting out of the playoffs. As for the Patriots, Denver's loss on Monday wrapped up the No. 1 seed, which makes me wonder how much Tom Brady we're going to see in the finale. It was only a couple years ago that Wes Welker got hurt in a meaningless Week 17 game and ended up missing the playoffs.
Eagles (9-6) at Giants (6-9): Giants-Oh, what a difference three weeks has made for the Philadelphia Eagles. They were 9-3, sitting in first place and riding high. Then they lose three in a row, including one in Washington, and see themselves playing a meaningless Week 17 game knowing that they won't be playing another. Basically the only thing the Eagles have to look forward to this week is Mark Sanchez's return to the Meadowlands. The Giants, meanwhile, have won three straight and can actually salvage a 7-9 record with a win. I'm not sure this is Tom Coughlin's last game after all. If I had to guess, I'd say it's not.
Saints (6-9) at Buccaneers (2-13): New Orleans-The Saints were our last hope for the NFC South. Then they go and lose to Atlanta, guaranteeing us a sub-.500 NFC South "champion." For Tampa Bay, things are easy. Lose and get the No. 1 pick. That pretty much means the Bucs will get a franchise quarterback in April.
Cowboys (11-4) at Redskins (4-11): Dallas-Hey, Dallas can't lose the Week 17 Sunday night NFC East championship game this year! The Redskins took care of business for them last week with that upset of the Eagles. Dallas locked up the division by crushing Indy the next day. The Cowboys can still technically get a bye or even the 1-seed, but they're pretty much locked into the 3. But since they play before the Lions-Packers game and both NFC West games, I'm fairly certain Dallas will play Romo the whole way and play for the win, even though they're probably not going to improve their seeding. Besides, they've got that perfect road record to play for. (Imagine if we get a Dallas-Green Bay wild card game next week, by the way.)
Raiders (3-12) at Broncos (11-4): Denver-They haven't clinched their bye yet, but the Broncos just need to beat the Raiders at home in order to do that. Peyton hasn't looked like Peyton lately, and there are a lot of questions about the Denver offense heading into the playoffs. (When's the last time you heard that?) That's why last week's loss might be a good thing. The Broncos need to play their starters the whole way this week, or they could theoretically end up playing next week, even if the only way that happens is if they lose and the Bengals win.
Now on to the games that have a bearing on playoff positioning...
Chargers (9-6) at Chiefs (8-7): San Diego-Both the Chargers and Chiefs made the playoffs last season, but only one can this year. If San Diego wins this game, it's easy. They get the last spot in the AFC. If Kansas City wins and Cleveland beats Baltimore, it's the Chiefs headed to the playoffs as the No. 6 seed. This is the type of game that the San Diego Chargers always seem to win. You never think about them, then you look up and they're in the playoffs. Look for that to happen again this year.
Browns (7-8) at Ravens (9-6): Baltimore-In 2012, three teams from the AFC North went to the playoffs. There's a chance it'll happen again this season if the Ravens get a little help from Kansas City. Because, as nice a story as the Browns were into mid-November, they very quickly reverted back to being the Browns. Now they've got their No. 3 quarterback going because Johnny Overrated almost had his head taken off last week and is on IR, and Brian Hoyer is probably getting shipped out of town even though he's the reason they were in contention for so long.
Jaguars (3-12) at Texans (8-7): Houston-I'm not sure if they actually wanted it, but the Jaguars cost themselves any shot at the No. 1 pick by beating the Titans last week. (It's amazing that Jacksonville has been this bad for this long, but has still never had the top pick in the draft.) The Texans are still in the mix for the AFC wild card, which is theirs if they win, the Chiefs beat the Chargers and the Ravens lose.
Panthers (6-8-1) at Falcons (6-9): Atlanta-We're guaranteed a sub-.500 division winner in the NFC South, where this Carolina-Atlanta matchup is a winner-take-all showdown for the No. 4 seed and a home game against a 12-4 or 11-5 team. Carolina started the season 3-2, went 0-6-1 over its next seven, and now enters an win-and-in situation on a three-game winning streak. Atlanta, meanwhile, has won a grand total of one game outside of its division (against Arizona of all teams), yet can still host a playoff game. Which I think it will. Because the Falcons will end up going a perfect 6-0 in the division.
Lions (11-4) at Packers (11-4): Green Bay-Nobody wants to go to Lambeau Field in January, so the Lions can do the rest of the NFC playoff teams a huge favor by winning there this week. And it's the Packers that need to win to clinch the division, because Detroit won the first game, so all they need is a tie. Either way, the loser knows that they most likely have to go to Dallas next week. I think that team's going to be the Lions. I'm just not sure they go into Green Bay and beat the Packers when the Packers have something to play for.
Cardinals (11-4) at 49ers (7-8): Arizona-Hopefully Drew Stanton is good to go next week. Because, as great as their story has been for most of the season, it looks like Arizona's going to be a wild card and head to Atlanta (where they already lost this season) or Charlotte. I agree with the decision not to rush Stanton back this week. Because the Cardinals' chances of winning the division aren't that good. Is this Jim Harbaugh's last game in San Francisco, though? That's the real question. I think "Yes." Harbaugh will be introduced as Michigan's new coach before the New Year.
Rams (6-9) at Seahawks (11-4): Seattle-For all the worry that the defending champs might not even make the playoffs, the Seahawks sure have silenced the doubters. All they need to do to wrap up home field for the second straight year is win and have Packers-Lions not be a tie (in which case Dallas can get the 1-seed). Seattle's not a fun place to have to go to in January, as the NFC playoff field learned last season. Well, they're going to have to try to beat the Seahawks in Seattle again if they want to go to the Super Bowl. Because the Seahawks are beating the Rams on Sunday.
Bengals (10-4-1) at Steelers (10-5): Pittsburgh-I'm glad the Bengals beat the Broncos last week. Because they deserve to be in the playoffs and it wouldn't have felt right to see them out. The Sunday nighter in Pittsburgh is still for the division, but it's good to know that Cincinnati isn't out entirely with a loss. There was a definite concern about that with the Denver, at Pittsburgh finish. And they took care of the primetime thing last week, too. That very well might've been a signature win for this bunch, which will go on the road to Indianapolis if they don't win this one. The game got away when they played the Steelers in Cincinnati four weeks ago. It'll be closer in Pittsburgh, but I think the result will be the same. Bengals-Colts next week.
Last Week: 8-8
Season: 152-87-1
As per usual, I'm going to divide the Week 17 picks into the games that matter and those that don't. I'll start with the meaningless contests...
Colts (10-5) at Titans (2-13): Indianapolis-Thanks to their loss and the Bengals' win last week, the Colts are locked into the No. 4 seed in the AFC. The Titans, meanwhile, are playing for the No. 1 pick, which is theirs with a loss and a Tampa Bay win. Indianapolis doesn't care about this game, so you wonder how long Luck and Co. will play, but we saw a lot of Matt Hasselbeck last week during garbage time in the second half of that game in Dallas. Either way, the Colts don't want to go into the playoffs with two straight losses, especially if one is to the Titans. Besides, a Tennessee win costs them any shot at Marcus Mariota.
Jets (3-12) at Dolphins (8-7): Miami-Rex Ryan's final game as Jets head coach will be in Miami. I had high hopes for the Dolphins this season, but they're going to end up out of the playoffs once again. They can at least hang their heads on a 9-7 finish that includes a win over the Patriots. That's good towards building for next year. Come Monday, the Jets will have a lot of decisions to make regarding next year. But those decisions will be up to their new coach.
Bears (5-10) at Vikings (6-9): Chicago-Chicago has been one of my most disappointing teams in football this season. Coming into the year, I thought the Bears had the chance to be a playoff team. Now they're in a position where they have to win their finale just to get to 6-10 and avoid last place. (This while they see the Lions make the playoffs.) I think they do that, but I'm curious if, even if they do, this is Mark Trestman's last game as Chicago's head coach.
Bills (8-7) at Patriots (12-3): New England-How do you beat the Packers to put yourselves in a position to possibly sneak into the playoffs, then blow it by losing to the Raiders the following week? So is the case for the Buffalo Bills, who are now on 15 years and counting out of the playoffs. As for the Patriots, Denver's loss on Monday wrapped up the No. 1 seed, which makes me wonder how much Tom Brady we're going to see in the finale. It was only a couple years ago that Wes Welker got hurt in a meaningless Week 17 game and ended up missing the playoffs.
Eagles (9-6) at Giants (6-9): Giants-Oh, what a difference three weeks has made for the Philadelphia Eagles. They were 9-3, sitting in first place and riding high. Then they lose three in a row, including one in Washington, and see themselves playing a meaningless Week 17 game knowing that they won't be playing another. Basically the only thing the Eagles have to look forward to this week is Mark Sanchez's return to the Meadowlands. The Giants, meanwhile, have won three straight and can actually salvage a 7-9 record with a win. I'm not sure this is Tom Coughlin's last game after all. If I had to guess, I'd say it's not.
Saints (6-9) at Buccaneers (2-13): New Orleans-The Saints were our last hope for the NFC South. Then they go and lose to Atlanta, guaranteeing us a sub-.500 NFC South "champion." For Tampa Bay, things are easy. Lose and get the No. 1 pick. That pretty much means the Bucs will get a franchise quarterback in April.
Cowboys (11-4) at Redskins (4-11): Dallas-Hey, Dallas can't lose the Week 17 Sunday night NFC East championship game this year! The Redskins took care of business for them last week with that upset of the Eagles. Dallas locked up the division by crushing Indy the next day. The Cowboys can still technically get a bye or even the 1-seed, but they're pretty much locked into the 3. But since they play before the Lions-Packers game and both NFC West games, I'm fairly certain Dallas will play Romo the whole way and play for the win, even though they're probably not going to improve their seeding. Besides, they've got that perfect road record to play for. (Imagine if we get a Dallas-Green Bay wild card game next week, by the way.)
Raiders (3-12) at Broncos (11-4): Denver-They haven't clinched their bye yet, but the Broncos just need to beat the Raiders at home in order to do that. Peyton hasn't looked like Peyton lately, and there are a lot of questions about the Denver offense heading into the playoffs. (When's the last time you heard that?) That's why last week's loss might be a good thing. The Broncos need to play their starters the whole way this week, or they could theoretically end up playing next week, even if the only way that happens is if they lose and the Bengals win.
Now on to the games that have a bearing on playoff positioning...
Chargers (9-6) at Chiefs (8-7): San Diego-Both the Chargers and Chiefs made the playoffs last season, but only one can this year. If San Diego wins this game, it's easy. They get the last spot in the AFC. If Kansas City wins and Cleveland beats Baltimore, it's the Chiefs headed to the playoffs as the No. 6 seed. This is the type of game that the San Diego Chargers always seem to win. You never think about them, then you look up and they're in the playoffs. Look for that to happen again this year.
Browns (7-8) at Ravens (9-6): Baltimore-In 2012, three teams from the AFC North went to the playoffs. There's a chance it'll happen again this season if the Ravens get a little help from Kansas City. Because, as nice a story as the Browns were into mid-November, they very quickly reverted back to being the Browns. Now they've got their No. 3 quarterback going because Johnny Overrated almost had his head taken off last week and is on IR, and Brian Hoyer is probably getting shipped out of town even though he's the reason they were in contention for so long.
Jaguars (3-12) at Texans (8-7): Houston-I'm not sure if they actually wanted it, but the Jaguars cost themselves any shot at the No. 1 pick by beating the Titans last week. (It's amazing that Jacksonville has been this bad for this long, but has still never had the top pick in the draft.) The Texans are still in the mix for the AFC wild card, which is theirs if they win, the Chiefs beat the Chargers and the Ravens lose.
Panthers (6-8-1) at Falcons (6-9): Atlanta-We're guaranteed a sub-.500 division winner in the NFC South, where this Carolina-Atlanta matchup is a winner-take-all showdown for the No. 4 seed and a home game against a 12-4 or 11-5 team. Carolina started the season 3-2, went 0-6-1 over its next seven, and now enters an win-and-in situation on a three-game winning streak. Atlanta, meanwhile, has won a grand total of one game outside of its division (against Arizona of all teams), yet can still host a playoff game. Which I think it will. Because the Falcons will end up going a perfect 6-0 in the division.
Lions (11-4) at Packers (11-4): Green Bay-Nobody wants to go to Lambeau Field in January, so the Lions can do the rest of the NFC playoff teams a huge favor by winning there this week. And it's the Packers that need to win to clinch the division, because Detroit won the first game, so all they need is a tie. Either way, the loser knows that they most likely have to go to Dallas next week. I think that team's going to be the Lions. I'm just not sure they go into Green Bay and beat the Packers when the Packers have something to play for.
Cardinals (11-4) at 49ers (7-8): Arizona-Hopefully Drew Stanton is good to go next week. Because, as great as their story has been for most of the season, it looks like Arizona's going to be a wild card and head to Atlanta (where they already lost this season) or Charlotte. I agree with the decision not to rush Stanton back this week. Because the Cardinals' chances of winning the division aren't that good. Is this Jim Harbaugh's last game in San Francisco, though? That's the real question. I think "Yes." Harbaugh will be introduced as Michigan's new coach before the New Year.
Rams (6-9) at Seahawks (11-4): Seattle-For all the worry that the defending champs might not even make the playoffs, the Seahawks sure have silenced the doubters. All they need to do to wrap up home field for the second straight year is win and have Packers-Lions not be a tie (in which case Dallas can get the 1-seed). Seattle's not a fun place to have to go to in January, as the NFC playoff field learned last season. Well, they're going to have to try to beat the Seahawks in Seattle again if they want to go to the Super Bowl. Because the Seahawks are beating the Rams on Sunday.
Bengals (10-4-1) at Steelers (10-5): Pittsburgh-I'm glad the Bengals beat the Broncos last week. Because they deserve to be in the playoffs and it wouldn't have felt right to see them out. The Sunday nighter in Pittsburgh is still for the division, but it's good to know that Cincinnati isn't out entirely with a loss. There was a definite concern about that with the Denver, at Pittsburgh finish. And they took care of the primetime thing last week, too. That very well might've been a signature win for this bunch, which will go on the road to Indianapolis if they don't win this one. The game got away when they played the Steelers in Cincinnati four weeks ago. It'll be closer in Pittsburgh, but I think the result will be the same. Bengals-Colts next week.
Last Week: 8-8
Season: 152-87-1
Friday, December 26, 2014
The Case For Four
Over the last several days while I was home on Long Island for Christmas, I finally got a chance to catch up on some back issues of Sports Illustrated (it's bad, I'm like three weeks behind). Anyway, as you know, I'm normally not one to talk about college football. It, along with the NBA, is the mainstream TV sport that I generally stay away from. There are a lot of reasons why, so I'm not going to get into them.
However, college football is on a lot of people's minds right now, especially with the inaugural College Football Playoff right around the corner. It's only in its first year, but the College Football Playoff has already created its share of controversy, awarding the fourth and final spot to Ohio State over TCU and Baylor. And that brings me back to the Sports Illustrated thing. In the "The Case For..." section of the magazine in the Sportsman of the Year issue, the argument was made that, controversy aside, four teams is the perfect amount for the playoff. Frankly, I agree.
I'm going to echo a lot of SI's points here. Mainly because I think they're correct. I also believe, like many, that this playoff is inevitably going to be double in size. It'll probably be eight teams by the end of the decade. But that doesn't mean it should me.
If the BCS proved anything, it's that college football needed this playoff. The BCS was designed to set up a National Championship Game between the two best teams. But more often than not, there were three teams that could make a valid argument for being in that game. And the process by which the teams were chosen was secretive, arbitrary and highly controversial.
While well-intentioned, the BCS's problems far outweighed the positives. It was designed to stop controversy, but only created more. And we even had the split National Champions that everyone so much enjoyed. The calls for a playoff became so great that this year, they finally gave in and created a four-team bracket, with the semifinals taking place at two of the New Year's Day bowls and the championship game the following Monday night.
Most, if not all, people wanted this. There's still going to be debate and scrutiny, but I think we can all agree that this is better than what it was. Obviously some sort of all-inclusive playoff like March Madness would be great, but it also seems somewhat impractical. Although, that appears to be what some people want. Because we haven't even had the first playoff yet, and we've already got the calls for increasing the field from four to eight teams. Instead of rushing to make the change just so more schools can get a piece of the pie, let's take a step back and let this first one play out, though.
The most obvious case for expanding to eight teams is that there are five major conferences and only four teams in the playoff. That means that, at a minimum, at least one of the five conferences will be left out of the playoff in any given year. And that's assuming you only have a champion from each of the four remaining leagues. If there are two SEC teams, like there was that year Alabama played LSU, then two other conferences will be left out. Going to eight would all but assure that the five conference champions qualify, as well as three at-large selections.
But are there really eight teams worthy of playing for the national championship? Most likely not. Yes, there's always going to be a debate, and the difference between No. 4 and No. 5 might not be that great. But looking for teams six, seven and eight would probably require at least one reach. By adding those three extra teams, you're watering down the product.
Perhaps the biggest concern brought up in SI, though, was a very valid question, and it's one that would have to be considered. If you go from four to eight teams, that's an extra round of the playoff. To win the championship, teams would have to play three games instead of two. But when are you playing these quarterfinal games? Are you having them before the New Year's Day semifinals, which means Christmas week? Are the New Year's bowls the four quarterfinals, with the semis a week later and the championship a week after that? That would put the championship game in mid-January.
Neither one of those solutions is ideal. While I already think there are too many bowls (do we really need the Heart of Dallas Bowl or Miami Beach Bowl?), I understand that they have significance to those who care about such things. If you have the quarterfinal games of the playoff over Christmas, that takes the spotlight off these marginal bowl games. Likewise, if the quarterfinals are on New Year's Day, that renders any non-Playoff New Year's bowl insignificant. And if you were to use the existing bowls, how do you determine which one is a quarterfinal and which is a semi? (One of the things I like the best about the Playoff is that the traditional bowls ARE the semifinals, and they'll rotate each year.)
These problems I'm sure will be worked out when/if they increase the size of the College Football Playoff to eight teams. But they're also the logistical concerns that people who talk expansion simply don't think about. While an eight-team College Football Playoff might sound like a great idea to some, it's not that simple. Besides, let's give four a shot and see how it works before we start clamoring for eight. Because four might turn out to be the perfect number.
However, college football is on a lot of people's minds right now, especially with the inaugural College Football Playoff right around the corner. It's only in its first year, but the College Football Playoff has already created its share of controversy, awarding the fourth and final spot to Ohio State over TCU and Baylor. And that brings me back to the Sports Illustrated thing. In the "The Case For..." section of the magazine in the Sportsman of the Year issue, the argument was made that, controversy aside, four teams is the perfect amount for the playoff. Frankly, I agree.
I'm going to echo a lot of SI's points here. Mainly because I think they're correct. I also believe, like many, that this playoff is inevitably going to be double in size. It'll probably be eight teams by the end of the decade. But that doesn't mean it should me.
If the BCS proved anything, it's that college football needed this playoff. The BCS was designed to set up a National Championship Game between the two best teams. But more often than not, there were three teams that could make a valid argument for being in that game. And the process by which the teams were chosen was secretive, arbitrary and highly controversial.
While well-intentioned, the BCS's problems far outweighed the positives. It was designed to stop controversy, but only created more. And we even had the split National Champions that everyone so much enjoyed. The calls for a playoff became so great that this year, they finally gave in and created a four-team bracket, with the semifinals taking place at two of the New Year's Day bowls and the championship game the following Monday night.
Most, if not all, people wanted this. There's still going to be debate and scrutiny, but I think we can all agree that this is better than what it was. Obviously some sort of all-inclusive playoff like March Madness would be great, but it also seems somewhat impractical. Although, that appears to be what some people want. Because we haven't even had the first playoff yet, and we've already got the calls for increasing the field from four to eight teams. Instead of rushing to make the change just so more schools can get a piece of the pie, let's take a step back and let this first one play out, though.
The most obvious case for expanding to eight teams is that there are five major conferences and only four teams in the playoff. That means that, at a minimum, at least one of the five conferences will be left out of the playoff in any given year. And that's assuming you only have a champion from each of the four remaining leagues. If there are two SEC teams, like there was that year Alabama played LSU, then two other conferences will be left out. Going to eight would all but assure that the five conference champions qualify, as well as three at-large selections.
But are there really eight teams worthy of playing for the national championship? Most likely not. Yes, there's always going to be a debate, and the difference between No. 4 and No. 5 might not be that great. But looking for teams six, seven and eight would probably require at least one reach. By adding those three extra teams, you're watering down the product.
Perhaps the biggest concern brought up in SI, though, was a very valid question, and it's one that would have to be considered. If you go from four to eight teams, that's an extra round of the playoff. To win the championship, teams would have to play three games instead of two. But when are you playing these quarterfinal games? Are you having them before the New Year's Day semifinals, which means Christmas week? Are the New Year's bowls the four quarterfinals, with the semis a week later and the championship a week after that? That would put the championship game in mid-January.
Neither one of those solutions is ideal. While I already think there are too many bowls (do we really need the Heart of Dallas Bowl or Miami Beach Bowl?), I understand that they have significance to those who care about such things. If you have the quarterfinal games of the playoff over Christmas, that takes the spotlight off these marginal bowl games. Likewise, if the quarterfinals are on New Year's Day, that renders any non-Playoff New Year's bowl insignificant. And if you were to use the existing bowls, how do you determine which one is a quarterfinal and which is a semi? (One of the things I like the best about the Playoff is that the traditional bowls ARE the semifinals, and they'll rotate each year.)
These problems I'm sure will be worked out when/if they increase the size of the College Football Playoff to eight teams. But they're also the logistical concerns that people who talk expansion simply don't think about. While an eight-team College Football Playoff might sound like a great idea to some, it's not that simple. Besides, let's give four a shot and see how it works before we start clamoring for eight. Because four might turn out to be the perfect number.
Monday, December 22, 2014
What I Don't Get About European Soccer
I like soccer. I think any regular readers of this blog know that. In fact, I was incredibly excited yesterday when I was Christmas shopping, went into Modell's and saw a bunch of NYCFC merchandise, including this bad boy...
No, I didn't buy the Dave City (that's going to be the nickname, people, whether you like it or not, so just go with it) t-shirt jersey, but, as you can see, I'm an FC fan, even though they don't play their first game until next season. And it's on when they play their first game against the MetroStars.
This year has once again made it clearly apparent that America has embraced the world's game. People were dropping everything to watch the national team in the World Cup, and it'll probably be the same with the Women's World Cup next summer, especially if the U.S. makes the expected deep run. MLS is going on 20 years strong as the top professional league in North America, and the league is so strong that it keeps expanding (FC and Orlando next season, Atlanta and Miami to follow soon after). Yet wherever I look, I can't find an MLS fan. Everyone's obsessed with the EPL.
Forgive me for my ignorance, but I simply don't get it. How'd everybody suddenly become fans of all these English teams? Especially when there's a league right here at home that they can get behind! I get the fact that it's the best soccer in the world. But is that the only reason?
Maybe it's just me, but I can't get into the Premier League. There are full blown conversations about the EPL between fans of the different teams at my work and I just nod along, with them knowing full well I've got no idea what they're talking about. It also makes me wonder if that's what it's like when I get going about baseball or the Olympics.
Anyway, I think my issues with the EPL stem from my confusion about the entire system of European soccer. For starters, when does the season start? And when does it end? These guys are seriously playing all the freakin' time! They play teams in their own league on weekends, the Champions League during the week, get mandatory breaks here and there for international play, go to the U.S. over the summer. Seriously, when do these guys get time off?! In the U.S, you know. Football season starts in September and the Super Bowl's in February. Baseball starts in April and the World Series is in October. That's easy to understand. It's impossible to follow, at least for me, what's regular season and what's part of all those different cups in European soccer.
Europeans are also quick to jump all over us because North American seasons are all about the playoffs. In their opinion, the regular season is rendered meaningless that way. The best team should be rewarded. Except they are. They get home field advantage in the playoffs. Sure, more often than not, the best team isn't going to win (take this year's World Series between two wild card teams), but that also speaks to the parity in the four leagues. There are any number of teams good enough to win the title. With playoffs, they have the chance to do so.
Besides, what do you think the Champions League is? Sure, there aren't playoffs in the domestic European leagues, but the Champions League is one gigantic playoff that spans all of Europe. And you don't have to be the best team in your league to win that.
The argument about the sanctity of the regular season in European soccer doesn't hold much weight with me anyway. In most of those leagues, you know who the three or four best teams are every season. Nobody else has a chance of winning the championship. So what's the point of watching that team play after the middle of the season, when you know they have no shot at the title? Playoffs also prevent the end of the regular season from becoming anticlimactic. Didn't Real Madrid clinch La Liga with like two months left in the season a couple years ago? If a team has already won the championship with that many games remaining, what's the point for anybody?
They've got promotion and relegation, I'll give them that. But it's a little backwards that there can be absolutely no suspense at the end of the regular season for the good teams, yet the bad teams are the ones that have something to play for. Again, I have no problem with the promotion/relegation system, but it's not a fair criticism to get on MLS for not having it. Pro sports are set up differently here. The talent level is not equal from one level to the next. It would also be the road to financial ruin for a franchise that would still have to pay major league salaries, but would take a major hit in ticket sales, sponsorships, and everything else that brings in the money to pay those salaries. That's assuming, of course, that they didn't lose all of their best players, none of whom signed contracts to play for a second-division team.
Also, do the standings go W-T-L in MLS, too? This is most likely 100 percent an American thing, but it's very confusing to see the format that way. I guess I get that that's the way they do it, and they'd probably be confused to look at the NHL standings and see the OT/shootout wins after the losses, but it bothers me nonetheless.
None of those are my biggest source of confusion when it comes to European soccer, though. That would be loans. The entire concept is strange to me. You can take a guy who's under contract to our team, he can play for you (potentially against us), and we'll keep paying him. Am I the only person who finds that weird?
Imagine if they had that here. The Cardinals wouldn't have had to start Ryan Linley last night. They simply could've borrowed, say Matt Hasselbeck from the Colts. Or if Henrik Lundqvist got hurt, so the Rangers called up the Sharks and San Jose let them use their goalie until he came back. That sounds ridiculous when applied to the NFL or NHL. So why doesn't it sound equally ridiculous when it comes to European soccer? If you don't want a guy, release him! If you don't want him and somebody else does, trade him! If he doesn't want to play for you and wants to play for them instead, that's what free agency's for.
Loans inevitably lead to all sorts of problems. Frank Lampard is FC's other big name. They expect to have him when the season starts in March. The European team that he's playing for right now wants to keep him until the end of their season (whenever that is). Well, something's gotta give, and since Lampard is under contract to FC, that should be it.
All of this confusion could simply be avoided, though, if the loan system was abolished. I can make my peace with not understanding the differences between European soccer and sports here or why Americans have become such crazy, rabid fans of these English soccer teams. But the entire concept of loans is something I'm never going to understand, so you might as well not even bother trying to explain it to me.
No, I didn't buy the Dave City (that's going to be the nickname, people, whether you like it or not, so just go with it) t-shirt jersey, but, as you can see, I'm an FC fan, even though they don't play their first game until next season. And it's on when they play their first game against the MetroStars.
This year has once again made it clearly apparent that America has embraced the world's game. People were dropping everything to watch the national team in the World Cup, and it'll probably be the same with the Women's World Cup next summer, especially if the U.S. makes the expected deep run. MLS is going on 20 years strong as the top professional league in North America, and the league is so strong that it keeps expanding (FC and Orlando next season, Atlanta and Miami to follow soon after). Yet wherever I look, I can't find an MLS fan. Everyone's obsessed with the EPL.
Forgive me for my ignorance, but I simply don't get it. How'd everybody suddenly become fans of all these English teams? Especially when there's a league right here at home that they can get behind! I get the fact that it's the best soccer in the world. But is that the only reason?
Maybe it's just me, but I can't get into the Premier League. There are full blown conversations about the EPL between fans of the different teams at my work and I just nod along, with them knowing full well I've got no idea what they're talking about. It also makes me wonder if that's what it's like when I get going about baseball or the Olympics.
Anyway, I think my issues with the EPL stem from my confusion about the entire system of European soccer. For starters, when does the season start? And when does it end? These guys are seriously playing all the freakin' time! They play teams in their own league on weekends, the Champions League during the week, get mandatory breaks here and there for international play, go to the U.S. over the summer. Seriously, when do these guys get time off?! In the U.S, you know. Football season starts in September and the Super Bowl's in February. Baseball starts in April and the World Series is in October. That's easy to understand. It's impossible to follow, at least for me, what's regular season and what's part of all those different cups in European soccer.
Europeans are also quick to jump all over us because North American seasons are all about the playoffs. In their opinion, the regular season is rendered meaningless that way. The best team should be rewarded. Except they are. They get home field advantage in the playoffs. Sure, more often than not, the best team isn't going to win (take this year's World Series between two wild card teams), but that also speaks to the parity in the four leagues. There are any number of teams good enough to win the title. With playoffs, they have the chance to do so.
Besides, what do you think the Champions League is? Sure, there aren't playoffs in the domestic European leagues, but the Champions League is one gigantic playoff that spans all of Europe. And you don't have to be the best team in your league to win that.
The argument about the sanctity of the regular season in European soccer doesn't hold much weight with me anyway. In most of those leagues, you know who the three or four best teams are every season. Nobody else has a chance of winning the championship. So what's the point of watching that team play after the middle of the season, when you know they have no shot at the title? Playoffs also prevent the end of the regular season from becoming anticlimactic. Didn't Real Madrid clinch La Liga with like two months left in the season a couple years ago? If a team has already won the championship with that many games remaining, what's the point for anybody?
They've got promotion and relegation, I'll give them that. But it's a little backwards that there can be absolutely no suspense at the end of the regular season for the good teams, yet the bad teams are the ones that have something to play for. Again, I have no problem with the promotion/relegation system, but it's not a fair criticism to get on MLS for not having it. Pro sports are set up differently here. The talent level is not equal from one level to the next. It would also be the road to financial ruin for a franchise that would still have to pay major league salaries, but would take a major hit in ticket sales, sponsorships, and everything else that brings in the money to pay those salaries. That's assuming, of course, that they didn't lose all of their best players, none of whom signed contracts to play for a second-division team.
Also, do the standings go W-T-L in MLS, too? This is most likely 100 percent an American thing, but it's very confusing to see the format that way. I guess I get that that's the way they do it, and they'd probably be confused to look at the NHL standings and see the OT/shootout wins after the losses, but it bothers me nonetheless.
None of those are my biggest source of confusion when it comes to European soccer, though. That would be loans. The entire concept is strange to me. You can take a guy who's under contract to our team, he can play for you (potentially against us), and we'll keep paying him. Am I the only person who finds that weird?
Imagine if they had that here. The Cardinals wouldn't have had to start Ryan Linley last night. They simply could've borrowed, say Matt Hasselbeck from the Colts. Or if Henrik Lundqvist got hurt, so the Rangers called up the Sharks and San Jose let them use their goalie until he came back. That sounds ridiculous when applied to the NFL or NHL. So why doesn't it sound equally ridiculous when it comes to European soccer? If you don't want a guy, release him! If you don't want him and somebody else does, trade him! If he doesn't want to play for you and wants to play for them instead, that's what free agency's for.
Loans inevitably lead to all sorts of problems. Frank Lampard is FC's other big name. They expect to have him when the season starts in March. The European team that he's playing for right now wants to keep him until the end of their season (whenever that is). Well, something's gotta give, and since Lampard is under contract to FC, that should be it.
All of this confusion could simply be avoided, though, if the loan system was abolished. I can make my peace with not understanding the differences between European soccer and sports here or why Americans have become such crazy, rabid fans of these English soccer teams. But the entire concept of loans is something I'm never going to understand, so you might as well not even bother trying to explain it to me.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
The Rest of Week 16
Does anyone else find this Saturday thing a little weird? The NFL used to do Saturday games at the end of the season all the time, but it's been so long that there's been one that it's a bit of a shock to the system. But it's definitely a welcome change, even if it is only for one week.
Thursday Night: Tennessee (Loss)
Eagles (9-5) at Redskins (3-11): Philadelphia-It's just one of those things, but it's almost unfair to think the Eagles could end up 11-5 and out of the playoffs, while one of the NFC South teams is guaranteed a home game. Back-to-back losses to Seattle and Dallas have moved Philly from a game up to a game down on the Cowboys...and out of the playoffs. So, basically, the Eagles don't have any other choice but to win. If they don't, next week's game against the Giants is essentially meaningless.
Chargers (8-6) at 49ers (7-7): San Diego-The 49ers are out and Jim Harbaugh is being courted by his alma mater, Michigan. San Diego is currently out and needs some help to get in. Like the Eagles, they've lost two straight--to the division-leading Patriots and Broncos. They know they no longer have any margin for error. I think they go into Levi's Stadium, get a victory, and set themselves up for a Week 17 clash with the Chiefs that could be for a wild card spot.
Lions (10-4) at Bears (5-9): Detroit-For all the talk about Green Bay and Seattle as the two "best teams" in the NFC, nobody has seemed to notice that Detroit isn't just currently in first place, but would have a bye. The silent assassins can even clinch the division if they win and the Packers lose this week. While that's probably not going to happen (the Packers are playing Tampa Bay), Detroit's at least going to keep up its end of the bargain, clinch its playoff spot, and make next week's showdown a winner-take-all battle for the NFC North.
Vikings (6-8) at Dolphins (7-7): Miami-The Dolphins and Vikings. Two teams playing out the string. They do both have a chance to finish the season at .500, though, which I don't think anyone would've expected about the Vikings after everything they've gone through this year. Before the season started, I thought the Dolphins could be a sleeper playoff team. They're not going to make the playoffs, but 9-7 is definitely possible. In order to be 9-7, they'll have to get to 8-7 first.
Falcons (5-9) at Saints (6-8): New Orleans-This is, amazingly, one of the most important games of the week. And it's probably going to decide the NFC South. If the Saints win and the Panthers lose, that's it, New Orleans clinches. At the very least, a Saints win puts them in a position to clinch next week. Meanwhile, a Falcons win means the NFC South "champion" will definitely be below .500, and it could mean that Atlanta-Carolina for the division title ends up as next week's Sunday night game. I think most people would agree, though, that New Orleans is the least-bad team in this division. They're also the only hope for 8-8, so how could I pick against the Saints?
Patriots (11-3) at Jets (3-11): New England-Rex Ryan's final home game as Jets head coach is against his nemesis Bill Belichick. A New England win clinches a bye, and could also mean home field if Denver loses. Maybe Rex can give Jets fans a Christmas present and beat the Patriots one last time. Yeah right.
Chiefs (8-6) at Steelers (9-5): Pittsburgh-This is a huge game for AFC playoff positioning. Pittsburgh's in with a win, while Kansas City sets itself up to clinch next week if they win. The loser also knows that they're most likely not getting into the playoffs. So, basically, it's a big one for both teams. So who's got the edge? I like Pittsburgh. They haven't been to the postseason in three years and can still win the division. They're hungry.
Packers (10-4) at Buccaneers (2-12): Green Bay-We all know that the Packers are incredible at Lambeau Field. It's winning on the road that's been a bit of a problem. Well, they're going to need a road win this week in order to make sure they don't have another one for a while. Fortunately for them, that last road game is in Tampa. Although, the Raiders and Titans have to hope the Bucs win either this week or next. Otherwise, Tampa Bay is a virtual lock for the No. 1 pick because of how bad the NFC South is.
Browns (7-7) at Panthers (5-8-1): Carolina-Bernie Kosar took some heat for publicly criticizing the Browns on a Cleveland radio station earlier this week. But you know what? Everything he said was 100 percent right. There was absolutely no reason for them to piss away the season by making a quarterback switch to Johnny Overrated last week. Somebody in the front office was watching too much ESPN I think. 30-0 is proof that they made the wrong decision. Carolina, meanwhile, has once again figured out how to win football games, and the Panthers, incredibly, can play for the NFC South title next week if they win and the Falcons beat the Saints. Carolina does its part. Because Cleveland is clueless.
Ravens (9-5) at Texans (7-7): Baltimore-The Ravens can clinch a playoff berth this week, but need some help to do so. The first step is beating Houston. Then the rest will fall into place (seeing as the teams Baltimore needs to lose are playing each other is very helpful). There's still a chance the Ravens win the division, too. While I don't think a win here is guaranteed (Houston is still mathematically alive), I do think they get it.
Giants (5-9) at Rams (6-8): St. Louis-Imagine if the Rams had a healthy Sam Bradford this season. They're without a doubt the best last-place team in football. The Giants have made their record a little more respectable after proving that there are two teams worse than them. St. Louis is better than them. I give the edge to the Rams.
Colts (10-4) at Cowboys (10-4): Indianapolis-Indianapolis has clinched the division and is basically guaranteed the 3-seed in the AFC. Dallas has a whole lot more to play for. The Cowboys have a one-game lead on the Eagles, but could also end up out of the playoffs entirely. We've got a good one for the national doubleheader game. Although, I'm sure undefeated-on-the-road Dallas would prefer if this game was in Indianapolis. They might have to play for all the marbles next week in Washington. Because for some reason, I'm feeling Lucky.
Bills (8-6) at Raiders (2-12): Buffalo-They're not going to make the playoffs, but there's still plenty to play for. Thanks to last week's upset of the Packers, they need just one win in their last two games to clinch a winning record for the first time since 2004. For a team that hasn't made the playoffs in 15 years, that's a big deal. Fortunately, their first chance at win No. 9 comes in Oakland. Because they're ending the season in New England.
Seahawks (10-4) at Cardinals (11-3): Seattle-NBC and the NFL did a great job setting the Sunday night schedule this year. Not a single game was flexed out. And this week, we've got the Cardinals and Seahawks in a huge matchup for NFC playoff positioning. Arizona has already clinched a spot and wraps up home field for the entire playoffs (including the Super Bowl) with a win. The defending champs, meanwhile, move into the NFC West driver's seat if they win this one to complete a sweep of the Cardinals. Seattle's on a roll and Arizona's down to it's third-string quarterback. It would be remarkable if the Cardinals managed to pull this one out, but I'm not sure I see it happening.
Broncos (11-3) at Bengals (9-4-1): Denver-The final game of Monday Night Football's 45th season is just as important as the Sunday nighter. Denver's basically locked into the 2-seed, but Cincinnati's in a dogfight for the AFC North title that won't be decided this week. Except a loss probably knocks them a half-game back heading into the finale in Pittsburgh (that might end on Sunday night). The Bengals' problem all year, though, has been how bad they've played in night games. Slaughtered by New England on a Sunday night. Lost to Cleveland on a Thursday night. They've gotta do something on their only Monday night if they want to avoid potentially being knocked out entirely next Sunday night. I think Denver takes care of its bye, though, and Peyton can take it easy against the Raiders.
This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 14-2
Season: 144-80-1
Thursday Night: Tennessee (Loss)
Eagles (9-5) at Redskins (3-11): Philadelphia-It's just one of those things, but it's almost unfair to think the Eagles could end up 11-5 and out of the playoffs, while one of the NFC South teams is guaranteed a home game. Back-to-back losses to Seattle and Dallas have moved Philly from a game up to a game down on the Cowboys...and out of the playoffs. So, basically, the Eagles don't have any other choice but to win. If they don't, next week's game against the Giants is essentially meaningless.
Chargers (8-6) at 49ers (7-7): San Diego-The 49ers are out and Jim Harbaugh is being courted by his alma mater, Michigan. San Diego is currently out and needs some help to get in. Like the Eagles, they've lost two straight--to the division-leading Patriots and Broncos. They know they no longer have any margin for error. I think they go into Levi's Stadium, get a victory, and set themselves up for a Week 17 clash with the Chiefs that could be for a wild card spot.
Lions (10-4) at Bears (5-9): Detroit-For all the talk about Green Bay and Seattle as the two "best teams" in the NFC, nobody has seemed to notice that Detroit isn't just currently in first place, but would have a bye. The silent assassins can even clinch the division if they win and the Packers lose this week. While that's probably not going to happen (the Packers are playing Tampa Bay), Detroit's at least going to keep up its end of the bargain, clinch its playoff spot, and make next week's showdown a winner-take-all battle for the NFC North.
Vikings (6-8) at Dolphins (7-7): Miami-The Dolphins and Vikings. Two teams playing out the string. They do both have a chance to finish the season at .500, though, which I don't think anyone would've expected about the Vikings after everything they've gone through this year. Before the season started, I thought the Dolphins could be a sleeper playoff team. They're not going to make the playoffs, but 9-7 is definitely possible. In order to be 9-7, they'll have to get to 8-7 first.
Falcons (5-9) at Saints (6-8): New Orleans-This is, amazingly, one of the most important games of the week. And it's probably going to decide the NFC South. If the Saints win and the Panthers lose, that's it, New Orleans clinches. At the very least, a Saints win puts them in a position to clinch next week. Meanwhile, a Falcons win means the NFC South "champion" will definitely be below .500, and it could mean that Atlanta-Carolina for the division title ends up as next week's Sunday night game. I think most people would agree, though, that New Orleans is the least-bad team in this division. They're also the only hope for 8-8, so how could I pick against the Saints?
Patriots (11-3) at Jets (3-11): New England-Rex Ryan's final home game as Jets head coach is against his nemesis Bill Belichick. A New England win clinches a bye, and could also mean home field if Denver loses. Maybe Rex can give Jets fans a Christmas present and beat the Patriots one last time. Yeah right.
Chiefs (8-6) at Steelers (9-5): Pittsburgh-This is a huge game for AFC playoff positioning. Pittsburgh's in with a win, while Kansas City sets itself up to clinch next week if they win. The loser also knows that they're most likely not getting into the playoffs. So, basically, it's a big one for both teams. So who's got the edge? I like Pittsburgh. They haven't been to the postseason in three years and can still win the division. They're hungry.
Packers (10-4) at Buccaneers (2-12): Green Bay-We all know that the Packers are incredible at Lambeau Field. It's winning on the road that's been a bit of a problem. Well, they're going to need a road win this week in order to make sure they don't have another one for a while. Fortunately for them, that last road game is in Tampa. Although, the Raiders and Titans have to hope the Bucs win either this week or next. Otherwise, Tampa Bay is a virtual lock for the No. 1 pick because of how bad the NFC South is.
Browns (7-7) at Panthers (5-8-1): Carolina-Bernie Kosar took some heat for publicly criticizing the Browns on a Cleveland radio station earlier this week. But you know what? Everything he said was 100 percent right. There was absolutely no reason for them to piss away the season by making a quarterback switch to Johnny Overrated last week. Somebody in the front office was watching too much ESPN I think. 30-0 is proof that they made the wrong decision. Carolina, meanwhile, has once again figured out how to win football games, and the Panthers, incredibly, can play for the NFC South title next week if they win and the Falcons beat the Saints. Carolina does its part. Because Cleveland is clueless.
Ravens (9-5) at Texans (7-7): Baltimore-The Ravens can clinch a playoff berth this week, but need some help to do so. The first step is beating Houston. Then the rest will fall into place (seeing as the teams Baltimore needs to lose are playing each other is very helpful). There's still a chance the Ravens win the division, too. While I don't think a win here is guaranteed (Houston is still mathematically alive), I do think they get it.
Giants (5-9) at Rams (6-8): St. Louis-Imagine if the Rams had a healthy Sam Bradford this season. They're without a doubt the best last-place team in football. The Giants have made their record a little more respectable after proving that there are two teams worse than them. St. Louis is better than them. I give the edge to the Rams.
Colts (10-4) at Cowboys (10-4): Indianapolis-Indianapolis has clinched the division and is basically guaranteed the 3-seed in the AFC. Dallas has a whole lot more to play for. The Cowboys have a one-game lead on the Eagles, but could also end up out of the playoffs entirely. We've got a good one for the national doubleheader game. Although, I'm sure undefeated-on-the-road Dallas would prefer if this game was in Indianapolis. They might have to play for all the marbles next week in Washington. Because for some reason, I'm feeling Lucky.
Bills (8-6) at Raiders (2-12): Buffalo-They're not going to make the playoffs, but there's still plenty to play for. Thanks to last week's upset of the Packers, they need just one win in their last two games to clinch a winning record for the first time since 2004. For a team that hasn't made the playoffs in 15 years, that's a big deal. Fortunately, their first chance at win No. 9 comes in Oakland. Because they're ending the season in New England.
Seahawks (10-4) at Cardinals (11-3): Seattle-NBC and the NFL did a great job setting the Sunday night schedule this year. Not a single game was flexed out. And this week, we've got the Cardinals and Seahawks in a huge matchup for NFC playoff positioning. Arizona has already clinched a spot and wraps up home field for the entire playoffs (including the Super Bowl) with a win. The defending champs, meanwhile, move into the NFC West driver's seat if they win this one to complete a sweep of the Cardinals. Seattle's on a roll and Arizona's down to it's third-string quarterback. It would be remarkable if the Cardinals managed to pull this one out, but I'm not sure I see it happening.
Broncos (11-3) at Bengals (9-4-1): Denver-The final game of Monday Night Football's 45th season is just as important as the Sunday nighter. Denver's basically locked into the 2-seed, but Cincinnati's in a dogfight for the AFC North title that won't be decided this week. Except a loss probably knocks them a half-game back heading into the finale in Pittsburgh (that might end on Sunday night). The Bengals' problem all year, though, has been how bad they've played in night games. Slaughtered by New England on a Sunday night. Lost to Cleveland on a Thursday night. They've gotta do something on their only Monday night if they want to avoid potentially being knocked out entirely next Sunday night. I think Denver takes care of its bye, though, and Peyton can take it easy against the Raiders.
This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 14-2
Season: 144-80-1
Friday, December 19, 2014
Numbers for the New Guys
Now that the Yankees have re-signed Chris Capuano for some reason, it's starting to look more and more like they're not going to make a run at Max Scherzer (although, I think the door isn't quite closed on James Shields yet). While I don't understand the Capuano thing, assuming he's the final member of the Opening Day rotation, that makes the roster a little bit clearer.
As I see it, there are 23 roster spots already accounted for. That will probably change because of injuries, trades, signing free agents, releasing guys, etc., but, for the most part the Yankees' 2015 Opening Day roster is pretty much set. While they aren't world beaters and they'll probably be projected to finish third in the division in a number of different publications, they also shouldn't be as bad as last year if everyone can stay healthy for a majority of the season. (I understand that's a big if.)
Anyway, there's a fair amount of turnover from the end of 2014 to the start of 2015. And, as is often a problem with the Yankees, there's only a handful of numbers to be handed out. Although, they've freed up some low ones with the trade of Francisco Cervelli (29), David Robertson (30) leaving as a free agent and the likely not re-signing of Ichiro (31). And if Hiroki Kuroda decides to either retire or stay in Japan, 18 becomes available, too. Brandon McCarthy's 38, which was presumably being reserved for Scherzer, is free (although reliever Preston Claiborne wore that before McCarthy and could presumably take it back). Should Shields sign with the Yankees, he'd actually be able to wear 33, like he has for his entire career.
Before figuring out what numbers the new guys (Didi Gregorius, Justin Wilson, Andrew Miller) might wear, there are also a couple of Spring Training number situations that need to be resolved. Now that Cervelli has been traded, John Ryan Murphy becomes the backup catcher. When Murphy was called up in the past, he wore number 66. But he's on the roster full-time now. He needs a real number. So does Jose Pirela. I'm figuring here that Pirela's on the team to start the season. That means no more number 67.
I really hate unnecessary high numbers. He might look like one, but Joba Chamberlain's not an offensive lineman! Wear a real number! I understand this is really only a problem for the Yankees since they famously don't have any numbers under 11, and a bunch of other prime jersey numbers are also retired, but there's still no reason to wear number 61 when you can just as easily wear something lower.
If it's Spring Training, that's one thing. I can even tolerate the random high numbers in September. But if you get called up in June, wear a real number! You're in the Majors! There has to be one number available between 1 and 59. (If it were up to me, there wouldn't be any double-digit numbers starting with a 6 worn anywhere in the Major Leagues.) Unless you have an actual reason for wearing one, no football numbers! That's why Dellin Betances is allowed to keep 68. Because he's 6'8.
This is a completely arbitrary exercise (if they do change numbers, the Yankees certainly won't make a big deal about it), but I'm going to give Pirela No. 29 and Murphy something in the 30s (33 if they don't sign Shields, 30 if they do).
Then there are the guys that are brand new. Didi Gregorius is the most interesting case. Mainly because, with Capuano coming back, he can't be 26. He's the starting shortstop, so he needs something low, which means Kuroda's 18 is really the only number left for him. If Kuroda does decide to pitch, then Gregorius gets 29 and Pirela takes one of the available ones in the 30s/40s (I'll give him 31).
Andrew Miller's easy. Number 48 is their generic left-handed reliever number. It doesn't matter who. Boone Logan, Matt Thornton, Rich Hill, insert lefty here. Since Miller already was number 48 last year in Baltimore, that one's easy. Justin Wilson was No. 37 with the Pirates, which, not surprisingly, he can't wear with the Yankees. But 31 and 38 are available. Chase Whitley is 39 and Eury Perez is 40, but there's no guarantee either of them makes the team, so those could become available, as well. At the very least they'll be at Spring Training, and I'm thinking Claiborne goes back to 38, which means Wilson ends up with 31.
So, with that, here are the Yankees by number for 2015 (at least according to me):
11-Brett Gardner, 12-Chase Headley, 13-Alex Rodriguez, 14-Martin Prado, (15-Retired), (16-Retired), 17-Brendan Ryan, 18-Didi Gregorius, 19-Masahiro Tanaka, (20-Not Happening), (21-Not Happening), 22-Jacoby Ellsbury, (23-Retired), 24-Chris Young, 25-Mark Teixiera, 26-Chris Capuano, 27-Shawn Kelley, 28-Joe Girardi, 29-Jose Pirela, 30-, 31-Justin Wilson, (32-Retired), 33-John Ryan Murphy, 34-Brian McCann, 35-Michael Pineda, 36-Carlos Beltran, (37-Retired), 38-Preston Claiborne, 39-Chase Whitley, 40-Eury Perez, 41-David Phelps, (42-Retired), 43-Adam Warren, (44-Retired), 45-, (46-Not Happening), 47-Ivan Nova, 48-Andrew Miller, (49-Retired), 50-, (51-Unavailable/Retired), 52-CC Sabathia, 53-Esmil Rogers, 54-, 55-, 56-Tony Pena, 57-, 58-Larry Rothschild, 59-Rob Thomson, 60-Gary Tuck, 68-Dellin Betances
As I see it, there are 23 roster spots already accounted for. That will probably change because of injuries, trades, signing free agents, releasing guys, etc., but, for the most part the Yankees' 2015 Opening Day roster is pretty much set. While they aren't world beaters and they'll probably be projected to finish third in the division in a number of different publications, they also shouldn't be as bad as last year if everyone can stay healthy for a majority of the season. (I understand that's a big if.)
Anyway, there's a fair amount of turnover from the end of 2014 to the start of 2015. And, as is often a problem with the Yankees, there's only a handful of numbers to be handed out. Although, they've freed up some low ones with the trade of Francisco Cervelli (29), David Robertson (30) leaving as a free agent and the likely not re-signing of Ichiro (31). And if Hiroki Kuroda decides to either retire or stay in Japan, 18 becomes available, too. Brandon McCarthy's 38, which was presumably being reserved for Scherzer, is free (although reliever Preston Claiborne wore that before McCarthy and could presumably take it back). Should Shields sign with the Yankees, he'd actually be able to wear 33, like he has for his entire career.
Before figuring out what numbers the new guys (Didi Gregorius, Justin Wilson, Andrew Miller) might wear, there are also a couple of Spring Training number situations that need to be resolved. Now that Cervelli has been traded, John Ryan Murphy becomes the backup catcher. When Murphy was called up in the past, he wore number 66. But he's on the roster full-time now. He needs a real number. So does Jose Pirela. I'm figuring here that Pirela's on the team to start the season. That means no more number 67.
I really hate unnecessary high numbers. He might look like one, but Joba Chamberlain's not an offensive lineman! Wear a real number! I understand this is really only a problem for the Yankees since they famously don't have any numbers under 11, and a bunch of other prime jersey numbers are also retired, but there's still no reason to wear number 61 when you can just as easily wear something lower.
If it's Spring Training, that's one thing. I can even tolerate the random high numbers in September. But if you get called up in June, wear a real number! You're in the Majors! There has to be one number available between 1 and 59. (If it were up to me, there wouldn't be any double-digit numbers starting with a 6 worn anywhere in the Major Leagues.) Unless you have an actual reason for wearing one, no football numbers! That's why Dellin Betances is allowed to keep 68. Because he's 6'8.
This is a completely arbitrary exercise (if they do change numbers, the Yankees certainly won't make a big deal about it), but I'm going to give Pirela No. 29 and Murphy something in the 30s (33 if they don't sign Shields, 30 if they do).
Then there are the guys that are brand new. Didi Gregorius is the most interesting case. Mainly because, with Capuano coming back, he can't be 26. He's the starting shortstop, so he needs something low, which means Kuroda's 18 is really the only number left for him. If Kuroda does decide to pitch, then Gregorius gets 29 and Pirela takes one of the available ones in the 30s/40s (I'll give him 31).
Andrew Miller's easy. Number 48 is their generic left-handed reliever number. It doesn't matter who. Boone Logan, Matt Thornton, Rich Hill, insert lefty here. Since Miller already was number 48 last year in Baltimore, that one's easy. Justin Wilson was No. 37 with the Pirates, which, not surprisingly, he can't wear with the Yankees. But 31 and 38 are available. Chase Whitley is 39 and Eury Perez is 40, but there's no guarantee either of them makes the team, so those could become available, as well. At the very least they'll be at Spring Training, and I'm thinking Claiborne goes back to 38, which means Wilson ends up with 31.
So, with that, here are the Yankees by number for 2015 (at least according to me):
11-Brett Gardner, 12-Chase Headley, 13-Alex Rodriguez, 14-Martin Prado, (15-Retired), (16-Retired), 17-Brendan Ryan, 18-Didi Gregorius, 19-Masahiro Tanaka, (20-Not Happening), (21-Not Happening), 22-Jacoby Ellsbury, (23-Retired), 24-Chris Young, 25-Mark Teixiera, 26-Chris Capuano, 27-Shawn Kelley, 28-Joe Girardi, 29-Jose Pirela, 30-, 31-Justin Wilson, (32-Retired), 33-John Ryan Murphy, 34-Brian McCann, 35-Michael Pineda, 36-Carlos Beltran, (37-Retired), 38-Preston Claiborne, 39-Chase Whitley, 40-Eury Perez, 41-David Phelps, (42-Retired), 43-Adam Warren, (44-Retired), 45-, (46-Not Happening), 47-Ivan Nova, 48-Andrew Miller, (49-Retired), 50-, (51-Unavailable/Retired), 52-CC Sabathia, 53-Esmil Rogers, 54-, 55-, 56-Tony Pena, 57-, 58-Larry Rothschild, 59-Rob Thomson, 60-Gary Tuck, 68-Dellin Betances
Monday, December 15, 2014
Stop Freaking Out About the Olympic Program
One of the major changes in IOC President Thomas Bach's Olympic Agenda 2020 was moving from a sport-based to an event-based program, lifting the 28-sport limit while still keeping a maximum of 10,500 athletes and 310 events. Since there are 306 events on the schedule for Rio, that's not a lot of room for new ones. And that has a number of international federations freaking out. The reason? In order to make room for new events, old ones have to go, and everybody's worried that means they're going to be the sport whose program is reduced.
After the announcement came out, the speculation immediately started as to which events were on the chopping block. There were all kids of suggestions thrown out, predominately in track & field and swimming. The main reason these two sports were mentioned is because they're the ones with the most events. There are 47 events in track & field, as well as 32 in swimming (34 if you include the two open water events). That's 79 of 306, which is more than 25 percent of the total.
Among the track & field events thought to be most in danger are the 200 meters, 10,000 meters, shot put, triple jump and at least one of the race walks. In swimming, I've heard the 50 meter freestyle, the 800/1500 freestyle and 4x200 freestyle relay mentioned.
Well you know what? They don't really need to worry at all. Track & field and swimming are two of the most popular sports on the Olympic program. Both attendance-wise and, probably more importantly, TV ratings-wise. That's why I think it's highly unlikely either of the Olympics' two marquee sports will see its program reduced in Tokyo (ditto for gymnastics, which also has a ton of events).
I'm not going to get into how stupid some of the proposed cuts are. OK, I will. Usain Bolt's the biggest star in the Olympic movement. The 200 meters is Usain Bolt's best event. Not happening. In 1896, the first-ever Olympic gold medal was awarded in the triple jump. The shot put also goes back to the 1896 Games. Dropping those two events, which have their Olympic history going all the way back to the beginning, just so there's room for something like skateboarding, which has no Olympic history whatsoever, would simply be asinine. And people just think the 10,000 meters is boring. That's why they wouldn't mind seeing it go away.
With that being said, would anyone really miss the men's 50 kilometer walk, which is the one track & field event I think actually is in danger? Probably not. Besides, it makes very little sense that there are two men's race walks, especially since there's only one for women. I've also always found it dumb that the marathon isn't the longest event on the track & field program.
Olympic swimming only has a 50 meter freestyle, but they have 50s in the other three strokes at the World Championships. There's also a men's 800 free and a women's 1500 free at the World Championships, but not the Olympics. FINA has actually been making a (so far unsuccessful) push to get those events added to the Olympics. Well, it sure looks like that definitely ain't happening now.
People within the IOC have indicated that swimming and gymnastics are particularly vulnerable because in those two sports, it's possible for an athlete to stockpile medals. Michael Phelps is the most decorated Olympian in history. In Beijing, he went a historic 8-for-8. There are 16 events in men's swimming, which means he won half of them. Same thing in gymnastics, where there are eight different events for men and it's possible for an individual to medal in every one of them.
They've identified the events that don't require event-specific training as ones they'd like eliminated. If you train for the 200 backstroke, you can obviously do the 100 backstroke. If you run the 100 meters, you can do the 200 meters. Just like a lot of the competitors in the 10,000 also do either the marathon or the 5000. If you do the all-around in gymnastics, you have to train for each of the individual events out of necessity.
But again, I don't think it's likely that any of the 79 events in track & field and swimming will actually be dropped from the Olympic program. Instead, I have an alternate proposal: capping the field. And this wouldn't just apply to those two sports. By instituting maximum field sizes in all sports (many of which already do), knowing that there will be a number of athletes who do multiple events, you're opening the door for enough additional competitors to accommodate a team sport or two (such as baseball and/or softball).
That wouldn't completely solve the problem. Let's, for a second, assume baseball and softball return, and squash is added (all you need is 64 athletes to have two 32-competitor squash tournaments). If no other events are dropped, those four would get the Olympics to 310, which is the designated magic number. So, it looks like the program is definitely going to be adjusted in some form. But I don't think it's going to be as radical as some in the track/swimming circles are worried it will be. At least I hope not. Because as much as the Olympics want to stay relevant to youngsters in the 21st Century, they can't forget where they came from either.
After the announcement came out, the speculation immediately started as to which events were on the chopping block. There were all kids of suggestions thrown out, predominately in track & field and swimming. The main reason these two sports were mentioned is because they're the ones with the most events. There are 47 events in track & field, as well as 32 in swimming (34 if you include the two open water events). That's 79 of 306, which is more than 25 percent of the total.
Among the track & field events thought to be most in danger are the 200 meters, 10,000 meters, shot put, triple jump and at least one of the race walks. In swimming, I've heard the 50 meter freestyle, the 800/1500 freestyle and 4x200 freestyle relay mentioned.
Well you know what? They don't really need to worry at all. Track & field and swimming are two of the most popular sports on the Olympic program. Both attendance-wise and, probably more importantly, TV ratings-wise. That's why I think it's highly unlikely either of the Olympics' two marquee sports will see its program reduced in Tokyo (ditto for gymnastics, which also has a ton of events).
I'm not going to get into how stupid some of the proposed cuts are. OK, I will. Usain Bolt's the biggest star in the Olympic movement. The 200 meters is Usain Bolt's best event. Not happening. In 1896, the first-ever Olympic gold medal was awarded in the triple jump. The shot put also goes back to the 1896 Games. Dropping those two events, which have their Olympic history going all the way back to the beginning, just so there's room for something like skateboarding, which has no Olympic history whatsoever, would simply be asinine. And people just think the 10,000 meters is boring. That's why they wouldn't mind seeing it go away.
With that being said, would anyone really miss the men's 50 kilometer walk, which is the one track & field event I think actually is in danger? Probably not. Besides, it makes very little sense that there are two men's race walks, especially since there's only one for women. I've also always found it dumb that the marathon isn't the longest event on the track & field program.
Olympic swimming only has a 50 meter freestyle, but they have 50s in the other three strokes at the World Championships. There's also a men's 800 free and a women's 1500 free at the World Championships, but not the Olympics. FINA has actually been making a (so far unsuccessful) push to get those events added to the Olympics. Well, it sure looks like that definitely ain't happening now.
People within the IOC have indicated that swimming and gymnastics are particularly vulnerable because in those two sports, it's possible for an athlete to stockpile medals. Michael Phelps is the most decorated Olympian in history. In Beijing, he went a historic 8-for-8. There are 16 events in men's swimming, which means he won half of them. Same thing in gymnastics, where there are eight different events for men and it's possible for an individual to medal in every one of them.
They've identified the events that don't require event-specific training as ones they'd like eliminated. If you train for the 200 backstroke, you can obviously do the 100 backstroke. If you run the 100 meters, you can do the 200 meters. Just like a lot of the competitors in the 10,000 also do either the marathon or the 5000. If you do the all-around in gymnastics, you have to train for each of the individual events out of necessity.
But again, I don't think it's likely that any of the 79 events in track & field and swimming will actually be dropped from the Olympic program. Instead, I have an alternate proposal: capping the field. And this wouldn't just apply to those two sports. By instituting maximum field sizes in all sports (many of which already do), knowing that there will be a number of athletes who do multiple events, you're opening the door for enough additional competitors to accommodate a team sport or two (such as baseball and/or softball).
That wouldn't completely solve the problem. Let's, for a second, assume baseball and softball return, and squash is added (all you need is 64 athletes to have two 32-competitor squash tournaments). If no other events are dropped, those four would get the Olympics to 310, which is the designated magic number. So, it looks like the program is definitely going to be adjusted in some form. But I don't think it's going to be as radical as some in the track/swimming circles are worried it will be. At least I hope not. Because as much as the Olympics want to stay relevant to youngsters in the 21st Century, they can't forget where they came from either.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
The Rest of Week 15
It's Week 15 and, amazingly, no team has clinched a playoff spot yet. Well, that's probably going to change. The Cardinals are in as long as the Cowboys/Eagles game isn't a tie, and the Patriots, Broncos and Colts can all clinch their divisions this week. We might even get some teams eliminated from the postseason this week. Crazy, I know.
Thursday Night: Arizona (Win)
Steelers (8-5) at Falcons (5-8): Pittsburgh-This one is important for all of us who care about things like teams that are actually somewhat deserving ending up in the playoffs. Because if the Falcons and Saints both lose this week (which is possible), we're guaranteed a sub-.500 NFC South "champion." I think the Steelers hold one of the AFC wild cards right now, but their hold is tenuous. They end the season with Kansas City and Cincinnati, so getting a win here to go to 9-5 is very important for the Steelers. Even though I have a feeling the Falcons are going to pull it out, Pittsburgh's the pick.
Packers (10-3) at Bills (7-6): Green Bay-The Bills are a popular upset pick this week. I can see why. They looked really good last week in Denver. Except I think it's a bit of a stretch to say they're going to knock off the Packers. Green Bay might be the best team in football, and playing in Buffalo in December isn't going to affect a team that's used to the snow. The Bills will keep it respectable, but Green Bay moves to 11-3.
Bengals (8-4-1) at Browns (7-6): Cleveland-Cleveland evidently doesn't want to make the playoffs. That's the only reason I can think of why they have Johnny Overrated starting this week. It's not Brian Hoyer's fault the defense let Andrew Luck walk down the field and engineer another game-winning drive last week. The Bengals, meanwhile, got crushed by the Steelers to cut their lead in the division to just a half-game. I've got a feeling they turn it around. Especially because I think Cleveland made a costly mistake by turning to Tebow 2.0 for no reason.
Texans (7-6) at Colts (9-4): Indianapolis-If Houston wants to complete an improbable playoff run, they need a win here. Otherwise, the Colts clinch the division and the Texans' chances at a wild card take a tremendous hit. I think that's what's going to happen, though. Indy's fighting for positioning, so they need a win to keep pace with New England and Denver.
Raiders (2-11) at Chiefs (7-6): Kansas City-Ending the Raiders' losing streak was embarrassing for Kansas City. Then the Chiefs lose in Denver and in Arizona. So, basically, they need a win big time. That's the only way they'll have any shot at making the playoffs. Fortunately, this time they're home. I just don't see a team as good as Kansas City getting swept by the Raiders.
Dolphins (7-6) at Patriots (10-3): New England-The Patriots have been waiting all season to avenge their Week 1 loss to Miami. Well, they finally get their chance to knock off the Dolphins. And if they do, it's another AFC East title. Of course, they're already thinking about the playoffs (more specifically holding off Denver for the 1-seed). But with things in the AFC so tight, even the Patriots could consider this a "must-win" game and it wouldn't be much of a stretch. Besides, do you really see New England losing twice to the same team in the same season? I don't.
Redskins (3-10) at Giants (4-9): Giants-The Giants won last week! Proving, at the very least, that they're not the worst team in the NFL (which we already knew, seeing as they're not even the worst team in New York). Now they've got a chance to win two in a row and clinch third place in the NFC East. We've already established that the Giants are better than the Titans. They've already beaten the Redskins once, too. With St. Louis and Philly left, this might be Tom Coughlin's final win as Giants head coach.
Buccaneers (2-11) at Panthers (4-8-1): Carolina-Hey everyone, Carolina won last week! This is news because the Panthers hadn't done that since Week 5. But amazingly, if they win out, they might actually end up in the playoffs. We know that, at the very least, an NFC South team isn't going to lose this week.
Jaguars (2-11) at Ravens (8-5): Baltimore-For everything they've been through this season, the Ravens are in a position to make the playoffs. Jacksonville at home is a nice little Week 15 gift for a team fighting for a postseason spot. They could even potentially move into first with a win and a Bengals loss. That's somewhere they haven't been since Week 7.
Jets (2-11) at Titans (2-11): Tennessee-For the second week in a row, the Titans host a New York team. They lost to the Giants last week, now they get the Jets in their first of back-to-back matchups against fellow two-win teams. The Titans are better than the Jets, though, so they won't be a two-win team when they play Jacksonville on Thursday in a game all of America is excited to be subjected to. Unlike this one, where only a handful of New Yorkers and Tennesseans will have the pleasure.
Broncos (10-3) at Chargers (8-5): Denver-San Diego is probably the best non-division-leader in the AFC, and they beat Denver last season. That's actually what started the Chargers' run to the playoffs. The Broncos know that San Diego's plenty capable of doing that again. But they've also got a chance to wrap up the AFC West this week. The Super Bowl loser usually doesn't make the playoffs. That's obviously not going to be the case this year. Because Denver's going to win the division again.
Vikings (6-7) at Lions (9-4): Detroit-The Lions-Packers showdown in Week 17 is really looking like the season-ending Sunday night game. Detroit has quietly put together a very good season, and they'll get to 10 wins if they beat the Vikings. The Lions are currently sitting in a playoff spot, but that could easily change depending on the Eagles-Cowboys result. In other words, Detroit better win so that they don't have to worry about that.
49ers (7-6) at Seahawks (9-4): Seattle-To say things have gone south for the 49ers this season would be an understatement. We knew that even before they lost to the Raiders. But now they're in a position where they have to win out in order to have any shot at the playoffs. In fact, they'll be eliminated if they lose to the Seahawks for the second time in three weeks. With the way both teams are playing, there's no way I see that not happening, setting up Seattle to take over control of the division with a win over the Cardinals next week.
Cowboys (9-4) at Eagles (9-4): Dallas-The game of the week is on Sunday night. Philly won on Thanksgiving, so a Dallas loss would all but guarantee the Cowboys a trip to Atlanta/New Orleans in the wild card round. It's not as if that would be a problem for the Cowboys, though. They're undefeated on the road this season. And they were given a huge gift last week when the Eagles lost to Seattle. Even though they're tied, the winner here takes control of the NFC East. I think that'll be the team that hasn't lost on the road all year.
Saints (5-8) at Bears (5-8): New Orleans-I'll once again reaffirm my belief that the Saints are the least bad team in the NFC South. Next week's matchup with Atlanta will probably determine the division, but it hopefully won't be to determine which team will be the 6-10 NFC South "champion." Fortunately, Chicago isn't good either, so a Saints win on Monday night is very doable. (Sidebar, this is the Bears' third straight non-Sunday game. I wonder when the last time that happened was.)
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 10-6
Season: 131-77-1
Thursday Night: Arizona (Win)
Steelers (8-5) at Falcons (5-8): Pittsburgh-This one is important for all of us who care about things like teams that are actually somewhat deserving ending up in the playoffs. Because if the Falcons and Saints both lose this week (which is possible), we're guaranteed a sub-.500 NFC South "champion." I think the Steelers hold one of the AFC wild cards right now, but their hold is tenuous. They end the season with Kansas City and Cincinnati, so getting a win here to go to 9-5 is very important for the Steelers. Even though I have a feeling the Falcons are going to pull it out, Pittsburgh's the pick.
Packers (10-3) at Bills (7-6): Green Bay-The Bills are a popular upset pick this week. I can see why. They looked really good last week in Denver. Except I think it's a bit of a stretch to say they're going to knock off the Packers. Green Bay might be the best team in football, and playing in Buffalo in December isn't going to affect a team that's used to the snow. The Bills will keep it respectable, but Green Bay moves to 11-3.
Bengals (8-4-1) at Browns (7-6): Cleveland-Cleveland evidently doesn't want to make the playoffs. That's the only reason I can think of why they have Johnny Overrated starting this week. It's not Brian Hoyer's fault the defense let Andrew Luck walk down the field and engineer another game-winning drive last week. The Bengals, meanwhile, got crushed by the Steelers to cut their lead in the division to just a half-game. I've got a feeling they turn it around. Especially because I think Cleveland made a costly mistake by turning to Tebow 2.0 for no reason.
Texans (7-6) at Colts (9-4): Indianapolis-If Houston wants to complete an improbable playoff run, they need a win here. Otherwise, the Colts clinch the division and the Texans' chances at a wild card take a tremendous hit. I think that's what's going to happen, though. Indy's fighting for positioning, so they need a win to keep pace with New England and Denver.
Raiders (2-11) at Chiefs (7-6): Kansas City-Ending the Raiders' losing streak was embarrassing for Kansas City. Then the Chiefs lose in Denver and in Arizona. So, basically, they need a win big time. That's the only way they'll have any shot at making the playoffs. Fortunately, this time they're home. I just don't see a team as good as Kansas City getting swept by the Raiders.
Dolphins (7-6) at Patriots (10-3): New England-The Patriots have been waiting all season to avenge their Week 1 loss to Miami. Well, they finally get their chance to knock off the Dolphins. And if they do, it's another AFC East title. Of course, they're already thinking about the playoffs (more specifically holding off Denver for the 1-seed). But with things in the AFC so tight, even the Patriots could consider this a "must-win" game and it wouldn't be much of a stretch. Besides, do you really see New England losing twice to the same team in the same season? I don't.
Redskins (3-10) at Giants (4-9): Giants-The Giants won last week! Proving, at the very least, that they're not the worst team in the NFL (which we already knew, seeing as they're not even the worst team in New York). Now they've got a chance to win two in a row and clinch third place in the NFC East. We've already established that the Giants are better than the Titans. They've already beaten the Redskins once, too. With St. Louis and Philly left, this might be Tom Coughlin's final win as Giants head coach.
Buccaneers (2-11) at Panthers (4-8-1): Carolina-Hey everyone, Carolina won last week! This is news because the Panthers hadn't done that since Week 5. But amazingly, if they win out, they might actually end up in the playoffs. We know that, at the very least, an NFC South team isn't going to lose this week.
Jaguars (2-11) at Ravens (8-5): Baltimore-For everything they've been through this season, the Ravens are in a position to make the playoffs. Jacksonville at home is a nice little Week 15 gift for a team fighting for a postseason spot. They could even potentially move into first with a win and a Bengals loss. That's somewhere they haven't been since Week 7.
Jets (2-11) at Titans (2-11): Tennessee-For the second week in a row, the Titans host a New York team. They lost to the Giants last week, now they get the Jets in their first of back-to-back matchups against fellow two-win teams. The Titans are better than the Jets, though, so they won't be a two-win team when they play Jacksonville on Thursday in a game all of America is excited to be subjected to. Unlike this one, where only a handful of New Yorkers and Tennesseans will have the pleasure.
Broncos (10-3) at Chargers (8-5): Denver-San Diego is probably the best non-division-leader in the AFC, and they beat Denver last season. That's actually what started the Chargers' run to the playoffs. The Broncos know that San Diego's plenty capable of doing that again. But they've also got a chance to wrap up the AFC West this week. The Super Bowl loser usually doesn't make the playoffs. That's obviously not going to be the case this year. Because Denver's going to win the division again.
Vikings (6-7) at Lions (9-4): Detroit-The Lions-Packers showdown in Week 17 is really looking like the season-ending Sunday night game. Detroit has quietly put together a very good season, and they'll get to 10 wins if they beat the Vikings. The Lions are currently sitting in a playoff spot, but that could easily change depending on the Eagles-Cowboys result. In other words, Detroit better win so that they don't have to worry about that.
49ers (7-6) at Seahawks (9-4): Seattle-To say things have gone south for the 49ers this season would be an understatement. We knew that even before they lost to the Raiders. But now they're in a position where they have to win out in order to have any shot at the playoffs. In fact, they'll be eliminated if they lose to the Seahawks for the second time in three weeks. With the way both teams are playing, there's no way I see that not happening, setting up Seattle to take over control of the division with a win over the Cardinals next week.
Cowboys (9-4) at Eagles (9-4): Dallas-The game of the week is on Sunday night. Philly won on Thanksgiving, so a Dallas loss would all but guarantee the Cowboys a trip to Atlanta/New Orleans in the wild card round. It's not as if that would be a problem for the Cowboys, though. They're undefeated on the road this season. And they were given a huge gift last week when the Eagles lost to Seattle. Even though they're tied, the winner here takes control of the NFC East. I think that'll be the team that hasn't lost on the road all year.
Saints (5-8) at Bears (5-8): New Orleans-I'll once again reaffirm my belief that the Saints are the least bad team in the NFC South. Next week's matchup with Atlanta will probably determine the division, but it hopefully won't be to determine which team will be the 6-10 NFC South "champion." Fortunately, Chicago isn't good either, so a Saints win on Monday night is very doable. (Sidebar, this is the Bears' third straight non-Sunday game. I wonder when the last time that happened was.)
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 10-6
Season: 131-77-1
Friday, December 12, 2014
Wheeling and Dealing at the Winter Meetings
Now that the Winter Meetings are over and free agency is in full swing, we're starting to get a glimpse of what some 2015 Major League rosters will look like. Some teams filled needs, others had to go to Plan B when their guy went somewhere else, while still others made nonsensical trades and signings. Then there are the teams that just sat around and did nothing.
Take the Boston Red Sox, the first team to make a splash with their signings of Pablo Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez. Now, the Sandoval signing made a lot of sense. They needed a third baseman and a middle-of-the-order hitter. Panda was the best guy available on both those fronts, and they had the money to pay him, so why not? But the Hanley Ramirez signing is confusing. It wasn't the type of signing the Red Sox typically make. It was George Steinbrenner singing. By that I mean, they went out and got a guy they really had no particular need/use for simply because they could. I don't blame Hanley for following the money, but it made very little sense for the Dodgers to let him go, and even less for Boston to go after him.
Hanley Ramirez filled no need for the Boston Red Sox. They have Xander Bogaerts at shortstop, they obviously signed Sandoval to play third, and another fat guy is the DH. So Boston settled on left field, even though they got Yoenis Cespedes to play that very position in July. No worries. Instead of using Cespedes as a piece they were going to build around in 2015, he became a two-month rental that was shipped to Detroit for Rick Porcello. Why did the Red Sox get Rick Porcello? Because the reunion with Jon Lester isn't happening. The guy he's reuniting with is Theo Epstein. That's right. Lester's a Cub.
The Cubs are at least two years away. Even with Lester, they're probably a third-place team at best in 2015. But they've got the ace everybody else wanted. And after 108 years without a championship, there's at least hope for the Cubs.
As for the A's, who knew they weren't going to keep Lester, so they didn't even try, we're seeing another one of those famous Billy Beane fire sales. Oakland traded its best two hitters. Brandon Moss is headed to Cleveland, and Josh Donaldson is now a Blue Jay. And 60 percent of Oakland's rotation is headed to Chicago. Lester and Jason Hammel are both Cubs, and Jeff Samardzija hopefully didn't get rid of his apartment. Because he's joining a White Sox team that's suddenly looking like a contender. They've even got a fresh new closer to boot in David Robertson.
Robertson certainly earned his payday. He didn't just take over for Mariano Rivera, he thrived as the Yankees' closer. But not enough for the Yankees to be willing to pay him the type of money he was going to get. Instead, they didn't even make him an offer. They signed Andrew Miller and they're looking at Sergio Romo, both of whom come with a cheaper price tag.
Besides, the Yankees have much bigger needs and they know it. One of those needs was filled via trade. The unenviable task of following Derek Jeter at shortstop goes to Didi Gregorius, formerly of the Diamondbacks. They'd also like to bring Chase Headley back, but Panda leaving the Giants means San Francisco's going to have a lot of interest in Headley. Will they end up pricing the Yankees out of the Headley market? Another guy who came to the Yankees at last year's trade deadline was Brandon McCarthy, who they wanted back for rotation depth. Except that's not going to happen. He signed with the Dodgers.
Speaking of the Dodgers, it's been a bit of a curious off season for them. LA was built to win last season. They one of the best 1-2 pitching punches in all of baseball in Kershaw and Greinke, and the lineup was just as good. Hanley Ramirez was a big part of that. Everyone knew Ramirez was going to be a free agent, but I think most people assumed the Dodgers would at least make an effort to keep him. Whether or not they did is unclear, but the bottom line is Hanley left, leaving a gaping hole in the middle of the lineup with him.
So what do they do to fill that hole? They trade Matt Kemp? Their best right-handed power hitter after Ramirez? Yes, they had a logjam in the outfield. Everyone knows that. Andre Ethier had expresses his displeasure in being the odd man out. You knew Yasiel Puig wasn't going anywhere, but Kemp's the best all-around player out of the other three. I would've sent Carl Crawford (or, at the very least, Ethier) packing. But instead it's Kemp, who's headed south to the division rival Padres? A curious move to say the least.
That was the strangest move the Dodgers made, but it was by no means their last. They had a busier Winter Meetings than anyone but Scott Boras. To make up for the loss of Ramirez at short, they made a trade with the Phillies and got Jimmy Rollins, who could be great fit in LA despite his age. Leadoff hitter Dee Gordon, meanwhile, who developed into an All-Star last season, is also a former Dodger. He was traded to the Marlins to make room at second base for Howie Kendrick, the latest guy to pull off the cross-town switch. Frankly, though, I'd rather have Gordon, Ramirez and Kemp.
You want a team that's been an off-season loser so far? How about the Orioles? Nick Markakis went to Atlanta as a free agent, and Nelson Cruz signed a monster deal with Seattle. Suddenly, the Mariners are looking very formidable in the AL West.
There are still plenty of moves to be made, and the rosters of virtually every team aren't complete yet. But, as per usual, the start of free agency has been plenty eventful. It'll only get better from here. After all, we're still two months from the start of Spring Training, and April's a long way away.
Take the Boston Red Sox, the first team to make a splash with their signings of Pablo Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez. Now, the Sandoval signing made a lot of sense. They needed a third baseman and a middle-of-the-order hitter. Panda was the best guy available on both those fronts, and they had the money to pay him, so why not? But the Hanley Ramirez signing is confusing. It wasn't the type of signing the Red Sox typically make. It was George Steinbrenner singing. By that I mean, they went out and got a guy they really had no particular need/use for simply because they could. I don't blame Hanley for following the money, but it made very little sense for the Dodgers to let him go, and even less for Boston to go after him.
Hanley Ramirez filled no need for the Boston Red Sox. They have Xander Bogaerts at shortstop, they obviously signed Sandoval to play third, and another fat guy is the DH. So Boston settled on left field, even though they got Yoenis Cespedes to play that very position in July. No worries. Instead of using Cespedes as a piece they were going to build around in 2015, he became a two-month rental that was shipped to Detroit for Rick Porcello. Why did the Red Sox get Rick Porcello? Because the reunion with Jon Lester isn't happening. The guy he's reuniting with is Theo Epstein. That's right. Lester's a Cub.
The Cubs are at least two years away. Even with Lester, they're probably a third-place team at best in 2015. But they've got the ace everybody else wanted. And after 108 years without a championship, there's at least hope for the Cubs.
As for the A's, who knew they weren't going to keep Lester, so they didn't even try, we're seeing another one of those famous Billy Beane fire sales. Oakland traded its best two hitters. Brandon Moss is headed to Cleveland, and Josh Donaldson is now a Blue Jay. And 60 percent of Oakland's rotation is headed to Chicago. Lester and Jason Hammel are both Cubs, and Jeff Samardzija hopefully didn't get rid of his apartment. Because he's joining a White Sox team that's suddenly looking like a contender. They've even got a fresh new closer to boot in David Robertson.
Robertson certainly earned his payday. He didn't just take over for Mariano Rivera, he thrived as the Yankees' closer. But not enough for the Yankees to be willing to pay him the type of money he was going to get. Instead, they didn't even make him an offer. They signed Andrew Miller and they're looking at Sergio Romo, both of whom come with a cheaper price tag.
Besides, the Yankees have much bigger needs and they know it. One of those needs was filled via trade. The unenviable task of following Derek Jeter at shortstop goes to Didi Gregorius, formerly of the Diamondbacks. They'd also like to bring Chase Headley back, but Panda leaving the Giants means San Francisco's going to have a lot of interest in Headley. Will they end up pricing the Yankees out of the Headley market? Another guy who came to the Yankees at last year's trade deadline was Brandon McCarthy, who they wanted back for rotation depth. Except that's not going to happen. He signed with the Dodgers.
Speaking of the Dodgers, it's been a bit of a curious off season for them. LA was built to win last season. They one of the best 1-2 pitching punches in all of baseball in Kershaw and Greinke, and the lineup was just as good. Hanley Ramirez was a big part of that. Everyone knew Ramirez was going to be a free agent, but I think most people assumed the Dodgers would at least make an effort to keep him. Whether or not they did is unclear, but the bottom line is Hanley left, leaving a gaping hole in the middle of the lineup with him.
So what do they do to fill that hole? They trade Matt Kemp? Their best right-handed power hitter after Ramirez? Yes, they had a logjam in the outfield. Everyone knows that. Andre Ethier had expresses his displeasure in being the odd man out. You knew Yasiel Puig wasn't going anywhere, but Kemp's the best all-around player out of the other three. I would've sent Carl Crawford (or, at the very least, Ethier) packing. But instead it's Kemp, who's headed south to the division rival Padres? A curious move to say the least.
That was the strangest move the Dodgers made, but it was by no means their last. They had a busier Winter Meetings than anyone but Scott Boras. To make up for the loss of Ramirez at short, they made a trade with the Phillies and got Jimmy Rollins, who could be great fit in LA despite his age. Leadoff hitter Dee Gordon, meanwhile, who developed into an All-Star last season, is also a former Dodger. He was traded to the Marlins to make room at second base for Howie Kendrick, the latest guy to pull off the cross-town switch. Frankly, though, I'd rather have Gordon, Ramirez and Kemp.
You want a team that's been an off-season loser so far? How about the Orioles? Nick Markakis went to Atlanta as a free agent, and Nelson Cruz signed a monster deal with Seattle. Suddenly, the Mariners are looking very formidable in the AL West.
There are still plenty of moves to be made, and the rosters of virtually every team aren't complete yet. But, as per usual, the start of free agency has been plenty eventful. It'll only get better from here. After all, we're still two months from the start of Spring Training, and April's a long way away.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
The Women's World Cup Draw
There was a lot that went on in the world of sports this weekend. The teams for the inaugural College Football Playoff were picked, which would be a lot more significant to me if I gave a crap about college football. (Although, I do think the Big 12 screwed themselves by not picking between Baylor and TCU, opening the door for the committee to pick Ohio State.) The Baseball Hall of Fame Golden Era Committee voted on its candidates, but alas, no one was elected to join Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez in the 2015 induction class. Dick Allen and Tony Oliva came the closest, missing by one vote, and Jim Kaat ended up two votes shy. The IOC also met to discuss "Olympic Agenda 2020" and unanimously approved the 40 reforms. There are plenty of significant changes that are going to take place, the most significant of which might be the removal of the 28-sport cap, which could allow for baseball and softball's return for the Tokyo Games.
But there was something just as significant over the weekend that, because it was on Fox Sports 1, a lot of people might've missed. The draw for the Women's World Cup was held, and the U.S. landed in the proverbial "Group of Death" with Sweden, Australia and Nigeria. That may not be as big a deal as some people are making it out to be, though. The top two automatically advance to the knockout round, as do the four best third-place teams out of the six groups. That means the top-ranked Americans realistically only need one win to advance. And if they win the group, which still seems likely, the don't face another group winner until the semifinals.
Sweden, which is ranked fifth in the world, was mad that they were passed over for a seed by sixth-ranked Brazil, and they ended up with the Americans as a result. But FIFA's logic for the seeding actually made sense. There are eight European teams in the tournament, and Sweden's the third ranked European team. By only seeding two (Germany and France), they were able to put all of the remaining teams in the same European pot, which made figuring out the pots a lot easier. And it's not like seeding Brazil over Sweden was the same as seeding Belgium and Switzerland over the Netherlands and Italy for the men's World Cup, when they did base it (stupidly so) only on world ranking. I think the seedings were appropriate. Besides, E1 plays D2 in the round of 16, so if that ends up being a Brazil-Sweden matchup, the Swedes will get a chance to prove they should've been seeded over the Brazilians.
Anyway, on to the groups. Canada, as the host country, was automatically placed in position A1, as is the case in every major FIFA tournament. Joining the Canadians in Group A will be China, New Zealand and the Netherlands. Not exactly a who's who of women's soccer. But as hosts, I guess Canada is entitled to having a favorable draw. They'll get through no problem and China should finish second in the group. Third place will be up for grabs between the other two.
One of the two groups where third place might not advance is Group B, where two-time champion Germany was gifted with Norway and lightweights Thailand and Ivory Coast. Thailand is ranked 30th in the world, while Ivory Coast is the lowest-ranked team in the tournament at 64. So, basically, this should be a cakewalk for the two European teams, which have combined to win three of the first six Women's World Cups. Winning the group will be extremely important, though. Because second place plays second in Group F, which will probably be either France or England.
In Group C, we've got defending champion Japan, along with three teams making their World Cup debuts--Switzerland, Cameroon and Ecuador. This group might be even softer than Group B. The Swiss are the best of the other three teams, so I've got them finishing second. Ecuador was the last team to get in, beating Trinidad & Tobago in the CONMEBOL-CONCACAF playoff, so let's see if that gives them any momentum heading into the World Cup. Ecuador and Cameroon are ranked 49 and 51 in the world, so it should be a good game when those two play.
I think it's some sort of FIFA rule that the United States, Sweden and Nigeria end up in the same group for the Women's World Cup. This is the fourth straight time (and fifth time in seven Women's World Cups) that the U.S. is in the same group as Sweden and the fourth time in five World Cups that the U.S. is with Nigeria. The three of them are together for the third time in four World Cups. (The fourth member of this group is usually North Korea, which was barred from competing this time after what happened in Germany, so this time it's Australia instead.)
It's fairly obvious that Group D is by far the strongest of the six groups, and it also seems likely that this group will almost certainly have three teams reach the knockout stage. The U.S. and Sweden will probably finish 1-2 in whatever order, while Australia is going to be the most dangerous third-place team in the round of 16. If they were in a different group, I'd really like Nigeria's chances of advancing, but it'll be really tough for them to knock off one of the three top 10 teams they'll be facing.
Group E is Brazil, Spain, South Korea and Costa Rica. This is a great opportunity for the Koreans, who've only been in the Women's World Cup once before, and the Spanish, who are making their debuts. The Brazilians are going to win the group. They're by far the strongest of these four teams. But the battle for second place is going to be interesting. Although, it ultimately might not matter that much, since I think both South Korea and Spain will advance.
Lastly, there's Group F, which has the strongest 1-2 punch outside of the USA and Sweden. France, which finished fourth in 2011, is ranked fourth in the world, while rival England, which has been to the quarterfinals in each of the last three Women's World Cups, is ranked seventh. Unless something crazy happens, they'll be the top two teams. The real question is who's going to win the Mexico-Colombia game? Because I think the winner there takes third place and goes to the round of 16. Brazil 2014 was a great World Cup for the CONMEBOL teams. Will Canada 2015 be the same for CONCACAF? If so, things are looking good for Mexico.
So, my round of 16 matchups, based on what teams I have advancing are:
But there was something just as significant over the weekend that, because it was on Fox Sports 1, a lot of people might've missed. The draw for the Women's World Cup was held, and the U.S. landed in the proverbial "Group of Death" with Sweden, Australia and Nigeria. That may not be as big a deal as some people are making it out to be, though. The top two automatically advance to the knockout round, as do the four best third-place teams out of the six groups. That means the top-ranked Americans realistically only need one win to advance. And if they win the group, which still seems likely, the don't face another group winner until the semifinals.
Sweden, which is ranked fifth in the world, was mad that they were passed over for a seed by sixth-ranked Brazil, and they ended up with the Americans as a result. But FIFA's logic for the seeding actually made sense. There are eight European teams in the tournament, and Sweden's the third ranked European team. By only seeding two (Germany and France), they were able to put all of the remaining teams in the same European pot, which made figuring out the pots a lot easier. And it's not like seeding Brazil over Sweden was the same as seeding Belgium and Switzerland over the Netherlands and Italy for the men's World Cup, when they did base it (stupidly so) only on world ranking. I think the seedings were appropriate. Besides, E1 plays D2 in the round of 16, so if that ends up being a Brazil-Sweden matchup, the Swedes will get a chance to prove they should've been seeded over the Brazilians.
Anyway, on to the groups. Canada, as the host country, was automatically placed in position A1, as is the case in every major FIFA tournament. Joining the Canadians in Group A will be China, New Zealand and the Netherlands. Not exactly a who's who of women's soccer. But as hosts, I guess Canada is entitled to having a favorable draw. They'll get through no problem and China should finish second in the group. Third place will be up for grabs between the other two.
One of the two groups where third place might not advance is Group B, where two-time champion Germany was gifted with Norway and lightweights Thailand and Ivory Coast. Thailand is ranked 30th in the world, while Ivory Coast is the lowest-ranked team in the tournament at 64. So, basically, this should be a cakewalk for the two European teams, which have combined to win three of the first six Women's World Cups. Winning the group will be extremely important, though. Because second place plays second in Group F, which will probably be either France or England.
In Group C, we've got defending champion Japan, along with three teams making their World Cup debuts--Switzerland, Cameroon and Ecuador. This group might be even softer than Group B. The Swiss are the best of the other three teams, so I've got them finishing second. Ecuador was the last team to get in, beating Trinidad & Tobago in the CONMEBOL-CONCACAF playoff, so let's see if that gives them any momentum heading into the World Cup. Ecuador and Cameroon are ranked 49 and 51 in the world, so it should be a good game when those two play.
I think it's some sort of FIFA rule that the United States, Sweden and Nigeria end up in the same group for the Women's World Cup. This is the fourth straight time (and fifth time in seven Women's World Cups) that the U.S. is in the same group as Sweden and the fourth time in five World Cups that the U.S. is with Nigeria. The three of them are together for the third time in four World Cups. (The fourth member of this group is usually North Korea, which was barred from competing this time after what happened in Germany, so this time it's Australia instead.)
It's fairly obvious that Group D is by far the strongest of the six groups, and it also seems likely that this group will almost certainly have three teams reach the knockout stage. The U.S. and Sweden will probably finish 1-2 in whatever order, while Australia is going to be the most dangerous third-place team in the round of 16. If they were in a different group, I'd really like Nigeria's chances of advancing, but it'll be really tough for them to knock off one of the three top 10 teams they'll be facing.
Group E is Brazil, Spain, South Korea and Costa Rica. This is a great opportunity for the Koreans, who've only been in the Women's World Cup once before, and the Spanish, who are making their debuts. The Brazilians are going to win the group. They're by far the strongest of these four teams. But the battle for second place is going to be interesting. Although, it ultimately might not matter that much, since I think both South Korea and Spain will advance.
Lastly, there's Group F, which has the strongest 1-2 punch outside of the USA and Sweden. France, which finished fourth in 2011, is ranked fourth in the world, while rival England, which has been to the quarterfinals in each of the last three Women's World Cups, is ranked seventh. Unless something crazy happens, they'll be the top two teams. The real question is who's going to win the Mexico-Colombia game? Because I think the winner there takes third place and goes to the round of 16. Brazil 2014 was a great World Cup for the CONMEBOL teams. Will Canada 2015 be the same for CONCACAF? If so, things are looking good for Mexico.
So, my round of 16 matchups, based on what teams I have advancing are:
- China (A2) vs. Switzerland (C2)
- United States (D1) vs. Spain (E3)
- Germany (B1) vs. New Zealand (A3)
- England (F1) vs. South Korea (E2)
- Brazil (E1) vs. Sweden (D2)
- Japan (C1) vs. Mexico (F3)
- Norway (B2) vs. France (E2)
- Canada (A1) vs. Australia (D3)
- China vs. United States
- Germany vs. England
- Sweden vs. Japan
- France vs. Canada
- United States vs. Germany
- Japan vs. Canada
- A United States vs. Japan rematch
- The United States of America
Saturday, December 6, 2014
The Rest of Week 14
There's a month left in the NFL season, and we still have no idea who's going to make the playoffs. Sure, we know Denver, New England, Indianapolis and Green Bay are probably going to win their divisions, but the wild cards are anybody's guess. We'd better start figuring out those tiebreakers. Because they're most definitely going to come into play. Especially since there are currently six teams tied for the second AFC wild card at 7-5. (The craziest part about all this is that Dallas, Detroit and Seattle entered this week in a three-way tie for the two NFC wild cards, and Dallas would've been out based on conference record, even though the Cowboys beat the Seahawks.)
Thursday Night: Dallas (Win)
Steelers (7-5) at Bengals (8-3-1): Cincinnati-This is going to sound redundant over the next couple weeks, but this is a huge game. Especially for the Steelers. Everybody else in the AFC North losing last week put the Bengals a game and a half up on the other three, which gives Cincinnati a little breathing room. Which is a good thing, seeing as they've got Pittsburgh twice and Denver among their last four games. The Steelers have nobody but themselves to blame for their current predicament. They crushed the Colts, but they also lost to the Jets. A loss to the first-place Bengals is something they can ill-afford, but no one ever picks Cincinnati, even though they always seem to win (unless it's a night game).
Colts (8-4) at Browns (7-5): Indianapolis-Sticking with Brian Hoyer was the right decision. Why switch to Johnny Overrated simply because Hoyer had a bad game against the Bills? The Browns wouldn't be in a position to make the playoffs without Hoyer. I have a feeling this is a must-win for Cleveland, which is a difficult proposition against a Colts team fighting for positioning. It'll be a close one that can go either way, but I'm going with Indy on the road.
Buccaneers (2-10) at Lions (8-4): Detroit-For all the talk that has centered around the Green Bay Packers over the past few weeks, the 8-4 Lions have almost gotten lost in the shuffle. But here they sit in playoff position, with the tiebreaker over the Packers and the game in Green Bay still to come. Don't sleep on this team. With plenty of rest against a not good Tampa Bay team, the Lions should become the NFC's fifth nine-win team and officially eliminate the Bears.
Giants (3-9) at Titans (2-10): Tennessee-One of the NFL's two longest current losing streaks is going to come to an end! The Giants have officially hit rock bottom, and I think we're probably entering the final month of Tom Coughlin's tenure. While the Titans are one of the few teams the Giants might actually be better than, I said that about Jacksonville last week, too. The fans in Nashville begin their joy of seeing the Giants and Jets in back-to-back weeks by handing New York's NFC team another loss.
Ravens (7-5) at Dolphins (7-5): Baltimore-For all the games that affect playoff positioning this week, there probably isn't one more important than Ravens-Dolphins. This is a virtual wild card elimination game. The loser will be a game behind at least one team, while the winner goes a game up and gets the head-to-head tiebreaker. The Ravens wouldn't be in this position if they hadn't blown it last week against the Chargers, but I have a feeling they're going to make up for it by sending the Dolphins to 7-6.
Jets (2-10) at Vikings (5-7): Minnesota-There are all the games involving playoff contenders. And then there's this one. Our second "who cares?" meaningless game involving a New York team. Things are so bad that the Giants and Jets were scheduled for the same time this week and the NFL did nothing to avoid it. Rex begins his final month as Jets coach with another loss.
Panthers (3-8-1) at Saints (5-7): New Orleans-Somebody in the NFC South definitely isn't going to lose! To think, when these two met the first time on a Thursday night in Week 9, it was a battle for first place, with 3-4-1 Carolina holding a half-game lead. Well, that ended up being the third of six straight losses for the Panthers, who haven't won since Week 5 (don't forget their wonderful tie). Anyway, the Saints are the only chance we've got left to have an NFC South "champion" with a record that's actually somewhat respectable, so I'm going with New Orleans.
Rams (5-7) at Redskins (3-9): St. Louis-Fresh off their 52-0 drubbing of the Raiders, the NFL's giant killers get another patsy to beat up on this week. The Redskins might actually be worse than the Giants. They're definitely worse than the Rams. St. Louis heads into its Thursday night matchup with Arizona at 6-7.
Texans (6-6) at Jaguars (2-10): Houston-The news that Jadeveon Clowney is out for the year was certainly unfortunate, but that Texans defense still has J.J. Watt, so Houston should be just fine. Especially since they've got a division game against somebody other than Indianapolis this week. The NFL is still listing the Texans on the AFC playoff picture, although their only chance is probably catching the Colts in the South. Well, if they both win, Houston will only be a game back going into the showdown next week.
Bills (7-5) at Broncos (9-3): Denver-Raise your hand if you thought the Bills would still be in playoff contention with four weeks left. Of course, things are going to be tough. They've still got the Packers and a trip to New England in addition to this week's visit to Denver. Speaking of Green Bay, thanks to them, Denver is suddenly thinking about home field again. The Broncos have huge road games in San Diego and Cincinnati coming up. They know they can't afford a loss to the Bills.
Chiefs (7-5) at Cardinals (9-3): Arizona-This might be the most interesting matchup of the week. Arizona suddenly needs a win, having lost two straight without Carson Palmer. And last week's loss in Atlanta was certainly startling. The Chiefs have also dropped two straight since their win over Seattle, including that inexplicable defeat in Oakland. Kansas City needs a win to keep pace with the Broncos and Chargers. Arizona needs a win to hold off the surging Seahawks and 49ers. Something's gotta give. With the game taking place in Phoenix, though, I'll give the edge to the Cardinals.
49ers (7-5) at Raiders (1-11): San Francisco-The Battle of the Bay! That, of course, is fake excitement. Because the Oakland Raiders are barely a professional football team. More than just bragging rights over a terrible team are at stake for the 49ers. They're on the outside looking in at the NFC playoff picture. Playing the Raiders is an early Christmas present that they can't just throw away.
Seahawks (8-4) at Eagles (9-3): Philadelphia-We've got a lot of good ones, but this might be the game of the week. They both picked up a huge division win on Thanksgiving, and they might be the two hottest teams in the league not named the Packers. It's the Seahawks that "need" to win a little more, but the Eagles already know the Cowboys won, which means a loss drops them into a first-place tie going into next week's Sunday night game. The entire NFC playoff race could be affected by the outcome of this game. The equal rest balances things out a little, but I don't like the Seahawks having to travel cross country, so I'm taking the Eagles in what should be a good one.
Patriots (9-3) at Chargers (8-4): San Diego-This is normally the time of the year when San Diego starts making its run. They're at three in a row since that 37-0 loss in Miami, and last week they had that amazing comeback to win in Baltimore. New England finally lost last week in Green Bay, and things don't get any easier with a cross country trip to face a Chargers team that's already beaten Seattle. I know the whole "the Patriots don't lose back-to-back games" thing, but I think they're going to. San Diego on the road isn't a good matchup for them.
Falcons (5-7) at Packers (9-3): Green Bay-Atlanta beat Arizona last week, maintaining its standing "atop" the NFC South. I'm still not exactly sure how that happened. But Atlanta's next three weeks are brutal, starting with a Monday night game against the team that so many people have already anointed NFC champions. We're still a long way from that, but the Packers shouldn't have a problem handling the Falcons at home.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-7
Season: 121-71-1
Thursday Night: Dallas (Win)
Steelers (7-5) at Bengals (8-3-1): Cincinnati-This is going to sound redundant over the next couple weeks, but this is a huge game. Especially for the Steelers. Everybody else in the AFC North losing last week put the Bengals a game and a half up on the other three, which gives Cincinnati a little breathing room. Which is a good thing, seeing as they've got Pittsburgh twice and Denver among their last four games. The Steelers have nobody but themselves to blame for their current predicament. They crushed the Colts, but they also lost to the Jets. A loss to the first-place Bengals is something they can ill-afford, but no one ever picks Cincinnati, even though they always seem to win (unless it's a night game).
Colts (8-4) at Browns (7-5): Indianapolis-Sticking with Brian Hoyer was the right decision. Why switch to Johnny Overrated simply because Hoyer had a bad game against the Bills? The Browns wouldn't be in a position to make the playoffs without Hoyer. I have a feeling this is a must-win for Cleveland, which is a difficult proposition against a Colts team fighting for positioning. It'll be a close one that can go either way, but I'm going with Indy on the road.
Buccaneers (2-10) at Lions (8-4): Detroit-For all the talk that has centered around the Green Bay Packers over the past few weeks, the 8-4 Lions have almost gotten lost in the shuffle. But here they sit in playoff position, with the tiebreaker over the Packers and the game in Green Bay still to come. Don't sleep on this team. With plenty of rest against a not good Tampa Bay team, the Lions should become the NFC's fifth nine-win team and officially eliminate the Bears.
Giants (3-9) at Titans (2-10): Tennessee-One of the NFL's two longest current losing streaks is going to come to an end! The Giants have officially hit rock bottom, and I think we're probably entering the final month of Tom Coughlin's tenure. While the Titans are one of the few teams the Giants might actually be better than, I said that about Jacksonville last week, too. The fans in Nashville begin their joy of seeing the Giants and Jets in back-to-back weeks by handing New York's NFC team another loss.
Ravens (7-5) at Dolphins (7-5): Baltimore-For all the games that affect playoff positioning this week, there probably isn't one more important than Ravens-Dolphins. This is a virtual wild card elimination game. The loser will be a game behind at least one team, while the winner goes a game up and gets the head-to-head tiebreaker. The Ravens wouldn't be in this position if they hadn't blown it last week against the Chargers, but I have a feeling they're going to make up for it by sending the Dolphins to 7-6.
Jets (2-10) at Vikings (5-7): Minnesota-There are all the games involving playoff contenders. And then there's this one. Our second "who cares?" meaningless game involving a New York team. Things are so bad that the Giants and Jets were scheduled for the same time this week and the NFL did nothing to avoid it. Rex begins his final month as Jets coach with another loss.
Panthers (3-8-1) at Saints (5-7): New Orleans-Somebody in the NFC South definitely isn't going to lose! To think, when these two met the first time on a Thursday night in Week 9, it was a battle for first place, with 3-4-1 Carolina holding a half-game lead. Well, that ended up being the third of six straight losses for the Panthers, who haven't won since Week 5 (don't forget their wonderful tie). Anyway, the Saints are the only chance we've got left to have an NFC South "champion" with a record that's actually somewhat respectable, so I'm going with New Orleans.
Rams (5-7) at Redskins (3-9): St. Louis-Fresh off their 52-0 drubbing of the Raiders, the NFL's giant killers get another patsy to beat up on this week. The Redskins might actually be worse than the Giants. They're definitely worse than the Rams. St. Louis heads into its Thursday night matchup with Arizona at 6-7.
Texans (6-6) at Jaguars (2-10): Houston-The news that Jadeveon Clowney is out for the year was certainly unfortunate, but that Texans defense still has J.J. Watt, so Houston should be just fine. Especially since they've got a division game against somebody other than Indianapolis this week. The NFL is still listing the Texans on the AFC playoff picture, although their only chance is probably catching the Colts in the South. Well, if they both win, Houston will only be a game back going into the showdown next week.
Bills (7-5) at Broncos (9-3): Denver-Raise your hand if you thought the Bills would still be in playoff contention with four weeks left. Of course, things are going to be tough. They've still got the Packers and a trip to New England in addition to this week's visit to Denver. Speaking of Green Bay, thanks to them, Denver is suddenly thinking about home field again. The Broncos have huge road games in San Diego and Cincinnati coming up. They know they can't afford a loss to the Bills.
Chiefs (7-5) at Cardinals (9-3): Arizona-This might be the most interesting matchup of the week. Arizona suddenly needs a win, having lost two straight without Carson Palmer. And last week's loss in Atlanta was certainly startling. The Chiefs have also dropped two straight since their win over Seattle, including that inexplicable defeat in Oakland. Kansas City needs a win to keep pace with the Broncos and Chargers. Arizona needs a win to hold off the surging Seahawks and 49ers. Something's gotta give. With the game taking place in Phoenix, though, I'll give the edge to the Cardinals.
49ers (7-5) at Raiders (1-11): San Francisco-The Battle of the Bay! That, of course, is fake excitement. Because the Oakland Raiders are barely a professional football team. More than just bragging rights over a terrible team are at stake for the 49ers. They're on the outside looking in at the NFC playoff picture. Playing the Raiders is an early Christmas present that they can't just throw away.
Seahawks (8-4) at Eagles (9-3): Philadelphia-We've got a lot of good ones, but this might be the game of the week. They both picked up a huge division win on Thanksgiving, and they might be the two hottest teams in the league not named the Packers. It's the Seahawks that "need" to win a little more, but the Eagles already know the Cowboys won, which means a loss drops them into a first-place tie going into next week's Sunday night game. The entire NFC playoff race could be affected by the outcome of this game. The equal rest balances things out a little, but I don't like the Seahawks having to travel cross country, so I'm taking the Eagles in what should be a good one.
Patriots (9-3) at Chargers (8-4): San Diego-This is normally the time of the year when San Diego starts making its run. They're at three in a row since that 37-0 loss in Miami, and last week they had that amazing comeback to win in Baltimore. New England finally lost last week in Green Bay, and things don't get any easier with a cross country trip to face a Chargers team that's already beaten Seattle. I know the whole "the Patriots don't lose back-to-back games" thing, but I think they're going to. San Diego on the road isn't a good matchup for them.
Falcons (5-7) at Packers (9-3): Green Bay-Atlanta beat Arizona last week, maintaining its standing "atop" the NFC South. I'm still not exactly sure how that happened. But Atlanta's next three weeks are brutal, starting with a Monday night game against the team that so many people have already anointed NFC champions. We're still a long way from that, but the Packers shouldn't have a problem handling the Falcons at home.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-7
Season: 121-71-1
Friday, December 5, 2014
Dyansties and Droughts
Even though it's been a month since the World Series, the Royals' run to Game 7 and the Giants' third championship in five seasons have sparked a lot of articles regarding championships, expectations and whether or not the Giants should be considered a dynasty. One of the more interesting ones I read suggested that the 2014 Royals should be celebrated as a once-in-a-generation team. Which is true. And not just because it was literally the first time some Royals fans had ever seen their team in the postseason.
You could actually use the same evidence to support both arguments. Are the Giants a modern-day dynasty? Absolutely. Was the Royals' run special because of how unexpected it was? Of course. And it's because of the way sports are set up these days.
A lot was made about the fact that it's been 29 years since the Royals last won a championship, but if you think about it, that has to be the minimum drought for at least one team in each league (31 in the NFL). So it should be celebrated. Because it very might be the only time that some Kansas City Royals fans will ever see their team reach the World Series.
Only one team can win a championship each season. That means it'll take at least 30 years for everybody to win one. Even if you were to narrow it down to just finals appearances, it'll take 15 years to roll through every team in a conference (don't get me started on hockey's ridiculous 16-14 thing). And that, of course, is assuming equal distribution, which we know is not the case.
That brings me back to the Giants. The argument against them as a dynasty is that while they've won the World Series in every even year since 2010, they haven't even made the playoffs in the two odd years. Well, I ask, would you rather be the Giants or the Tigers, who've reached the postseason every year since 2010, yet haven't won a championship and only reached the World Series once? (Although, next year will be 31 for Detroit, so you've got to figure they're due.) The Tigers most certainly are NOT a dynasty. But three titles in five years? That absolutely qualifies. Especially since you can't lose in the playoffs if you don't make the playoffs. (The two Giants franchises, combined, haven't been eliminated from the playoffs after they already started since 2007, but the New York version's titles come four years apart, so they don't qualify, either.)
Just like the San Francisco Giants, the Los Angeles Kings are in the midst of an every-other-year streak. The Kings certainly have the makings of a dynasty. Just like the Miami Heat had a dynasty during the four years LeBron was there and they made the NBA Finals every time. The New England Patriots were a dynasty when they won three Super Bowls in four years a decade ago. But it's not like the Patriots have stopped being a dynasty just because they haven't won the Super Bowl since 2004. They still win their division every year and have won a couple AFC championships since then (and, of course, there was that 16-0 regular season).
Some would probably argue that the Patriots are no longer a dynasty because they haven't won in 10 years. To those people, I say you have to realize the definition of "dynasty" has changed. We're not going to see a team win four titles in five years like the 1996-2000 Yankees again. What the Giants have done is the closest we're going to get. Sure, somebody's eventually going to win consecutive championships again in one of the four major sports, but the fact that they haven't done so doesn't diminish what the Giants have done over the past five years. And to judge them by the two non-championship years is just silly.
Speaking of non-championship years, the Chicago Cubs are at 108 straight and counting. They haven't even been to the World Series since 1945, which was 70 seasons ago. Just making it the World Series will truly be once-in-a-lifetime for every Cubs fan there is. They've missed their turn at least three times, and they're still waiting for the chance to celebrate a title again. When they finally do, it'll be a celebration like we've never seen before.
So, both teams that played in the 2014 World Series should be celebrated. In this era of free agency with the goal of parity, the whole point is to give everyone an equal chance at winning the title. Doing so three times in five years is quite an impressive feat. (The funniest part is that, prior to 2010, the Giants had never won a title in San Francisco and it had been 56 years since their last win, in 1954, in New York.)
The system is designed to have each team have a chance for the championship every season, even though we know that's not going to happen. And that's why the Kansas City Royals need to be celebrated, too. It's the same reason we celebrated the Pirates last year. Because the end of a championship drought is just as special. Even if it doesn't result in a title. Especially since, as much as you hope it's not, it truly might be the last time you ever get to see your team play for one.
You could actually use the same evidence to support both arguments. Are the Giants a modern-day dynasty? Absolutely. Was the Royals' run special because of how unexpected it was? Of course. And it's because of the way sports are set up these days.
A lot was made about the fact that it's been 29 years since the Royals last won a championship, but if you think about it, that has to be the minimum drought for at least one team in each league (31 in the NFL). So it should be celebrated. Because it very might be the only time that some Kansas City Royals fans will ever see their team reach the World Series.
Only one team can win a championship each season. That means it'll take at least 30 years for everybody to win one. Even if you were to narrow it down to just finals appearances, it'll take 15 years to roll through every team in a conference (don't get me started on hockey's ridiculous 16-14 thing). And that, of course, is assuming equal distribution, which we know is not the case.
That brings me back to the Giants. The argument against them as a dynasty is that while they've won the World Series in every even year since 2010, they haven't even made the playoffs in the two odd years. Well, I ask, would you rather be the Giants or the Tigers, who've reached the postseason every year since 2010, yet haven't won a championship and only reached the World Series once? (Although, next year will be 31 for Detroit, so you've got to figure they're due.) The Tigers most certainly are NOT a dynasty. But three titles in five years? That absolutely qualifies. Especially since you can't lose in the playoffs if you don't make the playoffs. (The two Giants franchises, combined, haven't been eliminated from the playoffs after they already started since 2007, but the New York version's titles come four years apart, so they don't qualify, either.)
Just like the San Francisco Giants, the Los Angeles Kings are in the midst of an every-other-year streak. The Kings certainly have the makings of a dynasty. Just like the Miami Heat had a dynasty during the four years LeBron was there and they made the NBA Finals every time. The New England Patriots were a dynasty when they won three Super Bowls in four years a decade ago. But it's not like the Patriots have stopped being a dynasty just because they haven't won the Super Bowl since 2004. They still win their division every year and have won a couple AFC championships since then (and, of course, there was that 16-0 regular season).
Some would probably argue that the Patriots are no longer a dynasty because they haven't won in 10 years. To those people, I say you have to realize the definition of "dynasty" has changed. We're not going to see a team win four titles in five years like the 1996-2000 Yankees again. What the Giants have done is the closest we're going to get. Sure, somebody's eventually going to win consecutive championships again in one of the four major sports, but the fact that they haven't done so doesn't diminish what the Giants have done over the past five years. And to judge them by the two non-championship years is just silly.
Speaking of non-championship years, the Chicago Cubs are at 108 straight and counting. They haven't even been to the World Series since 1945, which was 70 seasons ago. Just making it the World Series will truly be once-in-a-lifetime for every Cubs fan there is. They've missed their turn at least three times, and they're still waiting for the chance to celebrate a title again. When they finally do, it'll be a celebration like we've never seen before.
So, both teams that played in the 2014 World Series should be celebrated. In this era of free agency with the goal of parity, the whole point is to give everyone an equal chance at winning the title. Doing so three times in five years is quite an impressive feat. (The funniest part is that, prior to 2010, the Giants had never won a title in San Francisco and it had been 56 years since their last win, in 1954, in New York.)
The system is designed to have each team have a chance for the championship every season, even though we know that's not going to happen. And that's why the Kansas City Royals need to be celebrated, too. It's the same reason we celebrated the Pirates last year. Because the end of a championship drought is just as special. Even if it doesn't result in a title. Especially since, as much as you hope it's not, it truly might be the last time you ever get to see your team play for one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)