After two weeks of waiting, Super Bowl XLIX is finally upon us. The talk will finally move away from Tom Brady's balls and Richard Sherman's baby and on to what's going to happen on the field. I don't want to say we've got a great game in store, because we said that last year and we all saw what happened, but I'm certain that's what we all want.
As usual, I've heard all of the reasons why both teams are "definitely" going to win. Some think Deflategate was the best thing possible for the Patriots and it'll what they rally around as they win their first title in 10 years. Others think the Seahawks' "Legion of Boom" is one of those all-time defenses that will etch its name into the history books by shutting down Brady and leading Seattle to its second straight championship. If the experts are to be believed, neither team can possibly lose. But we know one of them has to.
Of course, whether or not Richard Sherman decides to play is a big question that will hover over the game until kickoff. If it was me, I don't think there's much of a choice. You play in the Super Bowl. But that's me.
Anyway, Sherman is a key piece to that Seattle defense. Let's face it, the Legion of Boom is pretty much nameless except for the three All-Pros in the secondary (I don't even know the other corner's name). If Sherman's girlfriend does go into labor and he does decide not to play, that's a huge swing in New England's favor. Because it'll add to the pressure on Kam Chancellor and Earl Thomas. If you figure they set up in a normal formation (which I'm not completely convinced they will), the cornerbacks will be on the wide receivers, with Sherman lined up against Julian Edelman. If Brady does what most quarterbacks do and stays away from Sherman, that effectively takes Edelman out of the game and puts the pressure on the Thomas/Chancellor combo against Gronkowski, who's obviously Brady's favorite receiver. That's why, if I'm Pete Carroll, I mix things up a little, maybe go nickel, and put your best cover corner (Sherman) opposite New England's best receiver, who just happens to be the tight end Gronkowski.
But if Sherman doesn't play, that means you're relying on both Chancellor and Thomas to help out on coverage on the outside, as well as trying to handle Gronkowski. That's why whether or not he plays is actually a huge potential storyline. Because if Richard Sherman's not on the field, the Legion of Boom is nowhere near as intimidating. It's also advantage Patriots. Big time.
Everyone has been talking about the New England offense against the Seattle defense as the key matchup of the game, but I think it's the other way around. The Seahawks' defense is so dominant that a lot of people forget how good their offense is. And New England's defense is much better than it has been in recent seasons. That's why, to me, the key to the game is going to be when the Seahawks have the ball.
Russell Wilson has plenty of weapons at his disposal. New England's corners are just as good as Seattle's. The Seahawks might have Sherman, but the Patriots have Darrelle Revis. Except I like the Jermaine Kearse-Brandon Browner matchup a little more than the Brandon LaFell-Byron Maxwell matchup. I also think Seattle's safeties are much better than New England's, which means Luke Willson has a chance to have a big impact on this game.
The running game is also going to be a big key. New England's running back-by-committee thing worked during the regular season, but you know that in the Super Bowl, they're going to count on Tom Brady to win it for them, and the Seahawks know that, too. And it's also not a stretch to say that Brady's not the most mobile of quarterbacks out there. He isn't Peyton Manning, but he isn't Cam Newton, either. Wilson, on the other hand, loves to run and is good at it. That's a weapon in the Seahawks' game that the Patriots simply do not have.
I'm also kind of rooting for Marshawn Lynch to have a big game and be named MVP, simply because of how wonderfully awkward it would be when Bob Costas tried to interview him and Lynch didn't say anything. But all kidding aside, the Patriots' ability to stop Marshawn Lynch will be crucial. If they can't stop the run, especially on third down, it's going to be a long night for the New England defense. Remember when Denver played Green Bay and Terrell Davis ran all over Gilbert Brown, who was too fat to move by the middle of the third quarter? Well, Vince Wilfork and Gilbert Brown are roughly the same size. Just sayin'.
One last thing to remember: Brady might have built his reputation on fourth quarter comebacks, but Wilson is no slouch in that area either. Take the NFC Championship Game for example. Yeah, I'd say he's pretty clutch, too.
So how do I see things playing out? I agree that the ball thing won't be a distraction for the Patriots one bit. But I also don't think it'll "guarantee" them a victory. That's underestimating Seattle. And the Seahawks probably feel like they've got something to prove, too. After all, they're the defending champions and they're the ones coming into the Super Bowl on an eight-game winning streak. Yet they're a one-point underdog? That's not going to sit well with the Legion of Boom and an underrated Seattle offense.
You can bet Pete Carroll's been studying up on what the Giants did both times. Eli and Coughlin won't be around, but I expect the result to be similar. Four of Bradichick's five Super Bowls have been decided by three points. The other was decided by four. Why should this one be any different? The Seattle defense makes a big play late to seal the Seahawks' second straight Super Bowl title.
Seahawks 23, Patriots 20
Conference Championships: 1-1
Playoffs: 5-5
Season: 166-99-1
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Friday, January 30, 2015
Canton Calling: 2015
It's almost an impossible task to predict who's going to be elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in any given year. No one has any idea what the 42 selectors in that room are thinking. Who are their friends that they'll advocate for? Who do they hold a grudge against? How do they determine the value of one guy over another at the same position? Only they know. So, outside of Junior Seau and probably Kurt Warner, your guess is as good as mine as to who will make up the Pro Football Hall of Fame Class of 2015.
One of the changes they made this year that I like was creating a separate "Contributor" category. Previously, contributors were lumped in with everyone else and ended up not getting in as a result. Now they're considered separately, which could have the opposite effect, since it's become almost a formality that whoever makes it to this stage will end up getting inducted. They also reduced the number of senior candidates from two to one to make room for the contributors. So, I'll look at those three first, since their chances of getting in are far better.
Senior nominee Mick Tingelhoff seems like a lock. Tingelhoff played 17 seasons for the Vikings and never missed a game, starting all 240 games at center from 1962-78. He was on all four of Minnesota's Super Bowl teams and was an All-Pro seven times.
Of the two contributors, I'm more inclined to think Bill Polian will get in than Ron Wolf. Polian was the architect of the Bills teams that went to four straight Super Bowls in the early 90s, then built the expansion Panthers, who reached the NFC Championship Game in just their second year of existence. In 1998, he went to the Colts, drafted a quarterback you might've heard of and turned Indianapolis into one of the dominant franchises in the NFL. They won eight division titles and went to the playoffs 11 times in 12 years, winning at least 10 games each time, and played in two Super Bowls, including a Super Bowl XLI win.
Now moving on to the players. Again, your guess is as good as mine. It's impossible to handicap who's going to get in from this field. Junior Seau is a lock, but that's it. If I had to guess, I'd say Kurt Warner gets in, too, along with one of the wide receivers (Tim Brown, Marvin Harrison), one of the offensive linemen (Orlando Pace, Will Shields) and another defensive player, probably John Lynch.
So, since it's tough to predict who's actually going to get in, I'll instead reveal the five players I'd vote for if I was sitting in that room in Phoenix...
One of the changes they made this year that I like was creating a separate "Contributor" category. Previously, contributors were lumped in with everyone else and ended up not getting in as a result. Now they're considered separately, which could have the opposite effect, since it's become almost a formality that whoever makes it to this stage will end up getting inducted. They also reduced the number of senior candidates from two to one to make room for the contributors. So, I'll look at those three first, since their chances of getting in are far better.
Senior nominee Mick Tingelhoff seems like a lock. Tingelhoff played 17 seasons for the Vikings and never missed a game, starting all 240 games at center from 1962-78. He was on all four of Minnesota's Super Bowl teams and was an All-Pro seven times.
Of the two contributors, I'm more inclined to think Bill Polian will get in than Ron Wolf. Polian was the architect of the Bills teams that went to four straight Super Bowls in the early 90s, then built the expansion Panthers, who reached the NFC Championship Game in just their second year of existence. In 1998, he went to the Colts, drafted a quarterback you might've heard of and turned Indianapolis into one of the dominant franchises in the NFL. They won eight division titles and went to the playoffs 11 times in 12 years, winning at least 10 games each time, and played in two Super Bowls, including a Super Bowl XLI win.
Now moving on to the players. Again, your guess is as good as mine. It's impossible to handicap who's going to get in from this field. Junior Seau is a lock, but that's it. If I had to guess, I'd say Kurt Warner gets in, too, along with one of the wide receivers (Tim Brown, Marvin Harrison), one of the offensive linemen (Orlando Pace, Will Shields) and another defensive player, probably John Lynch.
So, since it's tough to predict who's actually going to get in, I'll instead reveal the five players I'd vote for if I was sitting in that room in Phoenix...
- Junior Seau, Linebacker (1990-2002 Chargers, 2002-05 Dolphins, 2006-09 Patriots): Next question please. Seau is a lock for induction in his first year on the ballot. I could go through all of the reasons why he's one of the best linebackers of his generation, but what's the point? If you saw Junior Seau during his career and didn't know you were watching a future Hall of Famer, I'm not sure you know what a Hall of Famer is. It's such a shame that Seau took his own life in 2012 and won't be able to enjoy the culmination of his brilliant 20-year career.
- Kurt Warner, Quarterback (1998-2003 Rams, 2004 Giants, 2005-09 Cardinals): The Warner narrative, from grocery store stock boy to the Arena league to NFL Europe to the Hall of Fame, seems to be too much of a fairy tale for him to be kept out. It's also been a while since they've elected a quarterback, so that works in his favor, too. It's not like Warner would be an undeserving choice, though. He made the Greatest Show on Turf go and was MVP when the Rams won Super Bowl XXXIV. He was also a two-time NFL MVP. Oh, yeah, then he went to the Giants and tutored Eli for a season before moving on to the Cardinals and taking them to a Super Bowl.
- Charles Haley, Defensive End/Linebacker (1988-91, 1999 49ers, 1992-96 Cowboys): He's a finalist every year, yet he still hasn't gotten the call to Canton, mainly because Haley had a notoriously frosty relationship with the media throughout his career. And that to me is completely insane. Because Charley Haley was the defensive anchor on the 49ers dynasty, then was the defensive anchor when he switched over to the Dallas side of the rivalry. He's the only player in NFL history to win five Super Bowls, and it's not just because he was on the 49ers and Cowboys dynasties. He's a big reason why those two teams were dynasties.
- John Lynch, Safety (1993-2003 Buccaneers, 2004-07 Broncos): There aren't many safeties in Canton. Lynch would be just the 11th, but three of them also played cornerback. But as the members of that dominant Bucs defense that won Super Bowl XXXVII become eligible, they're going to start collecting Hall of Fame busts. Warren Sapp and Derrick Brooks are already in. Lynch should be next, with Ronde Barber to follow in a few years. Lynch probably isn't going to get in this year, but he'd get my vote.
- Tim Brown, Wide Receiver (1988-2003 Raiders, 2004 Buccaneers): This final selection was the toughest one. I wanted to vote for both offensive linemen, both wide receivers and Jerome Bettis, but could only choose one of the five. So I went with Tim Brown because he's been waiting the longest. Something needed to be done about the wide receiver backlog. They've finally started to induct the wide receivers, electing Cris Carter two years ago and Andre Reed last year, but we've still got Brown and Marvin Harrison sitting there with others coming through the pipeline soon enough. If they're making these guys wait their turn, Brown should get in over Harrison. It's mind-boggling that he isn't in yet. Because, again, as you watched him throughout his career, you figured Tim Brown was a future Hall of Famer. A dual threat as a receiver and returner, he was second all-time in receiving yards, third in catches and third in touchdowns at the time of his retirement. The only two guys ahead of him? Jerry Rice and Cris Carter. Not bad company. And Brown did all this without a great quarterback. Hewas better than Andre Reed, who got the nod last year.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Super Bowl Fun Facts: The XLIXth Edition
It's convenient when you have a snow day on Super Bowl Media Day. I was actually somewhat surprised that the Patriots' session wasn't completely about Brady's balls, but I think Robert Kraft took care of all that when he told the NFL that they "owe him an apology" if they find they're wrong. Oh, boo-hoo. You made Bobby cry! (For what it's worth, Brady did look like he just got out of bed, though.)
Deflategate has taken up a lot of the pre-Super Bowl media attention, although there have still been a few choice sound byes that weren't completely related. There was also an article on NBC Hardball Talk today that said this could never happen in baseball that just made me laugh. The argument was that it's because the media attention on football is so much greater that it let this thing take on a life of its own. It made me laugh because it's true that this can't ever happen in baseball. Baseballs aren't inflated.
Anyway, Super Bowl Media Day is time for one of my other traditions. My random collection of completely irrelevant little tidbits that some people might find interesting, while others will be like, "Huh?" And away we go:
Deflategate has taken up a lot of the pre-Super Bowl media attention, although there have still been a few choice sound byes that weren't completely related. There was also an article on NBC Hardball Talk today that said this could never happen in baseball that just made me laugh. The argument was that it's because the media attention on football is so much greater that it let this thing take on a life of its own. It made me laugh because it's true that this can't ever happen in baseball. Baseballs aren't inflated.
Anyway, Super Bowl Media Day is time for one of my other traditions. My random collection of completely irrelevant little tidbits that some people might find interesting, while others will be like, "Huh?" And away we go:
- Starting with the obvious, the Seahawks are looking to become the first back-to-back Super Bowl champion since the Patriots a decade ago. Seattle is the first team to even reach consecutive Super Bowls since then.
- This equals the longest gap between back-to-back Super Bowl wins. We also went 10 years without a repeat winner between the Steelers (XIII-XIV) and 49ers (XXIII-XXIV) doing it.
- Should the Seahawks win, they'll be just the seventh franchise to win consecutive Super Bowls (I'm only counting Pittsburgh once, even though they twice went back-to-back).
- This is the Patriots' eighth Super Bowl, tying them for the most ever with the Steelers and Cowboys. However, six of those eight appearances have come in the last 14 years, which gives Bradichick to record for most Super Bowls for a coach and for a starting quarterback.
- It's the Patriots' eighth Super Bowl, but it'll only be the second time they'll wear white in one. Super Bowl XXXIX against the Eagles marked the only other time they played in an odd-numbered game and were thus the "road" team.
- Both Pete Carroll and Bill Belichick are former coaches of the Jets. Carroll went 6-10 in his only season in 1994, while Belichick was technically the Jets coach for like 25 minutes in 1999 after Bill Parcells retired before leaving to become head coach of the Patriots. The coach he succeeded in New England? Pete Carroll.
- Carroll is the third coach to take on a team that previously fired him in the Super Bowl, and the fourth overall to face his former team. Two of the previous three won. Weeb Ewbank beat the Colts with the Jets in Super Bowl III, and Jon Gruden's Bucs beat the Raiders in Super Bowl XXXVII. Super Bowls III and XXXVII were the only previous ones where one coach took on his successor, and that coach's new team won each time. The one to lose to his former team was the Falcons' Dan Reeves against the Broncos in Super Bowl XXXIII.
- Going back to the 2000 season, the last 15 AFC championships have been won by the same five teams (New England 6, Pittsburgh 3, Indianapolis 3, Baltimore 2, Denver 1). Meanwhile, in that same timeframe, nine different teams have won the NFC title. This is the Seahawks' third appearance in 10 years, tying the Giants for the most in the NFC this century. The Giants and Seahawks are the only NFC teams who've even gone twice. St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Carolina, Philadelphia, Chicago, Arizona, New Orleans, Green Bay and San Francisco have all been to one.
- Tom Brady and Russell Wilson have both already won the Super Bowl as a starter. The last time both starting quarterbacks already had a Super Bowl win under their belt was Brady vs. Eli II three years ago.
- Speaking of Eli, the Patriots' only other Super Bowl trip to Arizona didn't go so well. That was the 1 during the 18-1 season. Also speaking of Eli, Super Bowl XLVI was the last one on NBC, giving the Peacock Network back-to-back Super Bowl helpings of the Patriots.
- We've got the two 1-seeds for the second straight year. It's only the third time that has happened in the last 21 seasons, but all three of those have taken place in the last six years. (Yet they're going to expand the playoffs next year so that they can make it easier for the 1-seed to get to the Super Bowl?)
- We've also got both Super Bowl participants entering the game with the same record for the second straight year. Prior to last season, that hadn't happened since Super Bowl XXXV, when the Ravens and Giants had identical 12-4 regular season records (although, Baltimore technically entered the Super Bowl with one more win since they were a wild card team).
- The Kansas City Chiefs beat both the Seahawks and the Patriots this season. That happened last year, too, when the Colts beat both the Seahawks and Broncos.
- This is the third straight Super Bowl for the NFC West. The last time a division went to at least three straight Super Bowls, the NFC East faced the Bills four consecutive times from XXV-XXVIII. This the first time any division has been to three straight since the 2002 realignment. In fact, NFC West teams have actually accounted for nearly half of the conference's Super Bowl berths (6 of 13) in the eight-division era.
- The Seahawks beat the Cardinals twice during the regular season, which obviously includes a win in Arizona. The Patriots have never won at University of Phoenix Stadium. The only other game they've played there was Super Bowl XLII. They haven't played the Cardinals on the road since a 2002 game at Sun Devil Stadium.
- New England will be playing in just its second game at University of Phoenix Stadium in franchise history. Both games were Super Bowls, the only two Super Bowls to be held at the stadium.
- Their game at the Cardinals was in Week 16. It was Seattle's final road game before returning to the same stadium for the Super Bowl. The same thing happened last year when they beat the Giants in their final road game (Week 15) before coming back to MetLife Stadium for the Super Bowl.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Bud Selig's Legacy
Today marked a historic day in the history of Major League Baseball. It was one that was celebrated with a really cool little video where a baseball rolls into a box, the box spins around, then the ball comes back out with a different name on it. That's because Bud Selig has officially turned over the commissioner reins to Rob Manfred.
Selig had been commissioner for so long that I don't even remember Baseball without him in charge. Fay Vincent banned Pete Rose for life, then was promptly fired by the owners and Selig took over. And so it remained for 20 years.
Say what you want about Selig, but there's no denying the impact he had on the game. He, of course, has his critics and he made his share of mistakes over 20 years. That's bound to happen when someone holds such a powerful position for so long. But it's also safe to say that history will judge Bud Selig favorably. In fact, some might even say that Selig was the best commissioner in Major League Baseball history. I'm not 100 percent sure that I'd be willing to go that far, but I'd certainly agree that, at the very least, he belongs near the top. Because if you were to make a checklist and rank Selig's pluses against his minuses, you'd find a lot more pluses.
If you think about it, there are really only two big minuses that can go against Selig. The first is the All*Star Game tie in Milwaukee in 2002. He was embarrassed about that as anybody (especially since he used to be the Brewers' owner), and he promptly moved to make sure it would never happen again. Since 2003, the league that wins the All*Star Game will have home field advantage in the World Series. While some people were quick to write it off as a gimmick and still criticize it to this day, this has become accepted as a standard part of the All*Star Game. And it sure beats the old way, where World Series home field simply alternated between the leagues.
The other big knock against Selig is the Steroid Era. Isn't revisionist history a great thing? The Steroid Era happened. Everyone knows that. Everyone knew what was going on while it was happening. Yet no one wanted to do anything about it. It was convenient to turn a blind eye until the Mitchell Report and Jose Canseco made it impossible to. But, you know what? Bud Selig's not the only one to blame for the Steroid Era. Not even close.
And you know something else about the Steroid Era? As screwed up as this is going to sound, while it was going on and nobody cared, the Steroid Era was kind of a good thing. It's exactly what Baseball needed at the time. Fans were disillusioned with the game after the 1994-95 strike. The home runs brought them back.
Notice I don't include the strike as one of Selig's black marks. That was inevitably going to happen no matter who was commissioner. In fact, Selig was only the interim commissioner back then. Even if there was somebody in charge, the animosity between the players and the owners was so deep that there wasn't going to be a resolution without a work stoppage. But ever since then, Baseball's enjoyed an unprecedented era of labor peace. There hasn't been a single game missed because of labor issues since the players returned in 1995. Each of the other three leagues has had at least one lockout since then, including all three within a couple months of each other a few years ago. The lone exception? Major League Baseball. Major League Baseball, which famously had nine work stoppages from 1972 until the strike, has not endured a single work stoppage in 20 years. Bud Selig is a big reason for that.
Going back to the steroid thing, Baseball now has one of the strictest, most sophisticated drug testing programs in all of professional sports. First-time offenders have to miss half the season and, just like the rules of the game itself, it's three strikes, you're out. Biogenesis brought a boatload of suspensions without so much as a single positive test, and Alex Rodriguez got suspended for all of last season. None of that happens without the drug testing program that Selig engineered.
He's also helped the sport grow exponentially. The World Baseball Classic was his brainchild. The idea had been tossed about before, but Bud Selig was the one with enough clout to finally get an international tournament with all the best players from around the world, including Major Leaguers, off the ground and running. We've also seen teams open the season in Japan, Mexico and Australia, and games in Puerto Rico during Selig's tenure.
After the terrible idea that was contraction, Selig also brought baseball back to the nation's capital after 34 years. Montreal was the unfortunate casualty in all this, but it just seems right to have a baseball team in D.C. And that was just the tip of the realignment iceberg. Not one, but two teams, the Brewers and Astros, switched leagues, as we finally have an even distribution of 15 teams in each league. The Diamondbacks and Rays have also came into existence and new parks have popped up all over the place.
Under Selig, the playoffs expanded twice. The wild card was his idea and so was the second wild card. It seemed unnecessary and sounded like a bad idea at first, but, like most things Bud Selig wanted, it turned out being the best thing for Baseball. After all, Madison Bumgarner doesn't become a World Series legend if there isn't a Wild Card Game for him to win first.
As much as I don't like the home plate collision rule and some of the other changes he made, Selig hit a home run with instant replay. It was something that enough people were clamoring for that something had to be done, and it was implemented almost seamlessly. Despite some initial concerns, replay didn't slow the game down nearly as much as anyone thought, and everyone seemed to embrace the change that has become a part of the game after just one year.
But perhaps Selig's enduring legacy is interleague play. Say what you want about interleague play, it's been around since 1997 and isn't going anywhere anytime soon. If it wasn't here to stay, the Astros wouldn't have switched leagues and we wouldn't have year-round interleague play. Sure, we sometimes end up stuck with series like Twins-Rockies, but, interleague play has also given us Mets-Yankees, Cubs-White Sox, Dodgers-Angels and the like in meaningful regular season games on a yearly basis. Interleague play is so much more than just a gimmick. It gives baseball fans everywhere the chance to see all of the game's best players, not just those on the teams they see all the time. And that's a good thing.
So, I choose to thank Bud Selig for his years of service to America's great game. Baseball is most definitely in a better place now than it was when Selig took over. I don't know what Selig's enduring legacy will be. But this much I do know. Rob Manfred has big shoes to fill.
Selig had been commissioner for so long that I don't even remember Baseball without him in charge. Fay Vincent banned Pete Rose for life, then was promptly fired by the owners and Selig took over. And so it remained for 20 years.
Say what you want about Selig, but there's no denying the impact he had on the game. He, of course, has his critics and he made his share of mistakes over 20 years. That's bound to happen when someone holds such a powerful position for so long. But it's also safe to say that history will judge Bud Selig favorably. In fact, some might even say that Selig was the best commissioner in Major League Baseball history. I'm not 100 percent sure that I'd be willing to go that far, but I'd certainly agree that, at the very least, he belongs near the top. Because if you were to make a checklist and rank Selig's pluses against his minuses, you'd find a lot more pluses.
If you think about it, there are really only two big minuses that can go against Selig. The first is the All*Star Game tie in Milwaukee in 2002. He was embarrassed about that as anybody (especially since he used to be the Brewers' owner), and he promptly moved to make sure it would never happen again. Since 2003, the league that wins the All*Star Game will have home field advantage in the World Series. While some people were quick to write it off as a gimmick and still criticize it to this day, this has become accepted as a standard part of the All*Star Game. And it sure beats the old way, where World Series home field simply alternated between the leagues.
The other big knock against Selig is the Steroid Era. Isn't revisionist history a great thing? The Steroid Era happened. Everyone knows that. Everyone knew what was going on while it was happening. Yet no one wanted to do anything about it. It was convenient to turn a blind eye until the Mitchell Report and Jose Canseco made it impossible to. But, you know what? Bud Selig's not the only one to blame for the Steroid Era. Not even close.
And you know something else about the Steroid Era? As screwed up as this is going to sound, while it was going on and nobody cared, the Steroid Era was kind of a good thing. It's exactly what Baseball needed at the time. Fans were disillusioned with the game after the 1994-95 strike. The home runs brought them back.
Notice I don't include the strike as one of Selig's black marks. That was inevitably going to happen no matter who was commissioner. In fact, Selig was only the interim commissioner back then. Even if there was somebody in charge, the animosity between the players and the owners was so deep that there wasn't going to be a resolution without a work stoppage. But ever since then, Baseball's enjoyed an unprecedented era of labor peace. There hasn't been a single game missed because of labor issues since the players returned in 1995. Each of the other three leagues has had at least one lockout since then, including all three within a couple months of each other a few years ago. The lone exception? Major League Baseball. Major League Baseball, which famously had nine work stoppages from 1972 until the strike, has not endured a single work stoppage in 20 years. Bud Selig is a big reason for that.
Going back to the steroid thing, Baseball now has one of the strictest, most sophisticated drug testing programs in all of professional sports. First-time offenders have to miss half the season and, just like the rules of the game itself, it's three strikes, you're out. Biogenesis brought a boatload of suspensions without so much as a single positive test, and Alex Rodriguez got suspended for all of last season. None of that happens without the drug testing program that Selig engineered.
He's also helped the sport grow exponentially. The World Baseball Classic was his brainchild. The idea had been tossed about before, but Bud Selig was the one with enough clout to finally get an international tournament with all the best players from around the world, including Major Leaguers, off the ground and running. We've also seen teams open the season in Japan, Mexico and Australia, and games in Puerto Rico during Selig's tenure.
After the terrible idea that was contraction, Selig also brought baseball back to the nation's capital after 34 years. Montreal was the unfortunate casualty in all this, but it just seems right to have a baseball team in D.C. And that was just the tip of the realignment iceberg. Not one, but two teams, the Brewers and Astros, switched leagues, as we finally have an even distribution of 15 teams in each league. The Diamondbacks and Rays have also came into existence and new parks have popped up all over the place.
Under Selig, the playoffs expanded twice. The wild card was his idea and so was the second wild card. It seemed unnecessary and sounded like a bad idea at first, but, like most things Bud Selig wanted, it turned out being the best thing for Baseball. After all, Madison Bumgarner doesn't become a World Series legend if there isn't a Wild Card Game for him to win first.
As much as I don't like the home plate collision rule and some of the other changes he made, Selig hit a home run with instant replay. It was something that enough people were clamoring for that something had to be done, and it was implemented almost seamlessly. Despite some initial concerns, replay didn't slow the game down nearly as much as anyone thought, and everyone seemed to embrace the change that has become a part of the game after just one year.
But perhaps Selig's enduring legacy is interleague play. Say what you want about interleague play, it's been around since 1997 and isn't going anywhere anytime soon. If it wasn't here to stay, the Astros wouldn't have switched leagues and we wouldn't have year-round interleague play. Sure, we sometimes end up stuck with series like Twins-Rockies, but, interleague play has also given us Mets-Yankees, Cubs-White Sox, Dodgers-Angels and the like in meaningful regular season games on a yearly basis. Interleague play is so much more than just a gimmick. It gives baseball fans everywhere the chance to see all of the game's best players, not just those on the teams they see all the time. And that's a good thing.
So, I choose to thank Bud Selig for his years of service to America's great game. Baseball is most definitely in a better place now than it was when Selig took over. I don't know what Selig's enduring legacy will be. But this much I do know. Rob Manfred has big shoes to fill.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
First Spygate, Now Deflategate
If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'. Well, as we've once again found out, no team follows that philosophy more than the New England Patriots. Because the team that infamously gave us Spygate has now given us Deflategate. And, instead of talking about Bradicheck's sixth AFC Championship in the last 14 years or anything about the Seahawks, this has taken all of our attention in the first pre-Super Bowl week.
Everyone has heard the story by now. After the AFC Championship Game, they discovered that 11 of the 12 footballs New England used on offense were underinflated. That, allegedly, made the balls easier to throw and catch, especially considering how much it was raining. The NFL obviously needs to conduct its investigation, but, as Jerry Rice noted, 11 out of 12 can't be a coincidence. Especially considering the Patriots' track record.
Now, nobody is saying the Patriots won because of underinflated footballs. If you think that, you're an idiot. Because f you watched even five minutes of that game, you know that's not the case. They were heavy favorites, and New England completely dominated every aspect of that game. But that's exactly the point. They didn't need to cheat to beat the Colts. And they're not going to get the benefit of the doubt.
Of course, there are plenty of questions regarding how this happened. If the officials were told about it at halftime, why didn't they do anything then? If the balls were OK when they were inspected, how did they end up losing air? After the inspection, why are they left on the sideline and handled by a member of the team staff instead of a neutral NFL official? Did the weather have anything to do with the air coming out? If they were tampered with, who did the tampering and why?
Assuming Bill Belichick knew what was going on, this is yet another black mark against him. After the NFL determined the Patriots were taping the Jets' defensive signals, Belichick had to pay a $500,000 fine. If he knew what was going on here, the punishment needs to be just as severe, if not more so. Belichick should be suspended. I'm not saying you take it to the extreme of making him watch the Super Bowl on television like the rest of us. But the first few games of next season, in addition to a fine, certainly would seem appropriate.
This also serves as another prime example of why, for the most part, America hates the Patriots. There's no denying that they've been on an incredible run over the past 15 years. Three titles, with possibly a fourth on the way, a record six Super Bowl appearances, 12 division titles, 175 wins, the 21-game overall winning streak, and, of course, the 16-0 regular season in 2007. But they've developed a sense of cockiness and arrogance (as well as an inferiority complex that makes absolutely no sense) that has made them pretty much completely unlikable to anyone who doesn't live in New England or have a crush on Tom Brady.
Brady is a first-ballot Hall of Famer, and Belichick is probably a Hall of Famer, too. But Belichick is also unnecessarily paranoid. You didn't need underinflated footballs to beat the Colts. Just like you didn't need to record their defensive signals to get an edge on the Jets. It's a shot of karma that isn't lost on anyone that the Patriots haven't actually won the Super Bowl in 10 years, which includes all of the time since Spygate.
I'm not saying that the legacy they've built is completely tainted, but if there's any truth behind these claims and the NFL finds that the balls were deflated deliberately, there definitely has to be an asterisk. Especially since the only team that we ever seem to talk about when it comes to breaking the rules in order to gain a competitive advantage is the Patriots. And, once again, the worst part is that they don't need to do any of it. It's almost as if Belichick is saying he doesn't believe his team is good enough to win the right way, so he has to resort to tricks, which, of course, is ridiculous.
While it has nothing to do with Belichick, let's also not forget the infamous snow plow game, where the Patriots were playing the Dolphins in a blizzard, the field was covered in snow, and the Patriots had a guy driving a snow plow (who happened to be an ex-con) conveniently come out just in time to clear a place for them to kick the game-winning field goal. Ray Lewis will also be quick to remind us that this whole run started when New England controversially won the "Tuck Rule" game against the Raiders in the playoffs (although that one can be blamed more on a stupid rule than anything the Patriots did).
Some people have downplayed this as not a big deal. Aaron Rodgers even went out and said he likes it the other way. He has big hands, so he wants the balls to be inflated as much as they can (does that mean to the point of popping?). In the grand scheme of things, it might not be a big deal. But since it's the Patriots, and since it's Bill Belichick, and since it's the week before Super Bowl week so the writers need something to write about, this story has taken on a life of its own.
Who knows what the end result of all this will be? I do know one thing, though. As a result of this, most of America is going to root for Seattle a week from Sunday. And the Patriots will find some sort of way to spin it as another case of "Us Against the World." That mentality I'd like to see deflated.
Everyone has heard the story by now. After the AFC Championship Game, they discovered that 11 of the 12 footballs New England used on offense were underinflated. That, allegedly, made the balls easier to throw and catch, especially considering how much it was raining. The NFL obviously needs to conduct its investigation, but, as Jerry Rice noted, 11 out of 12 can't be a coincidence. Especially considering the Patriots' track record.
Now, nobody is saying the Patriots won because of underinflated footballs. If you think that, you're an idiot. Because f you watched even five minutes of that game, you know that's not the case. They were heavy favorites, and New England completely dominated every aspect of that game. But that's exactly the point. They didn't need to cheat to beat the Colts. And they're not going to get the benefit of the doubt.
Of course, there are plenty of questions regarding how this happened. If the officials were told about it at halftime, why didn't they do anything then? If the balls were OK when they were inspected, how did they end up losing air? After the inspection, why are they left on the sideline and handled by a member of the team staff instead of a neutral NFL official? Did the weather have anything to do with the air coming out? If they were tampered with, who did the tampering and why?
Assuming Bill Belichick knew what was going on, this is yet another black mark against him. After the NFL determined the Patriots were taping the Jets' defensive signals, Belichick had to pay a $500,000 fine. If he knew what was going on here, the punishment needs to be just as severe, if not more so. Belichick should be suspended. I'm not saying you take it to the extreme of making him watch the Super Bowl on television like the rest of us. But the first few games of next season, in addition to a fine, certainly would seem appropriate.
This also serves as another prime example of why, for the most part, America hates the Patriots. There's no denying that they've been on an incredible run over the past 15 years. Three titles, with possibly a fourth on the way, a record six Super Bowl appearances, 12 division titles, 175 wins, the 21-game overall winning streak, and, of course, the 16-0 regular season in 2007. But they've developed a sense of cockiness and arrogance (as well as an inferiority complex that makes absolutely no sense) that has made them pretty much completely unlikable to anyone who doesn't live in New England or have a crush on Tom Brady.
Brady is a first-ballot Hall of Famer, and Belichick is probably a Hall of Famer, too. But Belichick is also unnecessarily paranoid. You didn't need underinflated footballs to beat the Colts. Just like you didn't need to record their defensive signals to get an edge on the Jets. It's a shot of karma that isn't lost on anyone that the Patriots haven't actually won the Super Bowl in 10 years, which includes all of the time since Spygate.
I'm not saying that the legacy they've built is completely tainted, but if there's any truth behind these claims and the NFL finds that the balls were deflated deliberately, there definitely has to be an asterisk. Especially since the only team that we ever seem to talk about when it comes to breaking the rules in order to gain a competitive advantage is the Patriots. And, once again, the worst part is that they don't need to do any of it. It's almost as if Belichick is saying he doesn't believe his team is good enough to win the right way, so he has to resort to tricks, which, of course, is ridiculous.
While it has nothing to do with Belichick, let's also not forget the infamous snow plow game, where the Patriots were playing the Dolphins in a blizzard, the field was covered in snow, and the Patriots had a guy driving a snow plow (who happened to be an ex-con) conveniently come out just in time to clear a place for them to kick the game-winning field goal. Ray Lewis will also be quick to remind us that this whole run started when New England controversially won the "Tuck Rule" game against the Raiders in the playoffs (although that one can be blamed more on a stupid rule than anything the Patriots did).
Some people have downplayed this as not a big deal. Aaron Rodgers even went out and said he likes it the other way. He has big hands, so he wants the balls to be inflated as much as they can (does that mean to the point of popping?). In the grand scheme of things, it might not be a big deal. But since it's the Patriots, and since it's Bill Belichick, and since it's the week before Super Bowl week so the writers need something to write about, this story has taken on a life of its own.
Who knows what the end result of all this will be? I do know one thing, though. As a result of this, most of America is going to root for Seattle a week from Sunday. And the Patriots will find some sort of way to spin it as another case of "Us Against the World." That mentality I'd like to see deflated.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Aussie Open 2015
It's on days like this that I really hate that 16-hour time difference between New York and Australia. They're a day and a half ahead of us, which means a lot that happens there starts at weird times here. Take the Australian Open for example. It's Sunday night in New York, but it's Monday afternoon in Australia, and this year's first Grand Slam is already well underway.
My initial Australian Open picks have already had to be amended. That's what happens when play starts in primetime the night before, even though it's really 11:00 in the morning. The main change I have to make is my Ana Ivanovic-Sabine Lisicki quarterfinal. That ain't happening. But, for the most part, all of the favorites are still alive, and the 2015 Aussie Open is still you, so there's still plenty of time to dissect the field and pick a pair of winners.
Li Na won the women's tournament last year and definitely won't defend her title. She retired right before Wimbledon last year. Li was also a finalist here in 2013, so she absolutely would've been one of the favorites if she was in the draw. Without Li around, I think "favorite" status has to fall to (who else?) Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova. But Australia is always the Grand Slam where we're most likely to see a surprise or two, and the year's breakout performer usually reveals herself pretty early. Last year it was Eugenie Bouchard. She made the semis here and at Roland Garros before reaching the final at Wimbledon. The year before it was Sloane Stephens upsetting Serena and making the semifinals. Who will that breakthrough performer be? If I had to guess, I'd say either Andrea Petkovic, Karolina Pliskova or Yaroslava Shvedova.
Serena and Maria might be the two favorites for the title, but they're by no means the only contenders. Petra Kvitova won her second Wimbledon last year and is ranked No. 4, while Simona Halep can take over the No. 1 ranking if she wins her first Grand Slam title. Then there's US Open finalist Caroline Wozniacki, who seems to finally have gotten her game back, and Aggie Radwanska. They're currently the two best players in the women's game who've never won a Slam. And lest we forget Victoria Azarenka, the winner here in 2012 and 2013. Because of injuries last year, her ranking has dropped so far that she's unseeded. And, as a result, Azarenka-Wozniacki will be a second round match!
Predicting the Australian Open is always tough because it's still early in the year and most of the top players are making their debuts. But I like the way both Serena and Woz ended last season, so I'll say they meet in the quarters. I'll say Flavia Pennetta beats both Radwanska and Kvitova en route to the semis, where she falls to Serena. In the bottom half of the bracket, I'm not taking the chalk. I've just got a feeling Genie Bouchard is going to beat Maria in the quarters. And since I had Lisicki in the semis, let's replace her with the third-seeded Halep. Either way, I've got Bouchard going one round further than she did last year and playing Serena in the final. In fact, I think Genie goes even further than that. She beats Serena for the title.
On the men's side, 2014 was a very interesting year. The Big Four only went 2-for-4. In fact, we had four different Grand Slam champions last year. Unfortunately, US Open champ Marin Cilic will miss the Australian Open. Stan Wawrinka, who upset both Djokovic and Nadal to win here last year, then joined with Roger to win Switzerland's first-ever Davis Cup title, is seeded fourth, and his quarterfinal opponent could be fifth-seeded Kei Nishikori, the US Open finalist.
As for the three guys we're used to winning the Grand Slams, Djokovic is ranked No. 1, and this has traditionally been his best Grand Slam. Meanwhile, Federer and Nadal are 2 and 3 and on a semifinal collision course. It's one of the most understated things about his greatness, but Roger has been to at least the semis in Australia every year since 2004. That's 11 straight years! He hasn't won an Australian Open title since 2010, though. Clay Boy, meanwhile, hasn't really played since his annual French Open win, sat out the US Open, and has flat out said that he's not one of the favorites here. Who am I to argue? He was a finalist here last year, though.
Regardless, the favorites in men's Grand Slam tournaments rarely change. Especially since the three of them automatically have to be in different sections of the draw. The open section is the Wawrinka-Nishikori quarter where the winner gets Djokovic.
Those with the chance to make some noise include eighth-seeded Milos Raonic, who might have to knock off Juan Martin Del Potro in the round of 16, then gets Djokovic in the quarters. Speaking of Djokovic and the quarters, the round before he gets there, he's set to take on John Isner, the only seeded American at No. 19. Lean times indeed. I also like Bernie Tomic, the new Aussie star, who has a chance to finally be the first hometown finalist since Lleyton Hewitt in 2005. Hewitt's still around, too. He's long removed from his days as a top player. But you've gotta love the fact he still plays his home Slam every year without fail. This is his 19th straight Australian Open appearance.
Among the top three, Federer probably has the toughest road to the semis. He'll have to face either Tommy Robredo or Ivo Karlovic in the round of 16 before a quarterfinal matchup against the winner of the great potential matchup between Andy Murray and Grigor Dimitrov. (Speaking of breakout candidates, this might be the year Dimitrov becomes known as more than just Mr. Sharapova.)
But this is a men's Grand Slam. Going against the chalk is generally a dumb idea. After all, the 2009 US Open won by Del Potro and the two last year are the only ones since that 2005 Australian Open that one of the Big Four didn't win. Hell, it's weird to see a Grand Slam final without at least one of them like we had at the US Open.
So, my semis are Djokovic vs. Wawrinka and, after upsetting Nadal in the quarters, Tomic vs. Federer. And, after their epic Wimbledon final last year, we get another Djokovic-Federer matchup. The result of which I think will be the same. Novak Djokovic wins another Australian Open.
My initial Australian Open picks have already had to be amended. That's what happens when play starts in primetime the night before, even though it's really 11:00 in the morning. The main change I have to make is my Ana Ivanovic-Sabine Lisicki quarterfinal. That ain't happening. But, for the most part, all of the favorites are still alive, and the 2015 Aussie Open is still you, so there's still plenty of time to dissect the field and pick a pair of winners.
Li Na won the women's tournament last year and definitely won't defend her title. She retired right before Wimbledon last year. Li was also a finalist here in 2013, so she absolutely would've been one of the favorites if she was in the draw. Without Li around, I think "favorite" status has to fall to (who else?) Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova. But Australia is always the Grand Slam where we're most likely to see a surprise or two, and the year's breakout performer usually reveals herself pretty early. Last year it was Eugenie Bouchard. She made the semis here and at Roland Garros before reaching the final at Wimbledon. The year before it was Sloane Stephens upsetting Serena and making the semifinals. Who will that breakthrough performer be? If I had to guess, I'd say either Andrea Petkovic, Karolina Pliskova or Yaroslava Shvedova.
Serena and Maria might be the two favorites for the title, but they're by no means the only contenders. Petra Kvitova won her second Wimbledon last year and is ranked No. 4, while Simona Halep can take over the No. 1 ranking if she wins her first Grand Slam title. Then there's US Open finalist Caroline Wozniacki, who seems to finally have gotten her game back, and Aggie Radwanska. They're currently the two best players in the women's game who've never won a Slam. And lest we forget Victoria Azarenka, the winner here in 2012 and 2013. Because of injuries last year, her ranking has dropped so far that she's unseeded. And, as a result, Azarenka-Wozniacki will be a second round match!
Predicting the Australian Open is always tough because it's still early in the year and most of the top players are making their debuts. But I like the way both Serena and Woz ended last season, so I'll say they meet in the quarters. I'll say Flavia Pennetta beats both Radwanska and Kvitova en route to the semis, where she falls to Serena. In the bottom half of the bracket, I'm not taking the chalk. I've just got a feeling Genie Bouchard is going to beat Maria in the quarters. And since I had Lisicki in the semis, let's replace her with the third-seeded Halep. Either way, I've got Bouchard going one round further than she did last year and playing Serena in the final. In fact, I think Genie goes even further than that. She beats Serena for the title.
On the men's side, 2014 was a very interesting year. The Big Four only went 2-for-4. In fact, we had four different Grand Slam champions last year. Unfortunately, US Open champ Marin Cilic will miss the Australian Open. Stan Wawrinka, who upset both Djokovic and Nadal to win here last year, then joined with Roger to win Switzerland's first-ever Davis Cup title, is seeded fourth, and his quarterfinal opponent could be fifth-seeded Kei Nishikori, the US Open finalist.
As for the three guys we're used to winning the Grand Slams, Djokovic is ranked No. 1, and this has traditionally been his best Grand Slam. Meanwhile, Federer and Nadal are 2 and 3 and on a semifinal collision course. It's one of the most understated things about his greatness, but Roger has been to at least the semis in Australia every year since 2004. That's 11 straight years! He hasn't won an Australian Open title since 2010, though. Clay Boy, meanwhile, hasn't really played since his annual French Open win, sat out the US Open, and has flat out said that he's not one of the favorites here. Who am I to argue? He was a finalist here last year, though.
Regardless, the favorites in men's Grand Slam tournaments rarely change. Especially since the three of them automatically have to be in different sections of the draw. The open section is the Wawrinka-Nishikori quarter where the winner gets Djokovic.
Those with the chance to make some noise include eighth-seeded Milos Raonic, who might have to knock off Juan Martin Del Potro in the round of 16, then gets Djokovic in the quarters. Speaking of Djokovic and the quarters, the round before he gets there, he's set to take on John Isner, the only seeded American at No. 19. Lean times indeed. I also like Bernie Tomic, the new Aussie star, who has a chance to finally be the first hometown finalist since Lleyton Hewitt in 2005. Hewitt's still around, too. He's long removed from his days as a top player. But you've gotta love the fact he still plays his home Slam every year without fail. This is his 19th straight Australian Open appearance.
Among the top three, Federer probably has the toughest road to the semis. He'll have to face either Tommy Robredo or Ivo Karlovic in the round of 16 before a quarterfinal matchup against the winner of the great potential matchup between Andy Murray and Grigor Dimitrov. (Speaking of breakout candidates, this might be the year Dimitrov becomes known as more than just Mr. Sharapova.)
But this is a men's Grand Slam. Going against the chalk is generally a dumb idea. After all, the 2009 US Open won by Del Potro and the two last year are the only ones since that 2005 Australian Open that one of the Big Four didn't win. Hell, it's weird to see a Grand Slam final without at least one of them like we had at the US Open.
So, my semis are Djokovic vs. Wawrinka and, after upsetting Nadal in the quarters, Tomic vs. Federer. And, after their epic Wimbledon final last year, we get another Djokovic-Federer matchup. The result of which I think will be the same. Novak Djokovic wins another Australian Open.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Playoff Picks, Week 3
Well, we sure had an interesting week of Divisional Playoffs, didn't we? Peyton Manning looked incredibly old, then we found out why, which explains why he didn't look quite like himself over the entire final month of the season. John Fox went from coach of the Broncos to coach of the Bears in a matter of three days, and Jack Del Rio also left Denver to become coach of the Raiders.
Over in the NFC, we saw Dez Bryant make an incredible clutch catch that somehow wasn't a catch and ended up costing Dallas the game. In the Wild Card Game, I was one of the few people who didn't think that was a pass interference. But on this one, I'm with pretty much everyone in America who isn't a Packers fan and is incredibly confused as to how that's not a catch. The rule wasn't interpreted incorrectly. By letter of the law, they got the call right. The problem is that the rule is stupid. Like the tuck rule (which doesn't exist anymore). The Competition Committee said they're going to look at it over the offseason. I wonder why? It didn't decide a playoff game or anything.
Of course, way back when the Packers controversially lost a game because the replacement officials screwed up a touchdown/interception at the end of a Monday night game in Seattle. Well, the Packers returned to Seattle in Week 1. And that didn't go well. But that can be chalked up to the Super Bowl champs opening their defense on national television. I think the NFC Championship Game will be much closer. Meanwhile, Bradicheck is back in the AFC Championship Game once again. For New England to get to its sixth Super Bowl in 14 years, they'll have to beat a familiar foe--Indianapolis. Except this time it's a little different. It's not Manning vs. Brady. It's Brady vs. Luck.
NFC Championship Game: Packers (13-4) at Seahawks (13-4): Green Bay-Back in mid-December, the Packers and Seahawks were sitting in the NFC's two wild card positions. A month later, they're meeting for the NFC championship as the top two seeds. And this is the matchup that has seemed inevitable since pretty much that exact point in mid-December. Because, no offense to the Cowboys, these are the two best teams in the NFC. It's only right that one of them will represent the conference in the Super Bowl.
It's strength vs. strength with Aaron Rodgers and the NFL's most explosive offense going against the Legion of Boom (BTW, how cool was in when Kam Chancellor jumped over the line on that Carolina field goal attempt not once, but twice last week?). The health of Rodgers is a very relevant question, but he's said that he's got two more games left in him. Of course, that's what you'd expect him to say and you'd be incredibly worried had he not said that. But Rodgers, while definitely not 100 percent, certainly looked good enough last week.
There's plenty of reason to be concerned about Rodgers against the Seahawks defense and the Sixth Man, but I think the Packers' defense is a little underrated. Assuming the Seattle defense and Green Bay offense cancel each other out, that's going to be the key matchup. Russell Wilson vs. the Packers defense will determine the NFC's Super Bowl participant. If Seattle's able to do what it did against Carolina, it'll be very difficult for Green Bay to stop them.
Seattle is a team on a mission. They want to be the first defending champion to get back to the Super Bowl since the 2004 Patriots. The Packers are on a mission, too, and Green Bay is a much better team than the one that lost in Seattle to start the season. While I think there's a chance the crowd could become a factor, I said prior to the start of the playoffs that the Dallas-Green Bay winner would go into Seattle and win. I'm sticking with that. Packers 23, Seahawks 20.
AFC Championship Game: Colts (13-5) at Patriots (13-4): New England-The real challenge for New England was going to be getting through last week. For whatever reason, the Ravens always give the Patriots trouble in the postseason, and last week was no exception. But the Patriots survived and moved into their fourth consecutive AFC Championship Game, where they won't face their expected opponent.
I give all the credit in the world to Chuck Pagano and his team for what happened in Denver last week. That defensive game plan was absolutely brilliant. The fact that Peyton was injured doesn't seem particularly relevant. The defense never let the Broncos get into the game. And as a result, we've got the Indianapolis Colts one game away from the Super Bowl just three years after their complete franchise reboot. Andrew Luck, in fact, is the only quarterback starting this weekend that hasn't already won the Super Bowl.
But beating the Patriots in Foxboro against a healthy Tom Brady is a much taller order. Remember Week 11? Both of these teams sure do. The final score of that one was 42-20 Patriots on a Sunday night in Indianapolis. The Colts are a much better team than they were that day, and beating Peyton Manning's Broncos sure gave them a jolt, but the problem is they're playing the Patriots.
All season long, everyone has been talking about how this might be the best Patriots team since their last Super Bowl squad. Well, here's their chance to go out and prove it. New England's going to be a heavy favorite in this game, and there's good reason for that. The Patriots are a much better team than the Colts on both sides of the ball. Andrew Luck's time will come. Probably soon. But New England desperately wants to stop hearing about the fact they haven't won a championship in a decade. And this time, they won't have the Giants waiting for them in the Super Bowl. That's not until next year. Patriots 38, Colts 13.
So, there you have it. The popular pick from a lot of NFL experts at the beginning of the season, at midseason, and at the start of the playoffs was New England-Green Bay. They're called "experts" for a reason. Because the Packers and Patriots are the two best teams left. I don't see any reason why that prediction won't end up being right, which is why it's mine also.
Last Week: 2-2
Playoffs: 4-4
Season: 165-98-1
Over in the NFC, we saw Dez Bryant make an incredible clutch catch that somehow wasn't a catch and ended up costing Dallas the game. In the Wild Card Game, I was one of the few people who didn't think that was a pass interference. But on this one, I'm with pretty much everyone in America who isn't a Packers fan and is incredibly confused as to how that's not a catch. The rule wasn't interpreted incorrectly. By letter of the law, they got the call right. The problem is that the rule is stupid. Like the tuck rule (which doesn't exist anymore). The Competition Committee said they're going to look at it over the offseason. I wonder why? It didn't decide a playoff game or anything.
Of course, way back when the Packers controversially lost a game because the replacement officials screwed up a touchdown/interception at the end of a Monday night game in Seattle. Well, the Packers returned to Seattle in Week 1. And that didn't go well. But that can be chalked up to the Super Bowl champs opening their defense on national television. I think the NFC Championship Game will be much closer. Meanwhile, Bradicheck is back in the AFC Championship Game once again. For New England to get to its sixth Super Bowl in 14 years, they'll have to beat a familiar foe--Indianapolis. Except this time it's a little different. It's not Manning vs. Brady. It's Brady vs. Luck.
NFC Championship Game: Packers (13-4) at Seahawks (13-4): Green Bay-Back in mid-December, the Packers and Seahawks were sitting in the NFC's two wild card positions. A month later, they're meeting for the NFC championship as the top two seeds. And this is the matchup that has seemed inevitable since pretty much that exact point in mid-December. Because, no offense to the Cowboys, these are the two best teams in the NFC. It's only right that one of them will represent the conference in the Super Bowl.
It's strength vs. strength with Aaron Rodgers and the NFL's most explosive offense going against the Legion of Boom (BTW, how cool was in when Kam Chancellor jumped over the line on that Carolina field goal attempt not once, but twice last week?). The health of Rodgers is a very relevant question, but he's said that he's got two more games left in him. Of course, that's what you'd expect him to say and you'd be incredibly worried had he not said that. But Rodgers, while definitely not 100 percent, certainly looked good enough last week.
There's plenty of reason to be concerned about Rodgers against the Seahawks defense and the Sixth Man, but I think the Packers' defense is a little underrated. Assuming the Seattle defense and Green Bay offense cancel each other out, that's going to be the key matchup. Russell Wilson vs. the Packers defense will determine the NFC's Super Bowl participant. If Seattle's able to do what it did against Carolina, it'll be very difficult for Green Bay to stop them.
Seattle is a team on a mission. They want to be the first defending champion to get back to the Super Bowl since the 2004 Patriots. The Packers are on a mission, too, and Green Bay is a much better team than the one that lost in Seattle to start the season. While I think there's a chance the crowd could become a factor, I said prior to the start of the playoffs that the Dallas-Green Bay winner would go into Seattle and win. I'm sticking with that. Packers 23, Seahawks 20.
AFC Championship Game: Colts (13-5) at Patriots (13-4): New England-The real challenge for New England was going to be getting through last week. For whatever reason, the Ravens always give the Patriots trouble in the postseason, and last week was no exception. But the Patriots survived and moved into their fourth consecutive AFC Championship Game, where they won't face their expected opponent.
I give all the credit in the world to Chuck Pagano and his team for what happened in Denver last week. That defensive game plan was absolutely brilliant. The fact that Peyton was injured doesn't seem particularly relevant. The defense never let the Broncos get into the game. And as a result, we've got the Indianapolis Colts one game away from the Super Bowl just three years after their complete franchise reboot. Andrew Luck, in fact, is the only quarterback starting this weekend that hasn't already won the Super Bowl.
But beating the Patriots in Foxboro against a healthy Tom Brady is a much taller order. Remember Week 11? Both of these teams sure do. The final score of that one was 42-20 Patriots on a Sunday night in Indianapolis. The Colts are a much better team than they were that day, and beating Peyton Manning's Broncos sure gave them a jolt, but the problem is they're playing the Patriots.
All season long, everyone has been talking about how this might be the best Patriots team since their last Super Bowl squad. Well, here's their chance to go out and prove it. New England's going to be a heavy favorite in this game, and there's good reason for that. The Patriots are a much better team than the Colts on both sides of the ball. Andrew Luck's time will come. Probably soon. But New England desperately wants to stop hearing about the fact they haven't won a championship in a decade. And this time, they won't have the Giants waiting for them in the Super Bowl. That's not until next year. Patriots 38, Colts 13.
So, there you have it. The popular pick from a lot of NFL experts at the beginning of the season, at midseason, and at the start of the playoffs was New England-Green Bay. They're called "experts" for a reason. Because the Packers and Patriots are the two best teams left. I don't see any reason why that prediction won't end up being right, which is why it's mine also.
Last Week: 2-2
Playoffs: 4-4
Season: 165-98-1
Thursday, January 15, 2015
The 2015 USATF Calendar-My Version
The 2015 calendar on my wall is a U.S. Olympic Team calendar. It might seem pretty odd to have an Olympic calendar in a non-Olympic year, but it was free with one of their donation things and I didn't have a 2015 calendar yet, so I decided to hang it up. (My Yankees calendar, which runs from April-March is in my office.)
Then today my friend Milos got a 2015 USA Track & Field calendar in the mail. I'm not a USATF member, which is probably why I didn't get that calendar, but that doesn't mean I didn't want one. Then I went through and looked at it, and I decided not so much. There are plenty of other athletes I would've put in there over the ones that were included. I get it, they needed to include men and women from all the different events. But I'd rather see a calendar consisting of USA Track & Field's hottest girls.
Since I have free rein over what gets posted here, that's exactly what we're going to do. So, may I present, my version of the 2015 USA Track & Field calendar...
There are also plenty of honorable mentions to go around, but those are the 12 that made the cut. Are you starting to realize why I like track & field so much?
Then today my friend Milos got a 2015 USA Track & Field calendar in the mail. I'm not a USATF member, which is probably why I didn't get that calendar, but that doesn't mean I didn't want one. Then I went through and looked at it, and I decided not so much. There are plenty of other athletes I would've put in there over the ones that were included. I get it, they needed to include men and women from all the different events. But I'd rather see a calendar consisting of USA Track & Field's hottest girls.
Since I have free rein over what gets posted here, that's exactly what we're going to do. So, may I present, my version of the 2015 USA Track & Field calendar...
 |
| January: Georganne Moline She made the finals in the 400 hurdles at the London Olympics. |
 |
| February: Rachel Yurkovich If you're hot enough to be in the ESPN Body Issue, you're hot enough to be in my calendar. |
 |
| March: Brianna Rollins She had quite a year in 2013, winning the NCAA, U.S. and World Championships. |
 |
| April: Emma Coburn She dominated the steeplechase last year. If only there had been an Olympics/Worlds... |
 |
| May: Laura Roesler She just turned pro after four years at Oregon and won the 2014 Bowerman, track's Heisman. |
 |
| June: Allyson Felix After three World Championships and two Olympic silvers, she finally won Olympic gold in the 200 in London. |
 |
| July: Shannon Rowbury She won bronze at the World Championships in the 1500 in 2009, and made the final in the 5000 at Worlds in 2013. |
 |
| August: Anna Willard She's long been one of my favorites. Hasn't raced much since 2012 due to injuries. |
 |
| September: Lolo Jones The only bobsledder on the list, she first became known for tripping over the last hurdle in Beijing. |
 |
| October: Jenn Suhr The gold medalist in the pole vault in London, and the indoor world record holder for a little while. |
 |
| November: Brenda Martinez She won the bronze in the 800 at the 2013 World Championships. |
 |
| December: Maggie Vessey She was hot long before she was known only for her different uniforms. |
There are also plenty of honorable mentions to go around, but those are the 12 that made the cut. Are you starting to realize why I like track & field so much?
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Resetting It to East vs. West
The NHL announced today that Nick Foligno of the Blue Jackets and Jonathan Toews of the Blackhawks will be the captains for next weekend's All-Star Game in Columbus. It's the first NHL All-Star Game in three years, but they're sticking with the format that they pioneered after there was no game in 2010 for the Olympics and has since been copied by the NFL. It's not East vs. West. It's not North America vs. the World. It's Foligno vs. Toews. The two captains are picking the teams.
When they first announced that this was going to be the All-Star Game format, I gave the NHL credit for trying something new and innovative. After all, they had to do something to renew interest in a game that seems to be cancelled almost as often as it's actually played. (This is only the sixth NHL All-Star Game in the decade since Lockout 1.0.) But, while some elements of it (like the draft) are cool, this format has gotten old. I'd very much like to see the NHL go back to East vs. West.
There are lots of reasons why I want the NHL to revert back to an East vs. West format. The biggest being the fact that the NFL adopted it for the Pro Bowl, finding the only possible way to make that game stupider than Goodell had already made it. But it's also because the "Fantasy Team" idea has simply gotten old. Just like the North America vs. the World thing did.
And this is the first All-Star Game since last season's realignment. One of the things they did as a part of the realignment was change the schedule so that every team played a home-and-home with everyone else. The main reason for that was so Western Conference fans could see Sidney Crosby, Alexander Ovechkin and the like. But in the All-Star Game, those lines are blurred. Crosby and Evgeni Malkin might even end up on different teams. When it's Canada vs. Russia in the Olympics, that's OK. But who wants to see Pittsburgh's two best players play against each other in a midseason exhibition game?
Then there's the fan vote, which is a part of the All-Star Game in every sport that's not going away, which is fine. But it's because of this format that you get Zemgus Girgensons, a guy on the Sabres that nobody's ever heard of, and five Blackhawks voted in as the six "starters." By going back to East vs. West, you're doubling the number of players selected by the fans. The game is for the fans, after all.
It's because of the Blackhawk ballot stuffing, and the NHL's rule that all 30 teams be represented, that players like P.K. Subban, Henrik Zetterberg and Henrik Lundqvist are being left home. There are All-Star snubs every year in every sport, but by giving the host Blue Jackets three selections to go along with the five from Chicago, that leaves very little room for guys from other teams.
My biggest problem, though, is this. The distribution is uneven. There will be a total of ONE defenseman from an Eastern Conference team that will be participating in the All-Star Game--Carolina's Justin Faulk, and he might only be there because he's the token Hurricane. Meanwhile, there are 16 forwards from the East and only eight from the West. With the goalies, it's a little better. Four from the East, two from the West, including "starter" Corey Crawford. Amazingly, the overall breakdown works out to 21-21, but if you take out the five Blackhawks, that's only 16 players from the Western Conference that were actually selected, and nine of them were defensemen.
Now, I'm obviously much more familiar with the East than I am with the West, but I've gotta think there are enough players on Western Conference teams to fill an actual All-Star squad. Likewise, the league's best goal-scorers all play in the East, but there's got to be at least a couple Eastern Conference defensemen that were worthy of selections.
If I were in control and the NHL All-Star Game was East vs. West, here's what the teams would look like:
EAST
Goalies: Sergei Bobrovsky (CLB), Jimmy Howard (DET), Carey Price (MTL)
Defensemen: Justin Faulk (CAR), Aaron Ekblad (FLA), Marek Zidlicky (NJ), Erik Karlsson (OTT), Mark Streit (PHI), John Carlson (WSH)
Forwards: Patrice Bergeron (BOS), Zemgus Girgensons (BUF), Nick Foligno (CLB), Ryan Johansen (CLB), John Tavares (NYI), Rick Nash (NYR), Jakub Voracek (PHI), Sidney Crosby (PIT), Evgeni Malkin (PIT), Tyler Johnson (TB), Steven Stamkos (TB), Phil Kessel (TOR)
WEST
Goalies: Frederik Andersen (ANA), Corey Crawford (CHI), Pekka Rinne (NSH)
Defensemen: Oliver Ekman-Larsson (ARI), Duncan Keith (CHI), Brent Seabrook (CHI), Drew Doughty (LA), Kevin Shattenkirk (STL), Dustin Byfuglien (WPG)
Forwards: Ryan Getzlaf (ANA), Jiri Hudler (CGY), Patrick Kane (CHI), Jonathan Toews (CHI), Alex Tanguay (COL), Tyler Seguin (DAL), Ryan Nugent-Hopkins (EDM), Anze Kopitar (LA), Zach Parise (MIN), Joe Pavelski (SJ), Vladimir Tarasenko (STL), Radim Vrbata (VAN)
When they first announced that this was going to be the All-Star Game format, I gave the NHL credit for trying something new and innovative. After all, they had to do something to renew interest in a game that seems to be cancelled almost as often as it's actually played. (This is only the sixth NHL All-Star Game in the decade since Lockout 1.0.) But, while some elements of it (like the draft) are cool, this format has gotten old. I'd very much like to see the NHL go back to East vs. West.
There are lots of reasons why I want the NHL to revert back to an East vs. West format. The biggest being the fact that the NFL adopted it for the Pro Bowl, finding the only possible way to make that game stupider than Goodell had already made it. But it's also because the "Fantasy Team" idea has simply gotten old. Just like the North America vs. the World thing did.
And this is the first All-Star Game since last season's realignment. One of the things they did as a part of the realignment was change the schedule so that every team played a home-and-home with everyone else. The main reason for that was so Western Conference fans could see Sidney Crosby, Alexander Ovechkin and the like. But in the All-Star Game, those lines are blurred. Crosby and Evgeni Malkin might even end up on different teams. When it's Canada vs. Russia in the Olympics, that's OK. But who wants to see Pittsburgh's two best players play against each other in a midseason exhibition game?
Then there's the fan vote, which is a part of the All-Star Game in every sport that's not going away, which is fine. But it's because of this format that you get Zemgus Girgensons, a guy on the Sabres that nobody's ever heard of, and five Blackhawks voted in as the six "starters." By going back to East vs. West, you're doubling the number of players selected by the fans. The game is for the fans, after all.
It's because of the Blackhawk ballot stuffing, and the NHL's rule that all 30 teams be represented, that players like P.K. Subban, Henrik Zetterberg and Henrik Lundqvist are being left home. There are All-Star snubs every year in every sport, but by giving the host Blue Jackets three selections to go along with the five from Chicago, that leaves very little room for guys from other teams.
My biggest problem, though, is this. The distribution is uneven. There will be a total of ONE defenseman from an Eastern Conference team that will be participating in the All-Star Game--Carolina's Justin Faulk, and he might only be there because he's the token Hurricane. Meanwhile, there are 16 forwards from the East and only eight from the West. With the goalies, it's a little better. Four from the East, two from the West, including "starter" Corey Crawford. Amazingly, the overall breakdown works out to 21-21, but if you take out the five Blackhawks, that's only 16 players from the Western Conference that were actually selected, and nine of them were defensemen.
Now, I'm obviously much more familiar with the East than I am with the West, but I've gotta think there are enough players on Western Conference teams to fill an actual All-Star squad. Likewise, the league's best goal-scorers all play in the East, but there's got to be at least a couple Eastern Conference defensemen that were worthy of selections.
If I were in control and the NHL All-Star Game was East vs. West, here's what the teams would look like:
EAST
Goalies: Sergei Bobrovsky (CLB), Jimmy Howard (DET), Carey Price (MTL)
Defensemen: Justin Faulk (CAR), Aaron Ekblad (FLA), Marek Zidlicky (NJ), Erik Karlsson (OTT), Mark Streit (PHI), John Carlson (WSH)
Forwards: Patrice Bergeron (BOS), Zemgus Girgensons (BUF), Nick Foligno (CLB), Ryan Johansen (CLB), John Tavares (NYI), Rick Nash (NYR), Jakub Voracek (PHI), Sidney Crosby (PIT), Evgeni Malkin (PIT), Tyler Johnson (TB), Steven Stamkos (TB), Phil Kessel (TOR)
WEST
Goalies: Frederik Andersen (ANA), Corey Crawford (CHI), Pekka Rinne (NSH)
Defensemen: Oliver Ekman-Larsson (ARI), Duncan Keith (CHI), Brent Seabrook (CHI), Drew Doughty (LA), Kevin Shattenkirk (STL), Dustin Byfuglien (WPG)
Forwards: Ryan Getzlaf (ANA), Jiri Hudler (CGY), Patrick Kane (CHI), Jonathan Toews (CHI), Alex Tanguay (COL), Tyler Seguin (DAL), Ryan Nugent-Hopkins (EDM), Anze Kopitar (LA), Zach Parise (MIN), Joe Pavelski (SJ), Vladimir Tarasenko (STL), Radim Vrbata (VAN)
Monday, January 12, 2015
Boston? The USOC's Odd Decision
I'm no fan of Boston by any means. Anyone who knows me knows that. So don't take this commentary and chalk it up as just some more Boston-bashing by a New Yorker. But I'm surprised and confused by the USOC's selection of Boston as its candidate for the 2024 Olympics. And, even worse, I think choosing Boston all but guarantees the United States will NOT host the 2024 Olympics. Which might've been the entire point.
A very interesting piece came out today written by respected Olympic journalist Alan Abrahamson. He made some very interesting points, the most significant of which is that an op/ed piece by IOC President Thomas Bach appeared in the Boston Globe two days before the USOC picked its bid city. Only the Boston Globe. Not the Los Angeles Times. Not the San Francisco Chronicle. Not the Washington Post. Not USA Today. What can we take from that? A not-so-subtle suggestion that Bach wanted Boston to be the American bid city. And once the USOC realized that, their vote became a mere formality.
Los Angeles had long been considered the U.S. favorite for 2024, and the vote evidently came down to LA or Boston. LA had the best bid on paper, but there were plenty of questions about whether the IOC would've wanted to go there a third time (which was my biggest argument against LA). The IOC has long been a fan of San Francisco, but the USOC is still yet to get the point about the one American city that seems like it could be a guaranteed win against international competition. San Francisco bid for 2012 and lost to New York. For 2016, San Francisco lost to Chicago. Now the Bay Area loses to Boston. If Boston doesn't host the 2024 Games (which, again, I don't think it will), that's three times in a row that the U.S. ended up choosing another city that ultimately lost.
The Boston bid was built around existing facilities at the city's various colleges, which means it would cost the taxpayers very little. But the one big thing that Boston's missing is an Olympic Stadium. Where are you putting that, and what are you doing with it after the Olympics? The seemingly natural tenant would be the Patriots, but Gillette Stadium is still relatively new, so I don't think they're in the market for a new home. And relying on existing college facilities is all well and good in theory, but which one gets the new dorms that will first serve as the Olympic Village?
With the amount of money NBC just paid to extend its Olympic rights thru 2032, it's obviously in the IOC's best interest to have one of those three Summer Games in the U.S. They know that. You can't have the country that's the most successful and pays the most to broadcast the Olympics always playing a road game. The United States is going to host the Summer Olympics again relatively soon. Otherwise, the IOC will miss out on a financial windfall.
But I think more importantly, the IOC needed a U.S. bid for 2024. Especially after all the negative publicity they've received with the number of cities that have dropped out of the 2022 race, they want the 2024 field to be as strong as possible. In order to do that, they needed an American city, any American city, in the mix.
Now, I have no idea what President Bach's motivations were or how much credence the USOC gave to what he said, but Abrahamson's revelation was incredibly telling. The IOC wanted a U.S. bid, but do they really want that U.S. bid to win? If they don't, convincing the USOC to put up Boston seems like a brilliant strategic ploy. Because Boston is by no means going to be the favorite in this race.
It's clear that the 2024 race is going to include some heavy hitters. Boston and Rome are the only cities to announce that they'll definitely be bidding, but Germany just has to decide between Berlin and Hamburg, and it's likely that Paris will bid on the 100th anniversary of the 1924 Games. Istanbul bids for every Olympics and finished second for 2020, so you've gotta figure they'll be in the mix. Doha and Dubai aren't out of the question, either, but they'd just be wasting their time and money, since there's no way the IOC will put four straight Olympics in Asia.
Then there's the giant elephant in the room. South Africa. We're 18 months away from Rio, which will be the first Olympics in South America, leaving Africa as the only continent to have never hosted. That's a well-known fact in Olympic circles, and one they'd like to change. South Africa's probably the only African country that could realistically make it work financially. They've been back-and-forth on a bid, but I think they're back to yes on moving forward with Durban, which hosted an IOC Session a couple years ago. And I haven't even mentioned Toronto yet, which could be a definite possibility if the Pan Am Games go well.
This field is going to be loaded. And it's worth keeping in mind that the IOC is heavily European. With all those beautiful European cities in the running, and the fact that it'll be 12 years since London, they might look out for their own interests and make the easy European choice. Or they could make history and pick Durban. And who's knows if there's still any lingering anti-American resentment that derailed the New York and Chicago bids?
My point is this. The 2024 Olympic race is going to be a flashy one. The IOC's going to make the sexy choice. And Boston's not it.
While it probably wasn't done intentionally (at least I don't think so), by picking Boston, the USOC might've thrown in the towel before the race even began. So forgive me for not getting excited about it. Because I just don't see Boston 2024 actually happening.
A very interesting piece came out today written by respected Olympic journalist Alan Abrahamson. He made some very interesting points, the most significant of which is that an op/ed piece by IOC President Thomas Bach appeared in the Boston Globe two days before the USOC picked its bid city. Only the Boston Globe. Not the Los Angeles Times. Not the San Francisco Chronicle. Not the Washington Post. Not USA Today. What can we take from that? A not-so-subtle suggestion that Bach wanted Boston to be the American bid city. And once the USOC realized that, their vote became a mere formality.
Los Angeles had long been considered the U.S. favorite for 2024, and the vote evidently came down to LA or Boston. LA had the best bid on paper, but there were plenty of questions about whether the IOC would've wanted to go there a third time (which was my biggest argument against LA). The IOC has long been a fan of San Francisco, but the USOC is still yet to get the point about the one American city that seems like it could be a guaranteed win against international competition. San Francisco bid for 2012 and lost to New York. For 2016, San Francisco lost to Chicago. Now the Bay Area loses to Boston. If Boston doesn't host the 2024 Games (which, again, I don't think it will), that's three times in a row that the U.S. ended up choosing another city that ultimately lost.
The Boston bid was built around existing facilities at the city's various colleges, which means it would cost the taxpayers very little. But the one big thing that Boston's missing is an Olympic Stadium. Where are you putting that, and what are you doing with it after the Olympics? The seemingly natural tenant would be the Patriots, but Gillette Stadium is still relatively new, so I don't think they're in the market for a new home. And relying on existing college facilities is all well and good in theory, but which one gets the new dorms that will first serve as the Olympic Village?
With the amount of money NBC just paid to extend its Olympic rights thru 2032, it's obviously in the IOC's best interest to have one of those three Summer Games in the U.S. They know that. You can't have the country that's the most successful and pays the most to broadcast the Olympics always playing a road game. The United States is going to host the Summer Olympics again relatively soon. Otherwise, the IOC will miss out on a financial windfall.
But I think more importantly, the IOC needed a U.S. bid for 2024. Especially after all the negative publicity they've received with the number of cities that have dropped out of the 2022 race, they want the 2024 field to be as strong as possible. In order to do that, they needed an American city, any American city, in the mix.
Now, I have no idea what President Bach's motivations were or how much credence the USOC gave to what he said, but Abrahamson's revelation was incredibly telling. The IOC wanted a U.S. bid, but do they really want that U.S. bid to win? If they don't, convincing the USOC to put up Boston seems like a brilliant strategic ploy. Because Boston is by no means going to be the favorite in this race.
It's clear that the 2024 race is going to include some heavy hitters. Boston and Rome are the only cities to announce that they'll definitely be bidding, but Germany just has to decide between Berlin and Hamburg, and it's likely that Paris will bid on the 100th anniversary of the 1924 Games. Istanbul bids for every Olympics and finished second for 2020, so you've gotta figure they'll be in the mix. Doha and Dubai aren't out of the question, either, but they'd just be wasting their time and money, since there's no way the IOC will put four straight Olympics in Asia.
Then there's the giant elephant in the room. South Africa. We're 18 months away from Rio, which will be the first Olympics in South America, leaving Africa as the only continent to have never hosted. That's a well-known fact in Olympic circles, and one they'd like to change. South Africa's probably the only African country that could realistically make it work financially. They've been back-and-forth on a bid, but I think they're back to yes on moving forward with Durban, which hosted an IOC Session a couple years ago. And I haven't even mentioned Toronto yet, which could be a definite possibility if the Pan Am Games go well.
This field is going to be loaded. And it's worth keeping in mind that the IOC is heavily European. With all those beautiful European cities in the running, and the fact that it'll be 12 years since London, they might look out for their own interests and make the easy European choice. Or they could make history and pick Durban. And who's knows if there's still any lingering anti-American resentment that derailed the New York and Chicago bids?
My point is this. The 2024 Olympic race is going to be a flashy one. The IOC's going to make the sexy choice. And Boston's not it.
While it probably wasn't done intentionally (at least I don't think so), by picking Boston, the USOC might've thrown in the towel before the race even began. So forgive me for not getting excited about it. Because I just don't see Boston 2024 actually happening.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Playoff Picks, Week 2
It's one of the most fun weekends on the NFL calendar. Divisional playoff weekend. And I've gotta admit, this was one of the toughest weeks for me to make picks in recent memory. Well, one game in particular. But more on that later. As usual, I'm expecting the four Divisional games to be some of the best football we see all season. And to cap it all off, we've got Peyton vs. the Colts in the late game on Sunday. Yeah, it's gonna be good.
Ravens (11-6) at Patriots (12-4): Baltimore-Once again, the Ravens visit New England in the playoffs. It's not often that the Patriots lose at home in January, but they have--twice--against Baltimore in recent years. So you know the Ravens aren't intimidated. And I think it's safe to say nobody wanted Pittsburgh to win last week more than the Patriots. Because they know as well as anyone that Baltimore is going to be a very difficult out. Especially after how dominant the Ravens looked in Pittsburgh last week.
I don't remember the last time the Ravens had a home playoff game, yet they keep winning in the postseason. It's something like eight straight times they've won their playoff opener, and John Harbaugh has tied the NFL record for postseason road wins. Having beaten the Patriots in New England before gives them plenty of confidence, too. This is going to be a very tough game for Brady and Co. The Ravens are on a roll, and the bye week might not necessarily have been the best thing for the Patriots. After all, they rested their starters in a Week 17 loss to the Bills, too. They've both got exceptional defenses, so it really depends on which offense shows up. I really like the way Baltimore's offense has looked in its last two wins. For some reason, I'm feeling the upset.
Panthers (8-8-1) at Seahawks (12-4): Seattle-There are very few, if any, people who were surprised to see the Panthers win last week. Over the last month of the season, Carolina was certainly a better team than Arizona. But that performance by the Cardinals' offense was downright embarrassing. 70-something yards of total offense in a playoff game?! Seriously?! Not taking anything away from Carolina, but that was downright pathetic. (And, hey, it got the Panthers to .500!)
This week's matchup is an interesting one. Carolina got healthy at just the right time, and Seattle enters the playoffs on a roll. We're going to see probably the two best defenses remaining, so points are going to be at a premium. That noise factor can't be discounted, either. That's why getting the No. 1 seed and home field was so important. Because as well as the Panthers have been playing, their offense is no match for the Seahawks' defense AND the 12th man. Russell Wilson and his offense are used to it. That's a huge difference that works dramatically in Seattle's favor.
Cowboys (13-4) at Packers (12-4): Green Bay-This was the tough one. I waited until the absolute last minute before making this pick. Because the difference between these two teams is oh-so-slight. Any one minor thing could swing the game one way or the other. Romo's healty. Rodgers is not. Advantage Dallas. Dallas has the better running game. If it snows, advantage Cowboys. But if it doesn't, it's still going to be cold. That's advantage Packers. The defenses are about even, so it'll be up to the offensive lines to keep their quarterbacks upright. Especially since Aaron Rodgers can't really move right now.
I'm really having so much trouble separating these two. If there's an edge, I think the Packers have it. They were able to rest up, the crowd's going to be on their side, and they're much more accustomed to the conditions. Green Bay's playoff experience might come into play, as well. That's why, with all else essentially being equal, I'll give the Packers the edge. Regardless, I think the winner goes to Seattle and wins next week. Undefeated on the road vs. undefeated at home. Something's gotta give. This is gonna be fun to watch.
Colts (12-5) at Broncos (12-4): Denver-Peyton vs. the Colts. In the playoffs. Didn't it seem like this was going to happen eventually? It's time for Peyton to remind his former team what they used to have. A Super Bowl-winning quarterback. Because as good as Andrew Luck is, he's no Peyton Manning. And the Colts are nowhere near as good a team as the Broncos. (Can you tell I have a vested interest in this game?)
There are more than just personal reasons why I think Denver's going to win. For one, their defense is significantly improved over the unit that went all the way to the Super Bowl last season. And the offense seems to have gotten straightened out in that Week 17 win over the Raiders. There probably wasn't a team that needed the first-round bye more than Denver, either. As for what I said about the Patriots wanting Pittsburgh to win last week, the Broncos couldn't be happier with the way the wild card games turned out. Indy's a much better matchup for them than the Steelers would've been. Besides, for once, it'll be fun watching the Indianapolis Colts lose a playoff game involving Peyton Manning.
Last Week: 2-2
Overall: 163-96-1
Ravens (11-6) at Patriots (12-4): Baltimore-Once again, the Ravens visit New England in the playoffs. It's not often that the Patriots lose at home in January, but they have--twice--against Baltimore in recent years. So you know the Ravens aren't intimidated. And I think it's safe to say nobody wanted Pittsburgh to win last week more than the Patriots. Because they know as well as anyone that Baltimore is going to be a very difficult out. Especially after how dominant the Ravens looked in Pittsburgh last week.
I don't remember the last time the Ravens had a home playoff game, yet they keep winning in the postseason. It's something like eight straight times they've won their playoff opener, and John Harbaugh has tied the NFL record for postseason road wins. Having beaten the Patriots in New England before gives them plenty of confidence, too. This is going to be a very tough game for Brady and Co. The Ravens are on a roll, and the bye week might not necessarily have been the best thing for the Patriots. After all, they rested their starters in a Week 17 loss to the Bills, too. They've both got exceptional defenses, so it really depends on which offense shows up. I really like the way Baltimore's offense has looked in its last two wins. For some reason, I'm feeling the upset.
Panthers (8-8-1) at Seahawks (12-4): Seattle-There are very few, if any, people who were surprised to see the Panthers win last week. Over the last month of the season, Carolina was certainly a better team than Arizona. But that performance by the Cardinals' offense was downright embarrassing. 70-something yards of total offense in a playoff game?! Seriously?! Not taking anything away from Carolina, but that was downright pathetic. (And, hey, it got the Panthers to .500!)
This week's matchup is an interesting one. Carolina got healthy at just the right time, and Seattle enters the playoffs on a roll. We're going to see probably the two best defenses remaining, so points are going to be at a premium. That noise factor can't be discounted, either. That's why getting the No. 1 seed and home field was so important. Because as well as the Panthers have been playing, their offense is no match for the Seahawks' defense AND the 12th man. Russell Wilson and his offense are used to it. That's a huge difference that works dramatically in Seattle's favor.
Cowboys (13-4) at Packers (12-4): Green Bay-This was the tough one. I waited until the absolute last minute before making this pick. Because the difference between these two teams is oh-so-slight. Any one minor thing could swing the game one way or the other. Romo's healty. Rodgers is not. Advantage Dallas. Dallas has the better running game. If it snows, advantage Cowboys. But if it doesn't, it's still going to be cold. That's advantage Packers. The defenses are about even, so it'll be up to the offensive lines to keep their quarterbacks upright. Especially since Aaron Rodgers can't really move right now.
I'm really having so much trouble separating these two. If there's an edge, I think the Packers have it. They were able to rest up, the crowd's going to be on their side, and they're much more accustomed to the conditions. Green Bay's playoff experience might come into play, as well. That's why, with all else essentially being equal, I'll give the Packers the edge. Regardless, I think the winner goes to Seattle and wins next week. Undefeated on the road vs. undefeated at home. Something's gotta give. This is gonna be fun to watch.
Colts (12-5) at Broncos (12-4): Denver-Peyton vs. the Colts. In the playoffs. Didn't it seem like this was going to happen eventually? It's time for Peyton to remind his former team what they used to have. A Super Bowl-winning quarterback. Because as good as Andrew Luck is, he's no Peyton Manning. And the Colts are nowhere near as good a team as the Broncos. (Can you tell I have a vested interest in this game?)
There are more than just personal reasons why I think Denver's going to win. For one, their defense is significantly improved over the unit that went all the way to the Super Bowl last season. And the offense seems to have gotten straightened out in that Week 17 win over the Raiders. There probably wasn't a team that needed the first-round bye more than Denver, either. As for what I said about the Patriots wanting Pittsburgh to win last week, the Broncos couldn't be happier with the way the wild card games turned out. Indy's a much better matchup for them than the Steelers would've been. Besides, for once, it'll be fun watching the Indianapolis Colts lose a playoff game involving Peyton Manning.
Last Week: 2-2
Overall: 163-96-1
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
As Cool As the Other Side of the Pillow
On Sunday night, I did something for the first time in months. I watched "SportsCenter." The reason for that should be obvious. I wanted to see the tribute to Stuart Scott. And ESPN absolutely hit it out of the park. As cartoonish as that show gets most of the time, Sunday's 90-minute episode was brilliant, proving once again that when ESPN actually cares enough to do something right, they really get it right. Well done, ESPN.
Like anyone who's watched ESPN over the past 20 years, I knew who Stuart Scott was and that he was sick. Nobody knew how sick, though. Until the ESPYs. He'd been in the hospital for a week, but managed to make it to LA for the ceremony, accepted the Jimmy V Award for Perseverance and delivered probably the most memorable ESPYs speech since Valvano himself at the first ESPYs. That speech is our lasting memory of Stuart Scott.
He was too sick to continue in his role as host of "Monday Night Countdown" this season, but Steve Levy always made sure to say he was "in for Stuart Scott" during that little teaser at the end of the Monday night game every week. A subtle suggestion that it was still Stu's job. He was just keeping the seat warm until Stu came back. Which everyone expected would happen. Up until Sunday morning. Even though "cancer" is a scary word, it never crossed anybody's mind that Stuart Scott wouldn't kick cancer's ass then return to the air.
That's I think what makes his death so shocking. It's so finite. There's never going to be another "Boo-yah." There are no more "player hater degrees" to hand out. Nobody's "as cool as the other side of the pillow" anymore. It's a signature style that was all his own. And it's going to be missed.
The 14-minute tribute was one of the best pieces of journalism I've seen on ESPN in quite some time. They taped it months ago, which suggests those at ESPN knew he was in worse shape than he was letting on. But it's also something they never hoped would air. They knew they had to do it, though, because Stuart Scott deserved such a tribute. If you haven't seen it yet, I recommend taking the time. They interviewed everyone. Not just current ESPN employees, but former anchors like Rich Eisen and Dan Patrick, too. And Robin Roberts, a cancer survivor. He wasn't just a colleague. He was their friend.
It's clear how much Stuart Scott meant to everyone. They had a moment of silence before both wild card games and every NBA game on Sunday. Condolences were sent by everyone from Michael Jordan to the President. They even made mention of his death on the 11:00 local news. But perhaps the most fitting tribute came from Rich Eisen. During NFL Network's pregame show right after the news broke, Eisen could barely hold back the tears as he talked about his friend and longtime partner. I can't even imagine how difficult that was for him. But it also might've been Rich Eisen's finest hour.
I don't know of a sports fan who didn't enjoy Stuart Scott. He brought a fresh, unique style that appealed to everyone. Those catchphrases became a part of pop culture. They made him a superstar, perhaps the one that shined the brightest in the ESPN universe. But it never got to his head. He was a genuine person who was beloved by his colleagues as much as the viewers. All because he never stopped being himself.
Everything on Sunday night's "SportsCenter" hit the right chord. His friends, Scott Van Pelt and Steve Levy, anchored the show, which was a nice touch (Van Pelt even did a "Boo-Yah" during the Cowboys-Lions highlights). And they busted out some old "This is SportsCenter" commercials featuring Scott that they haven't aired in years. It was almost all tribute at the expense of highlights, but on this occasion, it was OK. ESPN rarely loses one of its own. Let alone someone like Stuart Scott.
My favorite part of Sunday night's tribute, though, was the end. They faded to black, gave Stuart the last word (which was from his ESPYs speech), and ended with a close up of the empty anchor's chair. It's not something anyone wanted or ever expected. But it was the perfect way to say goodbye to Stuart Scott. Someone who won't be forgotten anytime soon.
Like anyone who's watched ESPN over the past 20 years, I knew who Stuart Scott was and that he was sick. Nobody knew how sick, though. Until the ESPYs. He'd been in the hospital for a week, but managed to make it to LA for the ceremony, accepted the Jimmy V Award for Perseverance and delivered probably the most memorable ESPYs speech since Valvano himself at the first ESPYs. That speech is our lasting memory of Stuart Scott.
He was too sick to continue in his role as host of "Monday Night Countdown" this season, but Steve Levy always made sure to say he was "in for Stuart Scott" during that little teaser at the end of the Monday night game every week. A subtle suggestion that it was still Stu's job. He was just keeping the seat warm until Stu came back. Which everyone expected would happen. Up until Sunday morning. Even though "cancer" is a scary word, it never crossed anybody's mind that Stuart Scott wouldn't kick cancer's ass then return to the air.
That's I think what makes his death so shocking. It's so finite. There's never going to be another "Boo-yah." There are no more "player hater degrees" to hand out. Nobody's "as cool as the other side of the pillow" anymore. It's a signature style that was all his own. And it's going to be missed.
The 14-minute tribute was one of the best pieces of journalism I've seen on ESPN in quite some time. They taped it months ago, which suggests those at ESPN knew he was in worse shape than he was letting on. But it's also something they never hoped would air. They knew they had to do it, though, because Stuart Scott deserved such a tribute. If you haven't seen it yet, I recommend taking the time. They interviewed everyone. Not just current ESPN employees, but former anchors like Rich Eisen and Dan Patrick, too. And Robin Roberts, a cancer survivor. He wasn't just a colleague. He was their friend.
It's clear how much Stuart Scott meant to everyone. They had a moment of silence before both wild card games and every NBA game on Sunday. Condolences were sent by everyone from Michael Jordan to the President. They even made mention of his death on the 11:00 local news. But perhaps the most fitting tribute came from Rich Eisen. During NFL Network's pregame show right after the news broke, Eisen could barely hold back the tears as he talked about his friend and longtime partner. I can't even imagine how difficult that was for him. But it also might've been Rich Eisen's finest hour.
I don't know of a sports fan who didn't enjoy Stuart Scott. He brought a fresh, unique style that appealed to everyone. Those catchphrases became a part of pop culture. They made him a superstar, perhaps the one that shined the brightest in the ESPN universe. But it never got to his head. He was a genuine person who was beloved by his colleagues as much as the viewers. All because he never stopped being himself.
Everything on Sunday night's "SportsCenter" hit the right chord. His friends, Scott Van Pelt and Steve Levy, anchored the show, which was a nice touch (Van Pelt even did a "Boo-Yah" during the Cowboys-Lions highlights). And they busted out some old "This is SportsCenter" commercials featuring Scott that they haven't aired in years. It was almost all tribute at the expense of highlights, but on this occasion, it was OK. ESPN rarely loses one of its own. Let alone someone like Stuart Scott.
My favorite part of Sunday night's tribute, though, was the end. They faded to black, gave Stuart the last word (which was from his ESPYs speech), and ended with a close up of the empty anchor's chair. It's not something anyone wanted or ever expected. But it was the perfect way to say goodbye to Stuart Scott. Someone who won't be forgotten anytime soon.
Monday, January 5, 2015
2015 Baseball Hall of Fame Election
It's that time of year again. On Tuesday, we'll find out who the writers selected as the newest members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. And we've got another loaded class of sure-fire first-ballot candidates, headlined by Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez. We've also got our annual debate on who should be in and who shouldn't, and all the articles that go with it.
We've also once again got an incredibly overloaded ballot filled with plenty of guys that would be no-brainer selections and probably in already if not for suspicions of certain writers. The 10-man ballot is also going to remain a problem for the next couple of years. Because these Steroid Era guys aren't coming off the ballot and the worthy first-timers just keep coming. This year's ballot includes 34 names, at least 18 of whom I want to say I'd vote for. But since the limit is 10, I'm sticking to that limit.
So, how'd I narrow it down? Simple. I ranked those 18 players from 1-18. The top 10 got my vote. The other eight, even if I've typed their name in this column in the past, didn't make the cut. That doesn't mean I don't think they're Hall of Famers. I just ran out of room. As a result, Gary Sheffield, Edgar Martinez, Sammy Sosa, Mike Mussina, Tim Raines, Jeff Kent, Larry Walker and Don Mattingly were left off my ballot.
1. Randy Johnson, Pitcher (1988-89 Expos, 1989-98Mariners, 1998 Astros, 1999-2004 Diamondbacks, 2005-06 Yankees, 2007-08 Diamondbacks, 2009 Giants): As obvious a first-ballot Hall of Famer as there's ever been. It's not going to be unanimous, but that's OK. I actually don't blame those writers who didn't vote for Big Unit so that they could throw their support to others. Because he's getting elected by a landslide. Has there ever been a more dominant, intimidating mound presence than Randy Johnson in his prime? (Ask John Kruk that question.) He's, without a doubt, the greatest left-handed pitcher of his era. In fact, he's on the short list of greatest lefties of all-time. The only real question regarding Randy Johnson and Cooperstown is Mariners hat or Diamondbacks hat? I say Diamondbacks. Let Griffey be the first Mariner.
2. Pedro Martinez, Pitcher (1992-93 Dodgers, 1994-97 Expos, 1998-2004 Red Sox, 2005-08 Mets, 2009 Phillies): Familiarity breeds contempt. Which is probably why I hated Pedro Martinez so much during his prime. He won "only" 219 games, but had a career winning percentage of .687, which is sixth-best all-time. Pedro won three Cy Youngs and should've been AL MVP in 1999, when he put on an All-Star performance for the ages at home in Fenway. And there was that whole Curse thing in 2004.
3. John Smoltz, Pitcher (1988-2008 Braves, 2009 Red Sox, 2009 Cardinals): If only he'd retired one year earlier. Then it really would've been a Braves party last summer. Smoltz is the best No. 3 starter in history, which is by no means a knock on him. Because the likelihood of seeing a starting rotation with three Hall of Famers like the Braves of the mid-90s is slim to none. I can't even begin to get into the reasons why John Smoltz should get elected on the first ballot. But the biggest is this...he went from dominant starter to lights out closer and back. He was also 15-4 in 41 career postseason appearances.
4. Barry Bonds, Outfielder (1986-92 Pirates, 1993-2007 Giants): Say what you want about steroids and why that means Barry Bonds doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. I'm still going to disagree with you. And will continue to disagree with you until Bonds is eventually elected, whenever that may be. He won seven MVPs. He was the most feared, dominant player in the game during his prime. Sounds like a Hall of Famer to me. Most importantly, he holds the all-time and single-season home run records. Yet the owner of the most hallowed record in the game isn't considered one of the all-time greats? I don't get it.
5. Roger Clemens, Pitcher (1984-96 Red Sox, 1997-98 Blue Jays, 1999-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007 Yankees): Everything I just said about Barry Bonds also applies to his partner in crime, Roger Clemens. Buster Olney is one of the people in baseball I respect the most. And he made an excellent point about two. Steroids or not, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were Hall of Famers before, and they were two of the most dominant players of their era. The Hall of Fame seems incomplete without them. Especially since Clemens was everything Randy Johnson was, except from the right side.
6. Craig Biggio, Second Baseman (1988-2007 Astros): Biggio came two votes shy last year, so it seems likely he'll join the three first-time pitchers and make this a four-member class. He's not in the same class as a Randy Johnson or a Pedro Martinez, but Craig Biggio is a Hall of Famer nonetheless. He spent his entire career in Houston and is the only player in baseball history with 3,000 hits, 600 doubles, 400 steals and 250 home runs. I actually didn't even realize until looking up his stats today that Biggio has more doubles than any other right-handed hitter in history. More than Edgar Martinez, who seemingly only hit doubles. More than Willie Mays. More than Rogers Hornsby. Biggio's getting in either this year or next.
7. Jeff Bagwell, First Baseman (1991-2005 Astros): Biggio and Bagwell were the Houston Astros for 15 years. Yet while Biggio hovers agonizingly close to Cooperstown, Bagwell hasn't come close, all because of suspicious-looking acne on his back that proves absolutely nothing. Bagwell was an offensive force that spent his entire career in that pitcher's paradise that was the Astrodome. Injuries are the only thing that kept him from 500 home runs. Suspicion is the main thing keeping him out of Cooperstown.
8. Mike Piazza, Catcher (1992-98 Dodgers, 1998 Marlins, 1998-2005 Mets, 2006 Padres, 2007 Athletics): I never liked Mike Piazza. Especially when he was playing, this was never a secret to anybody. But that doesn't mean I don't think he's a Hall of Famer. Piazza's the greatest hitting catcher in history. Period. Better than Johnny Bench. Better than Gary Carter. He's another guilt by association guy simply because of the era when he played. But like Bonds, I simply cannot justify seeing his name on the ballot and saying 10 other candidates belong in the Hall of Fame more than he does.
9. Mark McGwire, First Baseman (1986-97 Athletics, 1997-2001 Cardinals): My most controversial selection, perhaps even more so than Bonds and Clemens. Of course, the only difference is that McGwire admitted his PED use, which is probably what will keep him out of the Hall of Fame permanently. But I've been a consistent "Yes" on McGwire, and I will continue to be, even though I know he's never getting in and it's essentially a wasted vote. (It's a good thing I don't actually have a vote, then.) But I can't overlook 583 home runs or the 1998 season that brought baseball back. And while I'm at it with the righty-lefty combos, McGwire and Bonds were to offense what Johnson and Clemens were to pitching during the late 90s/early 2000s.
10. Curt Schilling, Pitcher (1988-90 Orioles, 1991 Astros, 1992-2000 Phillies, 2000-03 Diamondbacks, 2004-07 Red Sox): With four players coming off my 2014 ballot (Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, Tom Glavine and Jack Morris) and only three coming on (Johnson, Pedro and Smoltz), Curt Schilling gets the honor of going back on my ballot after not being on it in 2014. And with Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez joining the field this year, it seems fitting to vote for the second half of the 1-2 punch with those two guys on the Diamondbacks' 2001 and Red Sox' 2004 championship teams. He's not on that same level by any stretch of the imagination, but that doesn't make Curt Schilling's career any less Hall of Fame-worthy. His postseason record alone (11-2, 2.23 ERA, 7-0 in elimination games) is enough to make the discussion about Curt Schilling a lengthy one.
There you have it. That's my ballot. As for who actually gets in, I think we're going to have another big class. There's no doubt Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez will sail past the necessary 75 percent, and I think John Smoltz and Craig Biggio will join them in the Hall of Fame Class of 2015.
We've also once again got an incredibly overloaded ballot filled with plenty of guys that would be no-brainer selections and probably in already if not for suspicions of certain writers. The 10-man ballot is also going to remain a problem for the next couple of years. Because these Steroid Era guys aren't coming off the ballot and the worthy first-timers just keep coming. This year's ballot includes 34 names, at least 18 of whom I want to say I'd vote for. But since the limit is 10, I'm sticking to that limit.
So, how'd I narrow it down? Simple. I ranked those 18 players from 1-18. The top 10 got my vote. The other eight, even if I've typed their name in this column in the past, didn't make the cut. That doesn't mean I don't think they're Hall of Famers. I just ran out of room. As a result, Gary Sheffield, Edgar Martinez, Sammy Sosa, Mike Mussina, Tim Raines, Jeff Kent, Larry Walker and Don Mattingly were left off my ballot.
1. Randy Johnson, Pitcher (1988-89 Expos, 1989-98Mariners, 1998 Astros, 1999-2004 Diamondbacks, 2005-06 Yankees, 2007-08 Diamondbacks, 2009 Giants): As obvious a first-ballot Hall of Famer as there's ever been. It's not going to be unanimous, but that's OK. I actually don't blame those writers who didn't vote for Big Unit so that they could throw their support to others. Because he's getting elected by a landslide. Has there ever been a more dominant, intimidating mound presence than Randy Johnson in his prime? (Ask John Kruk that question.) He's, without a doubt, the greatest left-handed pitcher of his era. In fact, he's on the short list of greatest lefties of all-time. The only real question regarding Randy Johnson and Cooperstown is Mariners hat or Diamondbacks hat? I say Diamondbacks. Let Griffey be the first Mariner.
2. Pedro Martinez, Pitcher (1992-93 Dodgers, 1994-97 Expos, 1998-2004 Red Sox, 2005-08 Mets, 2009 Phillies): Familiarity breeds contempt. Which is probably why I hated Pedro Martinez so much during his prime. He won "only" 219 games, but had a career winning percentage of .687, which is sixth-best all-time. Pedro won three Cy Youngs and should've been AL MVP in 1999, when he put on an All-Star performance for the ages at home in Fenway. And there was that whole Curse thing in 2004.
3. John Smoltz, Pitcher (1988-2008 Braves, 2009 Red Sox, 2009 Cardinals): If only he'd retired one year earlier. Then it really would've been a Braves party last summer. Smoltz is the best No. 3 starter in history, which is by no means a knock on him. Because the likelihood of seeing a starting rotation with three Hall of Famers like the Braves of the mid-90s is slim to none. I can't even begin to get into the reasons why John Smoltz should get elected on the first ballot. But the biggest is this...he went from dominant starter to lights out closer and back. He was also 15-4 in 41 career postseason appearances.
4. Barry Bonds, Outfielder (1986-92 Pirates, 1993-2007 Giants): Say what you want about steroids and why that means Barry Bonds doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. I'm still going to disagree with you. And will continue to disagree with you until Bonds is eventually elected, whenever that may be. He won seven MVPs. He was the most feared, dominant player in the game during his prime. Sounds like a Hall of Famer to me. Most importantly, he holds the all-time and single-season home run records. Yet the owner of the most hallowed record in the game isn't considered one of the all-time greats? I don't get it.
5. Roger Clemens, Pitcher (1984-96 Red Sox, 1997-98 Blue Jays, 1999-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007 Yankees): Everything I just said about Barry Bonds also applies to his partner in crime, Roger Clemens. Buster Olney is one of the people in baseball I respect the most. And he made an excellent point about two. Steroids or not, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were Hall of Famers before, and they were two of the most dominant players of their era. The Hall of Fame seems incomplete without them. Especially since Clemens was everything Randy Johnson was, except from the right side.
6. Craig Biggio, Second Baseman (1988-2007 Astros): Biggio came two votes shy last year, so it seems likely he'll join the three first-time pitchers and make this a four-member class. He's not in the same class as a Randy Johnson or a Pedro Martinez, but Craig Biggio is a Hall of Famer nonetheless. He spent his entire career in Houston and is the only player in baseball history with 3,000 hits, 600 doubles, 400 steals and 250 home runs. I actually didn't even realize until looking up his stats today that Biggio has more doubles than any other right-handed hitter in history. More than Edgar Martinez, who seemingly only hit doubles. More than Willie Mays. More than Rogers Hornsby. Biggio's getting in either this year or next.
7. Jeff Bagwell, First Baseman (1991-2005 Astros): Biggio and Bagwell were the Houston Astros for 15 years. Yet while Biggio hovers agonizingly close to Cooperstown, Bagwell hasn't come close, all because of suspicious-looking acne on his back that proves absolutely nothing. Bagwell was an offensive force that spent his entire career in that pitcher's paradise that was the Astrodome. Injuries are the only thing that kept him from 500 home runs. Suspicion is the main thing keeping him out of Cooperstown.
8. Mike Piazza, Catcher (1992-98 Dodgers, 1998 Marlins, 1998-2005 Mets, 2006 Padres, 2007 Athletics): I never liked Mike Piazza. Especially when he was playing, this was never a secret to anybody. But that doesn't mean I don't think he's a Hall of Famer. Piazza's the greatest hitting catcher in history. Period. Better than Johnny Bench. Better than Gary Carter. He's another guilt by association guy simply because of the era when he played. But like Bonds, I simply cannot justify seeing his name on the ballot and saying 10 other candidates belong in the Hall of Fame more than he does.
9. Mark McGwire, First Baseman (1986-97 Athletics, 1997-2001 Cardinals): My most controversial selection, perhaps even more so than Bonds and Clemens. Of course, the only difference is that McGwire admitted his PED use, which is probably what will keep him out of the Hall of Fame permanently. But I've been a consistent "Yes" on McGwire, and I will continue to be, even though I know he's never getting in and it's essentially a wasted vote. (It's a good thing I don't actually have a vote, then.) But I can't overlook 583 home runs or the 1998 season that brought baseball back. And while I'm at it with the righty-lefty combos, McGwire and Bonds were to offense what Johnson and Clemens were to pitching during the late 90s/early 2000s.
10. Curt Schilling, Pitcher (1988-90 Orioles, 1991 Astros, 1992-2000 Phillies, 2000-03 Diamondbacks, 2004-07 Red Sox): With four players coming off my 2014 ballot (Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, Tom Glavine and Jack Morris) and only three coming on (Johnson, Pedro and Smoltz), Curt Schilling gets the honor of going back on my ballot after not being on it in 2014. And with Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez joining the field this year, it seems fitting to vote for the second half of the 1-2 punch with those two guys on the Diamondbacks' 2001 and Red Sox' 2004 championship teams. He's not on that same level by any stretch of the imagination, but that doesn't make Curt Schilling's career any less Hall of Fame-worthy. His postseason record alone (11-2, 2.23 ERA, 7-0 in elimination games) is enough to make the discussion about Curt Schilling a lengthy one.
There you have it. That's my ballot. As for who actually gets in, I think we're going to have another big class. There's no doubt Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez will sail past the necessary 75 percent, and I think John Smoltz and Craig Biggio will join them in the Hall of Fame Class of 2015.
Saturday, January 3, 2015
Playoff Picks, Week 1
We've arrived at the playoffs, most likely the final playoffs before the NFL inevitably expands the field to 14 next season. If it was 14, we'd have only the Patriots and Seahawks with byes, while the second-seeded Broncos would be hosting the Texans and the Packers would be playing the Eagles this week. And it also seems like the most likely thing the NFL will do with the extra two games is create Saturday and Sunday tripleheaders during Wild Card Weekend.
But that's all for next year. This year we've got a Wild Card Weekend that features five teams with at least 11 wins, a Cincinnati team that's in the playoffs for the fourth straight season, a Ravens squad that won the Super Bowl two years ago, and a sub-.500 Carolina team that's among the hottest in football. Some of the matchups were unexpected (I'm sure everyone saw Carolina-Arizona coming), but we should have four good ones in store, highlighted by the AFC North showdown between Pittsburgh and Baltimore on Saturday night.
Cardinals (11-5) at Panthers (7-8-1): Arizona-A month ago, Arizona was the best team in football and was looking at home field advantage throughout the playoffs, including the Super Bowl. But injuries and a tough December schedule derailed the Cardinals a little bit. Fortunately they'd built up enough of a cushion that they still clinched a wild card with ease. Unfortunately, though, they draw a team that enters the postseason on a roll. Carolina was 3-8-1. Then the Panthers got healthy, rolled off four in a row (including a demolition of Atlanta in Sunday's NFC South Championship Game), and became just the second seven-win team ever to win its division (while also becoming the first NFC South team ever to defend a division title).
There's a very real possibility that this game will end up like the game a couple years ago where 7-9 Seattle beat New Orleans in a wild card game. Especially because things are pointing towards a Panthers victory. It's Carolina that comes in with a ton of momentum, and Drew Stanton can't go, so it's Ryan Lindley at quarterback for Arizona once again. The Cardinals won't be able to make a deep run with him at quarterback, especially since they'll have to head to Seattle or Green Bay next week. I do think the Cardinals will pull it out, but it'll be close the whole way.
Ravens (10-6) at Steelers (11-5): Pittsburgh-As soon as Baltimore ended up with that final wild card (which changed hands like three times during the course of those games), it seemed like the Steelers-Ravens playoff matchup was inevitable. The fact that they've ended up meeting in the postseason so often over the past decade has been what helped build this rivalry. And as soon as the Steelers won, you knew that NBC was basically just going to set up shop in Pittsburgh for a week. No reason to pick a different game. This is definitely the marquee matchup of Wild Card Weekend.
To all those people who think a New England run to the Super Bowl is inevitable, I offer you the Pittsburgh Steelers as an alternative. Because I think there's a real chance we could see the Steelers in Arizona. They come in on a four-game winning streak that included two convincing victories over the Bengals, and they're back in the postseason after a two-year absence. The Ravens, meanwhile, haven't lost a playoff game since the 2011 season. They won the Super Bowl two years ago, then missed the playoffs entirely last season. Baltimore crushed Pittsburgh in Week 2, only to see the Steelers take the rematch. With the postseason rubber match taking place in Pittsburgh, I'll take the hot Steelers team.
Bengals (10-5-1) at Colts (11-5): Indianapolis-Cincinnati and Indianapolis will probably be the most competitive game of Wild Card Weekend. This is the fourth straight postseason appearance for Marvin Lewis' Bengals, but they're still yet to win a playoff game under him. In fact, Cincinnati hasn't recorded a postseason win since 1990. Indianapolis, meanwhile, is 3-for-3 on playoff appearances in the Andrew Luck Era. (I hate all those articles talking about the Colts' "rebuilding." They had one bad season...because they lost Peyton for the year and had no Plan B. That's how they went 2-14. It's not like they were the Raiders and suddenly got good once Luck arrived. They had a Hall of Famer who won them a Super Bowl and went to another immediately before him.)
Anyway, the Colts have to have confidence after the way they manhandled the Bengals 27-0 during the regular season. And Andrew Luck has built himself a bit of a reputation. Take last year's Wild Card comeback against Kansas City. Had the Bengals beaten the Steelers on Sunday night, I'd really like Cincinnati's chances of finally getting that first postseason win in 25 years. I've still got a certain level of confidence in the Bengals. And it would be even more impressive if they get that W on the road. But the Colts are battle-tested and this is a good matchup for Indianapolis. My head tells me I can't go against them.
Lions (11-5) at Cowboys (12-4): Dallas-The team playing on Wild Card Weekend that's most likely to play in the Super Bowl? That's easy. The Dallas Cowboys. In fact, I think the Cowboys-Packers winner is going to go to Seattle and beat the Seahawks in the NFC Championship Game. With the league's leading rusher and all those All-Pros, this is the best Dallas team we've seen in quite a while, and they've got all the makings of a team that can go all the way. Let's not forget the 8-0 road record, either. Going to Green Bay and Seattle isn't going to phase them in the slightest. And they got a win the last time they were in the playoffs, so that monkey is off Romo's back.
Of course, they have to beat the Lions first, which I think is little more than a formality. It would've been even more of one if Ndamukong Suh's suspension had held up. But even though Suh won his appeal, I'm not sure Detroit has enough fire power for Dallas. The Cowboys are simply a better team all the way around. It's been a great season for the Lions, but this is a terrible matchup for them. Detroit's first playoff win since the 1991 season will have to wait. Because America wants to see Cowboys-Packers next week, and we're going to get it.
Last Week: 9-7
Regular Season: 161-94-1
But that's all for next year. This year we've got a Wild Card Weekend that features five teams with at least 11 wins, a Cincinnati team that's in the playoffs for the fourth straight season, a Ravens squad that won the Super Bowl two years ago, and a sub-.500 Carolina team that's among the hottest in football. Some of the matchups were unexpected (I'm sure everyone saw Carolina-Arizona coming), but we should have four good ones in store, highlighted by the AFC North showdown between Pittsburgh and Baltimore on Saturday night.
Cardinals (11-5) at Panthers (7-8-1): Arizona-A month ago, Arizona was the best team in football and was looking at home field advantage throughout the playoffs, including the Super Bowl. But injuries and a tough December schedule derailed the Cardinals a little bit. Fortunately they'd built up enough of a cushion that they still clinched a wild card with ease. Unfortunately, though, they draw a team that enters the postseason on a roll. Carolina was 3-8-1. Then the Panthers got healthy, rolled off four in a row (including a demolition of Atlanta in Sunday's NFC South Championship Game), and became just the second seven-win team ever to win its division (while also becoming the first NFC South team ever to defend a division title).
There's a very real possibility that this game will end up like the game a couple years ago where 7-9 Seattle beat New Orleans in a wild card game. Especially because things are pointing towards a Panthers victory. It's Carolina that comes in with a ton of momentum, and Drew Stanton can't go, so it's Ryan Lindley at quarterback for Arizona once again. The Cardinals won't be able to make a deep run with him at quarterback, especially since they'll have to head to Seattle or Green Bay next week. I do think the Cardinals will pull it out, but it'll be close the whole way.
Ravens (10-6) at Steelers (11-5): Pittsburgh-As soon as Baltimore ended up with that final wild card (which changed hands like three times during the course of those games), it seemed like the Steelers-Ravens playoff matchup was inevitable. The fact that they've ended up meeting in the postseason so often over the past decade has been what helped build this rivalry. And as soon as the Steelers won, you knew that NBC was basically just going to set up shop in Pittsburgh for a week. No reason to pick a different game. This is definitely the marquee matchup of Wild Card Weekend.
To all those people who think a New England run to the Super Bowl is inevitable, I offer you the Pittsburgh Steelers as an alternative. Because I think there's a real chance we could see the Steelers in Arizona. They come in on a four-game winning streak that included two convincing victories over the Bengals, and they're back in the postseason after a two-year absence. The Ravens, meanwhile, haven't lost a playoff game since the 2011 season. They won the Super Bowl two years ago, then missed the playoffs entirely last season. Baltimore crushed Pittsburgh in Week 2, only to see the Steelers take the rematch. With the postseason rubber match taking place in Pittsburgh, I'll take the hot Steelers team.
Bengals (10-5-1) at Colts (11-5): Indianapolis-Cincinnati and Indianapolis will probably be the most competitive game of Wild Card Weekend. This is the fourth straight postseason appearance for Marvin Lewis' Bengals, but they're still yet to win a playoff game under him. In fact, Cincinnati hasn't recorded a postseason win since 1990. Indianapolis, meanwhile, is 3-for-3 on playoff appearances in the Andrew Luck Era. (I hate all those articles talking about the Colts' "rebuilding." They had one bad season...because they lost Peyton for the year and had no Plan B. That's how they went 2-14. It's not like they were the Raiders and suddenly got good once Luck arrived. They had a Hall of Famer who won them a Super Bowl and went to another immediately before him.)
Anyway, the Colts have to have confidence after the way they manhandled the Bengals 27-0 during the regular season. And Andrew Luck has built himself a bit of a reputation. Take last year's Wild Card comeback against Kansas City. Had the Bengals beaten the Steelers on Sunday night, I'd really like Cincinnati's chances of finally getting that first postseason win in 25 years. I've still got a certain level of confidence in the Bengals. And it would be even more impressive if they get that W on the road. But the Colts are battle-tested and this is a good matchup for Indianapolis. My head tells me I can't go against them.
Lions (11-5) at Cowboys (12-4): Dallas-The team playing on Wild Card Weekend that's most likely to play in the Super Bowl? That's easy. The Dallas Cowboys. In fact, I think the Cowboys-Packers winner is going to go to Seattle and beat the Seahawks in the NFC Championship Game. With the league's leading rusher and all those All-Pros, this is the best Dallas team we've seen in quite a while, and they've got all the makings of a team that can go all the way. Let's not forget the 8-0 road record, either. Going to Green Bay and Seattle isn't going to phase them in the slightest. And they got a win the last time they were in the playoffs, so that monkey is off Romo's back.
Of course, they have to beat the Lions first, which I think is little more than a formality. It would've been even more of one if Ndamukong Suh's suspension had held up. But even though Suh won his appeal, I'm not sure Detroit has enough fire power for Dallas. The Cowboys are simply a better team all the way around. It's been a great season for the Lions, but this is a terrible matchup for them. Detroit's first playoff win since the 1991 season will have to wait. Because America wants to see Cowboys-Packers next week, and we're going to get it.
Last Week: 9-7
Regular Season: 161-94-1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)