My 2015 Women's Bracket

There are plenty of changes to the NCAA Women's Tournament this year.  For starters, they're moving the first day from Saturday to Friday.  All in preparation for two years from now, when the Final Four moves back to Friday-Sunday like it should be instead of the ridiculous Sunday-Tuesday it's been for the past few years. 

They've also done away with predetermined first- and second-round sites.  Over the past few years, there have been too many instances of a higher seed playing a road game in the NCAA Tournament, and they've also been limited as to where in the bracket they could put certain teams because they were hosting.  Worst yet, if a team was hosting but didn't get in, there goes the attendance.  So now the top 16 seeds host, providing they're able, which will help attendance in all rounds and give the 16 best teams an advantage they deserve.

The NCAA announced the top teams a few weeks ago, giving us some idea of who might end up hosting.  That doesn't mean the list is limited to those teams, but it made the picture a little clearer, and it'd be very surprising to see someone else be selected as a host.  The only exception to that rule is Princeton.  The undefeated Tigers are looking at a No. 5 or No. 6 seed, but were smart enough to put in to host.  And since Louisville will probably get a top four seed, but is hosting the men's tournament and, therefore, can't host the women's, I think we're going to end up seeing NCAA Tournament games in Princeton, New Jersey (which is weird, since the NCAA made this big point of taking NCAA events away from New Jersey since they legalized sports gambling).

Anyway, the top four overall seeds in the Tournament seem to be pretty clear, and I doubt they'll change.  UConn is the best team in the nation, and the defending champions will be the No. 1 overall seed.  While I don't think South Carolina is as good as their ranking, they're still a solid 1-seed, as is Tennessee, which I think is the second-best team in the nation.  The fourth 1-seed is a little more up for grabs, but it should go to Notre Dame.  We won't get a National Championship Game rematch, though.  Because I've got UConn and Notre Dame matched up in the Final Four.

Other than UConn going to Albany, the regional hosting gets a little wacky.  Someone has to go out west, and since Notre Dame's the lowest 1-seed, they get sent to Spokane.  And I've got South Carolina with the No. 2 overall, so they get Greensboro and Tennessee goes to Oklahoma City.  The interesting part is that I've got 2-seeds that are closer geographically than the 1-seeds in those two regions.  Let's take a look at what I'm talking about...

ALBANY
Storrs, CT: (16) Norfolk State at (1) Connecticut, (8) Pittsburgh vs. (9) Northwestern
Lexington, KY: (13) Drake at (4) Kentucky, (5) North Carolina vs. (12) Quinnipiac
Iowa City, IA: (14) James Madison at (3) Iowa, (6) Mississippi State vs. (11) Texas
Tallahassee, FL: (15) Central Connecticut at (2) Florida State, (7) DePaul vs. (10) Middle Tennessee

SPOKANE
Notre Dame, IN: (16) Southern at (1) Notre Dame, (8) Dayton vs. (9) Ohio State
Stanford, CA: (13) Fresno State at (4) Stanford, (5) Texas A&M vs. (12) Gonzaga
Stillwater, OK: (14) Stephen F. Austin at (3) Oklahoma State, (6) Syracuse vs. (11) St. John's
Corvallis, OR: (15) Montana at (2) Oregon State, (7) Minnesota vs. (10) Tulane

GREENSBORO
Columbia, SC: (16) Tennessee-Martin at (1) South Carolina, (8) Florida Gulf Coast vs. (9) Oklahoma
Durham, NC: (13) Ohio at (4) Duke, (5) George Washington vs. (12) Green Bay
Princeton, NJ: (3) Louisville vs. (14) Troy, (11) LSU at (6) Princeton
College Park, MD: (15) Army at (2) Maryland, (7) Seton Hall vs. (10) Georgia

OKLAHOMA CITY
Knoxville, TN: (16) Liberty at (1) Tennessee, (8) Chattanooga vs. (9) Nebraska
Berkeley, CA: (13) South Dakota State at (4) California, (5) Rutgers vs. (12) New Mexico
Tempe, AZ: (14) Hawaii at (3) Arizona State, (6) South Florida vs. (11) Iowa State
Waco, TX: (15) Albany at (2) Baylor, (7) Washington vs. (10) Miami

Conference Breakdown: ACC (8), Big Ten (7), SEC (7), Big 12 (5), Pac-12 (5), American (3), Big East (3), Atlantic 10 (2)

My 2015 Men's Bracket

As we come up on March, that means everyone's attention is going to turn to college basketball.  Kentucky's pursuit of perfection has been making headlines, but they're still a long way from a national title.  It's obvious that the Wildcats are a cut above the rest, though.  And they'll be the no-brainer No. 1 overall seed in the NCAA Tournament even if they lose their remaining regular season games and their first game in the SEC Tournament.

So, it was an easy call to put Kentucky as the overall No. 1 in my mock bracket (which is obviously subject to change with two weeks left until Selection Sunday).  Two of my other three 1-seeds come out of the ACC, which has probably been the best conference this season.  Duke, which I think is the second-best team in the nation, is No. 2 overall, and I've got Virginia at No. 3, although I don't think the Cavaliers are as good as their one-loss record suggests.  The fourth No. 1 was a close call between Gonzaga and Wisconsin, but the one loss for Gonzaga was enough to trump last year's Final Four team, which gets the highest No. 2.

With those being the four No. 1 seeds, that sets up Final Four matchups of Midwest (Kentucky vs. West (Gonzaga) and East (Duke) vs. South (Virginia).   Kentucky's in the Midwest instead of the South because the regional's in Cleveland, while Duke gets the East and Syracuse as opposed to the South and Houston as the higher overall seed.

And now for the bracket...

MIDWEST (Cleveland)
Louisville: (1) Kentucky vs. (16) Eastern Washington/North Carolina Central, (8) Pittsburgh vs. (9) Cincinnati
Charlotte: (4) North Carolina vs. (13) Central Michigan, (5) Wichita State vs. (12) UCLA/Illinois
Columbus: (3) Notre Dame vs. (14) North Dakota State, (6) Georgetown vs. (11) Oregon
Columbus: (2) Wisconsin vs. (15) James Madison, (7) Mississippi vs. (10) Dayton

WEST (Los Angeles)
Seattle: (1) Gonzaga vs. (16) Lehigh, (8) Texas A&M vs. (9) Davidson
Jacksonville: (4) Louisville vs. (13) Murray State, (5) Baylor vs. (12) Iona
Omaha: (3) Iowa State vs. (14) UTEP, (6) Butler vs. (11) Purdue
Seattle: (2) Utah vs. (15) Texas Southern, (7) Indiana vs. (10) San Diego State

EAST (Syracuse)
Charlotte: (1) Duke vs. (16) St. Francis Brooklyn/Charleston Southern, (8) Tulsa vs. (9) St. John's
Jacksonville: (4) Oklahoma vs. (13) Valparaiso, (5) Arkansas vs. (12) Harvard
Pittsburgh: (3) Maryland vs. (14) Georgia State, (6) West Virginia vs. (11) NC State/Stanford
Pittsburgh: (2) Villanova vs. (15) Florida Gulf Coast, (7) Michigan State vs. (10) LSU

SOUTH (Houston)
Louisville: (1) Virginia vs. (16) Stony Brook, (8) Xavier vs. (9) Georgia
Portland: (4) Northern Iowa vs. (13) New Mexico State, (5) VCU vs. (12) Stephen F. Austin
Portland: (3) Arizona vs. (14) UC Davis, (6) SMU vs. (11) Colorado State
Omaha: (2) Kansas vs. (15) Chattanooga, (7) Providence vs. (10) Iowa

Conference Breakdown: ACC (7), Big Ten (7), Big East (6), SEC (6), Big 12 (5), Pac-12 (5), American (3), Atlantic 10 (3), Missouri Valley (2), Mountain West (2)

Anatomy of a Miracle

It's really cool that this weekend they had a Miracle on Ice reunion in Lake Placid on the 35th anniversary of the game.  People say they remember where they were when Kennedy was shot, when man landed on the Moon, when the Challenger exploded, on 9/11 and when the Miracle on Ice happened.  Well, I wasn't alive for three of those events, was three when the Challenger exploded and was in class on 9/11.  But, the fact that I'm younger than the Miracle on Ice doesn't mean I don't get its significance or get choked up at the mere mention of the game, which I've watched on ESPN Classic several times.  I cry at the end of Miracle and chant "U-S-A! U-S-A!" every time I see it.

I can't believe it took this long for a full-scale Miracle on Ice reunion.  The whole team lit the cauldron at the Opening Ceremony of the Salt Lake City Games in 2002, but Mark Pavelich was missing.  And they've gotten 19 of the 20 together at various other times, including the funeral of Herb Brooks, but never all 20.  This is as close as they've ever gotten.  All 19 living members were there, including Pavelich.  The only exception was Bob Suter, who died in September.  Suter was there, too.  In spirit.  His jersey was raised to the rafters as the final part of the ceremony.

Lake Placid was the perfect place for the reunion.  Because not only was it the site of their triumph, it also serves as a reminder that the Miracle on Ice can never happen again.  And the most ironic part of that is fact that the Miracle on Ice is exactly why the Miracle on Ice can never happen again.  It was truly a special moment in sports history, nestled into its tiny hamlet in Upstate New York.  That's where the memories belong.  Which is why Lake Placid was really the only place you could hold such a reunion.

The Olympics have changed a lot in 35 years.  That's why the Miracle on Ice will live on in history as something that can never be repeated.  The biggest change is the existence of social media.  Back in 1980, ABC was able to air the 5:00 game in prime time on tape delay with nobody finding out the results ahead of time.  NBC was criticized for its tape-delayed primetime coverage in London and Sochi, when showing stuff live in primetime was impossible!  But 35 years ago, that's just the way things were.  They didn't have Facebook and Twitter and bloggers and 24-hour news channels there to spoil the surprise ahead of time.

Then there's the venue.  Lake Placid is a small village of 2500 people that has a total area of 1.5 square miles.  It's in the middle of nowhere.  A tiny town in the Adirondack Mountains that's only about an hour from the Canadian border.  The hockey arena seats only 7,700 people and the speed skating oval of Eric Heiden's exploits was in the parking lot of the high school.  The Olympic Village is now a prison.

Yet this is a place that has hosted the Winter Olympics twice.  As the Olympics have gotten bigger and bigger, they've outgrown places like Lake Placid.  In a way that's sad.  Because these quaint little villages give the Olympics a unique kind of charm that larger cities can't.  Yet it's only the larger cities that can afford the Winter Olympics now.  It's no coincidence that the three largest cities ever to host the Winter Olympics were three of the last four hosts--Vancouver (2010), Torino (2006) and Salt Lake City (2002).  All of Lake Placid's Olympic memories are in the past.

And, of course, there were some serious political overtones in Lake Placid.  It was the midst of the Cold War.  The Soviet Union had troops in Afghanistan, the U.S. was threatening to (and eventually did) boycott the Moscow Summer Games, and tensions between the two countries were at an all-time high.  Well, the Cold War is over and politics, for the most part, have been kept out of the Olympics since it ended.  It's about the competition.  Like it should be.

Finally, there are the players themselves.  In 1980, the U.S. Olympic hockey team consisted of 20 college kids.  Amateurs you've never heard of that became household names because of what they did in the Olympics.  Nowadays, the Olympic hockey tournament is a star-studded affair featuring multi-million-dollar professionals.  I'm not complaining about that.  It's the best players in the world competing against each other for their native countries.  But it's also a level playing field.  You don't have the American amateurs taking on the very best of Russia's state-run sports system.  It's not David vs. Goliath anymore.

None of this is an indictment of what the Olympics has become.  I'm too young to remember the Olympics being anything different than what they are now.  But I kind of wish my "memories" of the Miracle on Ice were from having actually experienced it.  I'll never know how special that moment 35 years ago actually was.  It's impossible for me to.  All I have is what that moment means to me.  And that's still a lot.

"Do you believe in miracles?"  You're damn right I do, Al.

NASCAR and the Movies

With the Daytona 500 and the Academy Awards falling on the same day this year, I was trying to figure out some sort of Oscar/NASCAR blog as today's post.  It's tough coming up with coming up with a post about two things that are so completely unrelated.  But then it dawned on me, "Why don't I just do one on the best NASCAR movies?"  There haven't been many, but there's certainly been enough for a list of the top ones.

As it turns out, the list of good NASCAR movies is fairly short.  Even if all forms of racing were included, you'd have films like Rush on the list, but it still wouldn't have that many that could truly be classified as "quality" movies.  It's so bad, that I was even considering ranking movies like 3, that terrible ESPN original about Dale Earnhardt they made when they were trying to break into scripted programming in the mid-2000s.  That very good IMAX movie about the history of NASCAR doesn't count because it's a documentary and I want this list to only include movies that have some sort of plot.

Another great documentary, Senna, doesn't qualify, either, mainly because Ayrton Senna wasn't a NASCAR driver.  He raced in Formula One.  If I did include those two movies on the list, Rush and Senna would probably rank 1-2.  But as it is, I think there are really only three movies with NASCAR-based plots that could really be considered true Hollywood classics.

The first doesn't even include real people.  Well, not really anyway.  It's Cars.  My three-year-old nephew is obsessed with this movie, and I can see why.  It really is a good movie.  I'd argue that Cars 2 is slightly better, but I'm not going to give the nod to the sequel when the original was just as good.  His favorite character is Lightning McQueen, while I'm partial to Mater.  If you don't know who McQueen and Mater are, I suggest watching Cars.  You won't be disappointed.

Ranked No. 2 on my list of greatest NASCAR movies is the Will Ferrell flick Talladega Nights.  As stupid as a majority of Will Ferrell's movies are, Talladega Nights is one of the best.  Don't get me wrong.  It's also incredibly stupid.  But it's great all the same.  One of the best things about this movie, which was pointed out in something I was watching, I just don't remember what, is that in a movie called Talladega NIGHTS, there isn't a single scene that takes place at night.

Both of those movies pale in comparison to the greatest NASCAR movie of all-time, though.  That movie, of course, is Days of Thunder.  It's actually the 25th anniversary of this American classic, which still ranks as one of Tom Cruise's best.  It's also the movie that introduced us all to Nicole Kidman, so extra points for that.

NASCAR die-hards by and large hate Days of Thunder, and the critics aren't really big fans of it either.  But there's no denying that the movie helped bring NASCAR into the mainstream.  It also helps that Cole Trickle, Cruise's character, was this young, good-looking guy from California breaking into the primarily Southern sport.  The real life Cole Trickle is Jeff Gordon, who was just beginning his brilliant career at right around the same time Days of Thunder came out.  Love him or hate him, Jeff Gordon has been the Face of NASCAR for the better part of two decades.

I'm sure there are others that I either haven't seen or forgot about, but Cars, Talladega Nights and Days of Thunder are my three favorite NASCAR movies of all-time.  None of them won any Oscars (nor did they deserve to), but they all have a special place in sports movie annals.

A Lot to Talk About

There sure was a lot that happened in the world of sports today.  From baseball to football to NASCAR to soccer.  Even the NBA got into the act.

We'll start in NASCAR, which had perhaps the biggest news of all.  With the Daytona 500 coming up on Sunday, Kurt Busch has been suspended indefinitely.  This all stems from the domestic situation involving Busch and his former girlfriend.  A Delaware court pressed charges against him today, and NASCAR took swift action by keeping Busch on the sidelines until the matter is resolved.  Who knows how long his suspension is going to last, but NASCAR absolutely made the right move here.  Having Busch on the track wouldn't have been good for the sport.  Especially after everything that happened in the NFL this season.

Also on the NASCAR front, Jeff Gordon will be on the pole for his final Daytona 500.  He's announced his retirement at the end of the 2015 season, with his induction into the NASCAR Hall of Fame promptly coming as soon as he's eligible.  While I think this was Gordon's choice, the timing is convenient for Hendrick Motorsports.  They were looking for a car for Graham Elliott, who won the Busch Series title last year and appears to be as close to a sure thing as there is.  He'll take over Gordon's ride, which I'm sure will be renumbered.  He'll have a lot of pressure on him, but the last guy to take over for a legend worked out pretty well.  Kevin Harvick is the defending Sprint Cup champion.

Another retiring superstar is Kobe Bryant.  Kobe made his announcement today.  The 2015-16 season will be his last.  Again, I think this was a smart move.  And the timing was right.  Kobe Bryant's a shell of his former self, and so are the Lakers.  He's been injured pretty much nonstop for the last two years.  This eliminates all the questions.  Next season is it.  Kobe can have a Jeteresque retirement tour.  Injuries might derail the plan, but now we have some finality about it.  My only question is whether or not Kobe will be in Rio as a part of Team USA.

Peyton Manning is a subject of retirement rumors, too.  After the Broncos' playoff loss, when he revealed he'd been playing hurt for like a month, Peyton said he'd take some time to think about the future.  He's still thinking about it, but it looks like Peyton's leaning towards returning.  The Broncos want him to take a pay cut, but they want him back.  I think he wants to come back, too.  He's not going to end his career that way.  And this isn't going to turn into a Brett Favre thing.  When he wants to retire, he'll mean it.  He isn't there yet, though.

He'll definitely be retired before this happens, but the weirdest NFL story I've ever seen involves two of Denver's AFC West rivals.  Apparently the Chargers and Raiders are both interested in moving back to LA, and they're even talking about sharing the cost of building the stadium.  What?!  The Chargers and Raiders have hated each other for 50 years.  Now they're suddenly willing to work together so that they can both move.  To the same city!  And since the NFL wouldn't let them both stay in the AFC West, one would have to move to the NFC.  It's here that I again feel the need to point out that all four AFC West teams were original AFL clubs, with the rivalries between the four dating back to 1960.  For some reason, I don't see this happening.  One of them moving to LA?  Sure.  But they aren't both going there and sharing a stadium.  It sounds stupid to even be talking about it.

Oh, and it looks like the Patriots are going to come off scott-free in Deflategate.  Evidently a Patriots staffer put the underinflated balls in play because he was asked to by a former NFL employee who was trying to profit from game-used balls.  Really?  Sorry, but I still think there's more to this story.

Elsewhere in the NFL, the Lions GM has suggested that penalties become reviewable.  I like that idea.  He, of course, has a vested interest after the pass interference that wasn't in the Detroit-Dallas playoff game, but I agree with him.  If the officials miss an obvious penalty, or call one that clearly isn't, that should be something coaches can challenge.  Especially with the number of NFL games each week that turn on close calls like that.

Baseball's instant replay system is also undergoing a little bit of a change.  They're expanding it to include tag-up plays and the (incredibly stupid) collision rule.  And, as part of the wonderful "pace of play" initiative, managers can no longer casually stroll out while somebody else watches the video, then decide if they're going to challenge.  They've got to do it right away, and they're not allowed to leave the dugout.

That's just one of several new rules for this season that were originally suggested by the Pace of Play Committee.  We'll see how the batter's box rule works out, and I think the whole idea of clocks on the scoreboard is dumb (part of the beauty of baseball is that there is no clock), but I think these new rules could actually be somewhat OK.  My biggest worry was that they'd change the way the game was played as an overreaction to the length of games.  But what they've done isn't drastic enough to actually make a difference.  And I'm actually a pretty big proponent of shortening the breaks between innings and making the batter and pitcher both be ready to play as soon as the commercial's over.  Of course, that's not as much of a problem as the half-innings that take a half hour because of endless pitching changes, but this will definitely help.  And I kinda love the little twist of not getting all eight of your warmup pitches if you take too long to throw them.

Finally, we've got some news in the endless saga that is the 2022 World Cup.  FIFA has finally picked the dates, and it looks like we're going to have a November-December World Cup in Qatar.  That sure beats the February thing that some FIFA officials were pushing, but was never going to fly.  FIFA's not dumb enough to go against the Almaty/Beijing Winter Olympics, and they're the ones who screwed up, not the IOC, so it was up to them to change their dates, not the other way around.

The biggest concerns about the November-December World Cup was how the European club seasons would be affected, but they've got plenty of time to figure it out.  And I actually don't think it'll be as tough as everyone's making it out to be.  For starters, you won't need those international breaks that year, since no national teams would be playing anything other than friendlies in the lead-up to the World Cup.  All of those leagues take a Christmas break of roughly a month anyway, so you just make that break a week or two longer, start the season a week or two earlier and end a week or two later.  I mean, frankly, does it really make any difference if the Champions League final is on the first Saturday in June instead of the last Saturday in May?

November-December was the only solution to a problem that FIFA itself created.  Although I'm sure FOX isn't too thrilled about it.  They pay all this money to get the FIFA rights away from ESPN and they end up with a World Cup that's right in the heart of NFL season.  That World Cup Final, NFL doubleheader could be pretty cool, though.

The Shot Clock's Running Down

The NCAA announced a couple weeks ago that during this year's NIT, they'll experiment with using a 30-second shot clock, as opposed to the 35 seconds that are used in the regular season.  While I question the timing of the announcement, and am opposed to the idea of having to adjust to a different rule only in the postseason, I'm very much on board with reducing the shot clock by five seconds.

I've always hated the fact that the shot clock in men's college basketball is 35 seconds.  There's absolutely no reason for it to be that long.  It's 30 seconds in the women's game, which is much lower-scoring.  If the women can handle 30, so can the men.  Especially since a shot's going up well before the 35 seconds runs out 95 percent of the time.

But even more significantly, the shot clock is 24 seconds in the NBA and international basketball.  That's 11 seconds less!  With a majority of NBA players coming out of the college ranks, wouldn't you want the college game to resemble the NBA game as much as possible?  Yet they leave college, go to the NBA and there's 11 seconds missing from the shot clock.  It makes no sense.  It also makes no sense that it's 35 in the NCAA and 24 internationally.  These guys go represent their countries in the offseason and they're using a 24-second shot clock, which doesn't seem to cause much of a problem.  Same thing with the foreign-born players who come to the U.S. for college.  They go from 24 to 35 back to 24.  Stupid.

When these teams go on offseason foreign tours, like Kentucky did over the summer to the Bahamas, they have to play by FIBA rules.  That means a 24-second shot clock.  And you know what?  It doesn't really effect them too much.  They're able to adjust just fine.  That should tell you all you need to know.  If you change the rules, they'll be able to handle it.  No experimentation process necessary.

It's ridiculous that the NCAA uses two separate shot clocks for men and women.  It's even more ridiculous that the women's rule is the one that makes more sense.  They moved the three-point line back for the men, then moved it back for the women a couple years later.  They only instituted the 10-second rule, at long last, for the women last year.  Yet there are still different shot clocks, and most people would agree that the 30 seconds used in the women's game is better.

FIBA's been trying to get as close to the NBA game as possible for a few years.  And they've done a good job.  The three-point line has been moved further back to where it's almost the same distance as in the NBA.  The lane has been extended to the same size as the NBA's.  The shot clock is 24 seconds.  All of these rule changes that they use internationally have worked fine.  Yet the NCAA hasn't followed suit, sticking with the outdated 35-second shot clock in men's games.

Well, that's about to change.  The NIT is just the beginning.  A majority of men's coaches favor reducing the shot clock, and the rule change is likely to take effect next season.  It'll speed up the game and create more offense, but more importantly, it'll make the game more uniform at different levels.  Some of the coaches favor going all the way to 24, but I think they'll make the more modest adjustment to 30, which is why they're going to try it in the NIT first.

This is a change that, in my opinion, is long overdue.  But they should wait to implement it until next season.  It will probably work out fine in the NIT, but changing a rule for a postseason tournament that you don't use in the regular season is always odd.  Like when the NFL changed overtime for the playoffs, but didn't change it in the regular season until a couple years later. 

Yes, the NHL plays it out in playoff overtime rather than a shootout and grand slam tennis matches everywhere but the US Open don't have tiebreakers in the final set, but I think you see my point.  Those rule differences go way back and have long been accepted as part of the game.  They weren't arbitrarily instituted in the middle of the season.

Again, I'm not opposed to the rule change.  Quite the opposite, actually.  I just don't see any reason to start it so soon.  A rule change for next year should be just that.  A rule change for next year.  They don't need to test out the 30-second shot clock.  Mainly because everyone knows it's going to work.

The Yankees Announce the Inevitable

We all knew when the Yankees decided last year, during Derek Jeter's Farewell Tour, that Monument Park wasn't full enough, that the three number retirement/plaque dedication ceremonies in 2014 were just the beginning.  We already knew that the Bernie Williams number retirement was going to be this year.  But the Yankees also announced today that Andy Pettitte and Jorge Posada will be joining him on the wall, while Willie Randolph will be getting a plaque.

Some critics/Yankee haters might say this is overkill, but which of the four can you honestly say is undeserving?  My only concern is how they're going to fit four more numbers on the wall, which got filled up with Joe Torre's No. 6 last year.

Willie Randolph's Monument Park plaque seems long overdue.  He was a Yankee for 13 years and a team captain.  He played more games at second base than anyone else in franchise history, won two World Series rings as a player, then four more as a coach.  Willie's not at the same level as the players from the 90s dynasty, which is why he's not having his number retired, but he's definitely worthy of a plaque in Monument Park.

No one has worn No. 51 since Bernie's final game in pinstripes.  We all knew it was going to be retired eventually.  He was the heart and soul of the dynasty, playing center field, hitting in the middle of the lineup, always coming up with the clutch hit.  Bernie Williams was the consummate Yankee.  For 16 years.  He's up there on every all-time list in the major hitting categories, and he has more postseason home runs (22) and RBIs (80) than anyone else in franchise history. 

Andy Petttitte?  Another no-brainer.  This is the one that got the most reaction.  Chuck Knoblauch, that Yankee legend himself, for one, thinks Pettitte's being named in the Mitchell Report should get him blackballed by all of baseball for all eternity.  Never mind the fact that Pettitte immediately admitted what he did and why (to speed up recovery from an injury) and apologized for it, then went on with his career and was just as effective as before. 

But those that don't have grudges against Andy Pettitte acknowledge that he holds a place among the greatest pitchers in franchise history.  Five World Series rings, more postseason wins than anybody else, started and won the clincher in all three playoff series in 2009.  He also started more games than any other Yankees pitcher, has the most strikeouts in franchise history, and 219 wins is third.  Pettitte's going to get a lot of Hall of Fame support once he becomes eligible.  Putting No. 46 on the wall was as inevitable as No. 51 going up.  And just as appropriate.

Posada's probably the one that's going to give people the most trouble.  Well, you know what, he might not be as deserving as some of the others, but I think most Yankee fans would agree that Posada deserves to have his number retired nonetheless.  After all, he won five World Series rings in 17 seasons, and that longevity is one of the things about Posada that was the most appreciated.  Besides, there's one overriding thing that made his number retirement seem likely.  He's the fourth member of the Core Four.  Derek and Mariano are first-ballot Hall of Famers, and Petttitte's number was definitely getting retired.  Such a tradition-rich organization wasn't going to recognize three-quarters of this group without celebrating all four.

As soon as each of these three players retired, I knew it was only a matter of time before the Yankees retired Nos. 20, 46 and 51.  There's a reason they haven't handed any of them out since Bernie, Jorge and Andy retired.  Aside from the LaTroy Hawkins debacle, no Yankee has worn 21 in 15 years, either.  I know he got a plaque last year (I made it a point to go to that game just so I could be at the ceremony), but Paul O'Neill deserves one more honor.  He should be on the wall next to his four teammates.

Notice I said four teammates.  The fourth is fairly obvious.  Derek Jeter Day won't be this season, but I think that's on purpose.  He's one of the most revered players in franchise history.  He was the last Yankee ever to wear a single-digit number.  But he was also the last guy from the dynasty to retire.  And as such, they want to put No. 2 on the wall after the others.  When Derek Jeter's number goes on the wall, it will truly close the book on the Yankees' dynasty of the 1990s.  That book's not complete, however, without the chapters about Andy Pettitte, Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada, Paul O'Neill and Willie Randolph.

Sports of Grey

I'm not sure if you heard, but the movie version of "Fifty Shades of Grey" came out this weekend.  They barely did any promotion for it.  I sure hope it doesn't hurt them at the box office.

Anyway, in honor of the movie's release, I wanted to do a little parody and make a list of the best athletes with the last name Gray/Grey.  I even had the perfect title, "15 Athletes of Gray."  I didn't think that would be too difficult of a task.  Gray/Grey seems like a common enough last name.  But you know what?  The number of great athletes with that last name is really kind of limited.  There's the random guy who played a season or two in the Majors or the NBA here or there, but not really anyone notable.  So I decided to change the angle slightly.  Because while the name's not as common as I thought, the color gray has been pretty significant throughout the history of sports.

First and foremost, gray was, for years, the exclusive color of baseball road uniforms.  That changed in the '70s, when the introduction of polyester led to all kinds of wacky color combinations, but from the game's beginnings and continuing on for more than 60 years, teams had two uniforms--a white and a gray.  Today, of course, every team has at least one jersey that's another color (some have multiple "alternate" jerseys), but they all still have their white primary home uniform and their gray primary road uniform.  Even when they wear a different colored top on the road, you're still going to see gray pants.

Baseball also gave us the Homestead Grays, one of the most dominant teams of the Negro Leagues.  They split their home games between Pittsburgh and Washington and featured some of the greatest players in Negro League history, including Josh Gibson, Buck Leonard and Cool Papa Bell.  All three are in the Hall of Fame, along with nine other Grays.  Homestead won 11 pennants and three Negro World Series titles during its 38 years of operation.

In Canada, the name "Grey" is revered.  The champion of the Canadian Football League receives the Grey Cup.  Only the Stanley Cup holds more prestige in Canadian sports.  The Grey Cup, which was commissioned by the Earl Gray in 1909, has been awarded 102 times.  It's one of the oldest trophies in professional sports and, like the Stanley Cup, has the names of all the winning teams and players engraved on it.

Now on to the actual athletes with the last name Gray/Grey, because there are still a few notable ones.  The first guy I thought of, which is why I thought this would be an easier task than it turned out, was Pete Gray, the one-armed outfielder for the St. Louis Browns in 1945.  His remarkable story is what makes Pete Gray so memorable, but the fact that he's perhaps the most noteworthy athlete with that last name speaks to how hard a challenge that actually was.

Then there's Jerry Gray, the longtime Rams cornerback turned successful NFL assistant coach.  He had 28 interceptions and made four Pro Bowls during his playing career, and he was actually named Pro Bowl MVP in 1989.  As a coach, he was the Bills' defensive coordinator when they had that awesome defense in the early 2000s, was defensive coordinator for the Titans and is currently secondary coach for the Vikings.  He used to be mentioned a lot when teams had head coach openings.

Mel Gray was a wide receiver for the Cardinals in the '70s.  His NFL career wasn't spectacular, but he did make four straight Pro Bowls and was a First Team All-Pro in 1974 and 1975.  He also had a streak of 121 straight games with a catch from 1973-82.  I have no idea if that was a record at the time, or still is, or is even close to being any sort of a record, but Wikipedia found it cool enough to include in his bio, so it clearly has at least some relevance.

There's another Mel Gray, too, and this is actually the one I was thinking of when I found out about the other Mel Gray.  This one was a kick returner for several teams, most notably the Lions, for 12 years and was named to the NFL's All-Decade Team for the 1990s.  He was a seven-time All-Pro (including five straight years from 1990-94) and four-time Pro Bowler.  NFL Network ranked him No. 5 on its list of the greatest return men in history.  He actually started his career with the Los Angeles Express of the USFL and was the kick returner on the USFL All-Time Team.

My choice for the best athlete with the last name "Gray," though, is Johnny Gray, the American record-holder in the 800 meters.  He made four Olympic teams, making the final each time, and won the bronze in Barcelona in 1992, as well as two Pan Am Games golds 12 years apart (1987, 1999).  His American record in the 800, which has stood since 1985, is 1:42.60, and he also holds the indoor record (1:45.00 in 1992).  Gray is now a coach, and one of his athletes, Duane Solomon, is currently one of the best 800-meter runners in the United States.

So with Pete, Jerry, Mel, Mel and Johnny, that's five shades of Gray.  But if you throw in the Homestead and Canadian football's biggest prize, you'll see that the color has had a much bigger impact on the sports world than the lack of athletes would suggest.

NHL Adjusted Standings

We were having a discussion at work the other day about whether a hockey team could go 0-0-82 and still make the playoffs.  While that's obviously never going to happen, the point-a-game pace has traditionally been the standard by how you judge a team's playoff chances.  Generally, 82 points is good enough to be in the middle of the pack, which means it's borderline playoffs.

However, that's no longer the case in the NHL.  Ever since they came back from Lockout 1.0 and decided that there would be no more ties, that means one of the teams is guaranteed to get two points in every game.  So, out of the 1230 NHL games played every season, there are at least 2460 points to be handed out, plus the extra one for losing in overtime or a shootout.  And that, of course, means the point totals to get into the playoffs have steadily increased.

Last year, there were 10 teams with 100 points, Minnesota had 98, and it took 91 to get into the playoffs.  With the exception of Lockout 2.0, there have been multiple 100-point teams each season, and it's required at least 90 points to make the playoffs in all but two instances.  In 2010, Philadelphia and Montreal both made it with 88.  That's the lowest in the shootout era.  That's it, only twice in 10 seasons.  In 2007, Colorado had 95 points and finished ninth in the West!  The same thing happened again with Dallas in 2011.

Anyway, my point is that the NHL standings have been skewed ever since shootouts have entered the equation.  How well you do in shootouts might determine whether you make the postseason or not...or change your playoff seeding.  This year's a perfect example.  The Islanders are 7-1 in shootouts.  Pittsburgh's 3-4.  As a result, the Islanders have one more point than the Penguins and are currently in first place.

Being good at shootouts might be a key to playoff seeding, but they're a little misleading.  There are no shootouts in the playoffs.  Because of that, I decided to go back and adjust the NHL standings to the old pre-shootout days.  There obviously aren't ties in the standings anymore, but if you take away the extra point you get for winning a shootout, the standings would look quite different:

Atlantic: Tampa Bay 72, Montreal 69, Detroit 69, Boston 61, Florida 54, Ottawa 49, Toronto 47, Buffalo 29
Metropolitan: Pittsburgh 69, Rangers 67, Islanders 66, Washington 66, Philadelphia 53, New Jersey 48, Columbus 45, Carolina 41
Central: Nashville 75, St. Louis 70, Chicago 64, Winnipeg 62, Minnesota 59, Dallas 56, Colorado 48
Pacific: Anaheim 70, San Jose 62, Vancouver 61, Calgary 60, Los Angeles 57, Arizona 43, Edmonton 37

As you can see, the results are kind of interesting.  None of the 16 playoff teams would change, but some of the seedings certainly would.  The Islanders would move from first to third in the Met, while Montreal would also drop out of first place.

A discussion of the international hockey point system also broke out.  In international hockey, there are four columns in the standings.  You get three points for a ROW, two for a shootout win, one for an OT/shootout loss, and zero for a regulation loss.  This obviously works better in these short tournaments where there are fewer games, but it's interesting to see how things might look in the NHL if this was the format.  Of course, it never will be.  Because then everyone would have 100 points and there'd be teams hovering near 200 some seasons. 

I still want to see how that would change things in the NHL, so lets see the way it would work:

Atlantic: Tampa Bay 106, Montreal 104, Detroit 100, Boston 91, Florida 78, Ottawa 70, Toronto 70, Buffalo 45
Metropolitan: Islanders 102, Pittsburgh 101, Rangers 99, Washington 95, Philadelphia 76, New Jersey 69, Columbus 68, Carolina 60
Central: Nashville 117, St. Louis 106, Chicago 97, Winnipeg 90, Minnesota 86, Dallas 81, Colorado 70
Pacific: Anaheim 105, Vancouver 91, San Jose 90, Calgary 90, Los Angeles 80, Arizona 63, Edmonton 53

Of course, none of this proves anything or makes any difference whatsoever.  The NHL point format is fine and it's not going to change anytime soon.  You've gotta admit it is kinda interesting, though.  Those overtime/shootout points can prove to be quite a difference after all.

Clueless Jimmy Strikes Again

It came as no surprise to me that Jim Dolan got into a heated e-mail exchange with a Knicks fan upset about the team's play in recent years.  It simply serves as further proof that Dolan is among the worst owners, if not THE worst owner, in sports.  It's also the last straw for a lot of people, this one included, who will no longer be able to support the New York Knicks as long as Jim Dolan is the team's owner.

Now, to be clear, I'm not a fan of the NBA, and I haven't been in a few years, so my interest in the Knicks' current plight is minimal at best.  However, I also remember those days when I grew up idolizing Patrick Ewing, and I'm still convinced that John Starks was fouled on that three at the end of Game 6 in the 1994 Finals.  I always was a Knicks fan, and if I had to pick an NBA team, it would be them.

My distaste for the NBA has nothing to do with the Knicks.  But, by sheer coincidence, I tuned out right around the same time Dolan bought the team.  AKA, the same time the Knicks started to become irrelevant.  That was 1999.  In the 15 years since they made a Finals appearance that season, they've won a grand total of one division title and one playoff series.  During that time, they've become more famous for being a dysfunctional mess that's made some historically bad decisions than for anything they've actually done on the basketball court.

Where do I start?  Isiah Thomas?  Larry Brown?  Frederic Weis?  Amare Stoudemire?  Carmelo?  Steve Kerr?  Phil Jackson?  The thing all of this Knicks mismanagement has in common is their meddling owner.  He's kind of like Al Davis in his later years running the Raiders.  Whether he realizes it or not, he doesn't care how much damage he's doing to his own franchise while he, in fact, is the one running it into the ground.  (Notice how the Rangers didn't good again until Dolan stopped interfering in the day-to-day affairs of the team?)

Everyone knows that the biggest reason for the Knicks' problems is Jim Dolan.  That includes Knicks fans.  One of those fans is Irving Bierman, who's been going to games since 1952.  Bierman decided he'd had enough and sent Dolan an e-mail expressing his frustrations.  He might as well have been speaking on behalf of all Knicks fans.  Because a lot of what he said was right.  As Marisa Tomei said in My Cousin Vinny, it was "dead on, balls accurate."

Instead of just ignoring the e-mail or sending a polite "Thank you for your concerns" response, Dolan went on the offensive.  He attacked Bierman and even went so far as to suggest he start rooting for the Nets.  Talk about offensive.  Dolan's response was not only uncalled for and unnecessary, it was completely unprofessional.  This is the behavior of a man who owns a professional sports team?  That alone speaks volumes.

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has said he won't punish Dolan.  He chalked up the owner's behavior to "being a New Yorker" and responding like one.  But that's not even the point.  Dolan showed his true colors with his e-mail back to Bierman.  It's a PR battle that he's definitely not winning.  How can anyone justify calling themselves a Knicks fan now?  How can anyone root for a team knowing that this is type of treatment fans get from the owner?  I have a cousin that has DirecTV for the sole reason that he refuses to get Cablevision and give money to Dolan (the Dolan family also owns the cable giant).

Donald Sterling, before his antics last year that led to his being forced to sell the team, famously put no effort into making the Clippers any good because he knew he was going to make money anyway.  He did this for many, many years until fairly recently.  Well, that's exactly what the current state of the Knicks is.  A once proud franchise has been reduced to a laughingstock because of the way a clueless and inept owner runs his team.  He should be embarrassed, but Dolan doesn't even care.

Why should he?  The Knicks still sell out every game.  People go there to be seen.  That's how they can justify ridiculous ticket prices to see a terrible team.  And who knows, maybe if you go to a Knicks game, you can say you sat next to Spike Lee.  Or Billy Joel.  Or Al Roker.  Or any other celebrity that likes basketball and is currently in New York.  Dolan's got no reason to have a vested interest in whether or not the team is even good.  He's making money regardless.  And the less he has to spend on quality players, the more he gets to keep.

One of the solutions Bierman suggested is something that's probably not going to happen.  Dolan's not going to sell the team.  The Knicks are his little toy that he likes to play with.

Even though there's no way in hell anyone's going to convince him to sell, there is one thing Knicks fans can do.  It's the same thing Dodgers fans did before Frank McCourt finally sold the team.  Boycott.  Don't come to the games.  Don't even watch them on TV.  Hurt Dolan the one place it'll hurt him the most.  His wallet.  Then maybe he'll get the point. 

The Knicks aren't worth watching.  They haven't been in quite some time.  And now their owner has proven that he doesn't care at all about his fans.  This should be the last straw.  Because until something is done, it'll be more of the same for the New York Knicks.  And the only person satisfied with the status quo is Jim Dolan.

NHL Midseason Report

It's time for the hockey post I've been promising for like a week.  While the actual midpoint of the NHL season was actually a few weeks ago, I've been feeling the urge to do a midseason report for a little while now.  Because there are a whole bunch of teams that are plenty capable of winning the Stanley Cup.

Take the Eastern Conference.  The top eight teams have created enough distance between themselves and the bottom eight that it's safe to say that, barring a complete collapse, they're all going to end up in the playoffs.  However, who ends up in the Finals is anybody's guess.  Last year, everyone thought the Penguins and Bruins were head-and-shoulders above the rest.  Yet it was the Rangers and Canadiens, who both finished third in their division, that ended up in the Conference Finals.

This year there isn't a clear favorite in the East.  It's so tight at the top that the division leaders and playoff matchups change daily.  Talent-wise, Tampa Bay is probably the best team, but the Lightning still have all kinds of goalie questions.  That's why they flamed out in the playoffs last season.  Detroit's going to make the playoffs like always, and might even end up with the best record in the Atlantic, but I think they're at best the third-best team in the division.  I really like Montreal, especially with Carey Price in goal, and Boston is starting to look like the team everybody expects them to be.  The Bruins could be dangerous come playoff time.

Meanwhile, in the Metropolitan, I don't think anyone expects much out of the Penguins.  Pittsburgh has developed a bit of reputation for crashing and burning in the playoffs, mainly because of Marc-Andre Fleury, and this year probably won't be any different.  The Penguins' current playoff opponent would be the Rangers, who are currently without Henrik Lundqvist for a month.  Last year at the trade deadline, the Rangers improved themselves greatly, and it's one of the reasons they ended up making the Finals.  Whoever improves the most at the deadline this year might very well pull off the same trick and represent the East in the Finals.

I didn't forget about the other two Metropolitan Division teams currently holding down playoff spots.  Washington's as overrated as Pittsburgh.  The Capitals will probably make the playoffs, but they'll be lucky to get out of the first round.  Then there's the Islanders.  I expected them to contend for a playoff berth this season, then be really good after they move to Brooklyn next year.  They're a year ahead of schedule, occasionally looking like the best team in the Eastern Conference (especially when they play the Rangers).  But their fans really need to stop planning the parade.  Because the playoffs are going to be a grind.  I'm not saying the Islanders can't be the team that comes out of that grind.  I am saying that winning 12 games against the best teams the NHL has to offer just to get to the Finals is what makes the Stanley Cup one of the hardest trophies in sports to win.

While the East is more competitive from 1-8, the West is probably the overall stronger conference once again.  If I had to rank the top three teams in the NHL, I'd be Anaheim, Nashville and Chicago.  The West is so good that, instead of starting a dynasty, the defending champion Kings wouldn't even be in the playoffs if they started today.  They're fifth in the Pacific and ninth in the West right now.

With that being said, LA will be a very dangerous team if they do end up getting in.  Remember, the Kings were the 8-seed in the West when they won the Cup three years ago and seeded third in the Pacific during their run last year.  They're playoff tested and obviously know how to win on the road.  Plus Jonathan Quick, Anze Kopitar and Drew Doughty are absolute beasts.  The rest of the West better hope the Kings stay right where they are now and are sitting around watching the playoffs come mid-April.

Anaheim is really, really good and has a goalie now.  But I'm worried about the Ducks in the playoffs.  They've had this ridiculous amount of talent for a couple years now and haven't done a thing with it.  Just like another California-based team.  Will this finally be the year that the Sharks put it all together and actually not choke in the playoffs?  Or will it just be more of the same?

The same concerns I have about the Ducks and Sharks in the Pacific I have about the Predators and Blues in the Central.  St. Louis is the San Jose of that division.  You keep waiting for the Blues to put it all together and make a deep postseason run, and every year it inevitably doesn't happen.  You can't go against them, though.  Because they just have too much talent.  My worries about Nashville is because of their youth.  That might be a good thing, though, because they don't know what they're doing and they haven't been in this position before.  The biggest thing the Predators have going for them, though, is Pekka Rinne.  Goaltending wins playoff series, and Nashville has one of the very best.

However, standing in the Predators' and Blues' way is once again the Chicago Blackhawks.  It doesn't matter where the Blackhawks are seeded or who they end up facing.  You know that the playoffs will inevitably go through them in some form.  And this is their year to win in that Giants-Cardinals thing they've got going with the Kings.  If we've learned anything, it's to never count the Chicago Blackhawks out come playoff time.

We're also looking at Western Canada making its return to the playoffs.  Calgary's got a lot of young talent and is currently sitting in the second wild card position.  The Flames don't have enough guns to make a deep playoff run, but this will be an important year to get them that experience moving forward.  Vancouver stands to return to the postseason, proving once again that the Rangers got the better of the Vigneault-Tortorella coaching swap.  And it's nice to see Winnipeg's name among the playoff teams right now.  Like the Flames, I don't think the Jets have enough to beat those extremely formidable top teams in the West, but the mere fact that they stand to make their first playoff appearance since the NHL's return to Winnipeg speaks volumes about the strides they've made as a franchise.

Sorry I'm not bold enough to make a prediction for you.  So is life in the NHL.  Making a Stanley Cup pick at the start of the playoffs is hard enough.  Making one two months before the playoffs start is close to impossible.  Because no one saw Kings-Rangers coming last year.  And the chances of a Predators-Lightning Finals seems just as likely as any other possible combination.  Besides, we've still got another two months until all the fun really starts.

Sochi 2014: One Year Later

Today marked the one-year anniversary of the Sochi Olympics.  (Technically they started on Feb. 6, but the official start wasn't until the Opening Ceremony on Feb. 7.)  Just like every Olympics, Sochi offered us plenty of memorable moments.  And while most of what we've heard about the Winter Olympics in the 12 months since Sochi, it's worth looking back to some of those lasting memories from the 2014 Sochi Olympics.



The Games got underway with Vladislav Tretiak and Elena Rodnina,
two of Russia's greatest Winter Olympians, lighting the cauldron.



Norway's Ole Einar Bjoerndahlen made history right from the start,
winning two medals in biathlon, including a gold on Day 1, to give
him a Winter Olympic-record 13 career medals.

Erin Hamlin won the bronze in women's luge, the first singles
luge medal ever for an American.

It was an Orange Crush in speed skating, as the Netherlands
won 23 of 36 available medals, including four sweeps.

The 12 new events, especially in snowboarding and freestyle skiing
were kind to the Americans.  The U.S. won four golds in new events,
including Sage Kotsenburg's in men's slopestyle snowboarding.

After winning silver in Vancouver, Meryl Davis and
Charlie White did one better, becoming the first
Americans to win Olympic gold in ice dancing.

Yevgeny Plushenko set a record by winning a figure skating medal
in a fourth straight Olympics, helping Russia take gold in the inaugural
team trophy.

The most memorable game of the hockey tournament was the
USA-Russia showdown that went into a shootout, where T.J. Oshie
went over and over again until finally scoring the game-winner.

Darya Domracheva of Belarus was the most decorated athlete in
Sochi, winning three golds in biathlon.

Competing on home ice, Adelina Sotnikova became the first
Russian ever to win Olympic gold in ladies figure skating.

Russia won the most medals (33) and the most golds (13), with
former Korean Viktor Ahn contributing the country's first
three ever in short track speed skating.

Another naturalized Russian citizen, American-born
Vic Wild, won two gold medals in snowboarding.

There was a historic tie in the women's downhill, with Austria's
Dominique Gisin and Slovenia's Tina Maze sharing the gold.

The bear that first made an appearance at the Closing Ceremony of
the 1980 Moscow Summer Games blew out the Olympic flame,
as Sochi gave way to Pyeongchang, South Korea, the 2018 host.

There are plenty of other Sochi memories I could've chosen, but those 14 (yes, I settled on that number intentionally) are the ones that stand out the most in my mind.  For all the concerns people had leading up to the Games, Sochi pulled it off.  Just like you knew they would.  Just like every Olympics does.  That's what makes every Olympics special.  And Sochi was no different.

Top Super Bowl Plays Ever, Where Kearse Ranks

I was originally all set to do a hockey blog today, but I've been thinking about that amazing Jermaine Kearse catch in the Super Bowl.  If not for an ill-fated play call and the resulting game-clinching interception, that catch would've gone down with David Tyree and all the others in the annals of Super Bowl history.  It would've been the defining play on a Super Bowl-winning drive and risen right to the top in the pantheon of greatest Super Bowl plays ever.

As it is, the remarkable Kearse catch can't quite be put up there with David Tyree and all the others.  But it definitely does deserve a place among the best Super Bowl plays ever.  Since it's 2015, my list is going to have 15 plays on it, with a few restrictions.  Well, one main one.  Only one play from the same game (sorry, Larry Fitzgerald).  And they don't just have to be by the winners.  Plays can come from either team, although the ones that rank more highly were obviously big plays in clutch situations.  And this was completely unintentional, but a lot of the 15 happened in the last few years.  I guess that's what happens when you have a bunch of good games (including this year's).

And with that, here we go...

15. Adam Vinatieri, Patriots (Super Bowl XXXVI)
The kick that started it all.  The game-winning field goal on the final play to beat the Rams and start the Patriots' dynasty.

14. Johnny Unitas to John Mackey, Colts (Super Bowl V)
This is the oldest play that makes the cut.  A great 75-yard touchdown pass from one Hall of Famer to another.  This was Baltimore's first score of a game they ultimately won on a last-second field goal.

13. Mark Ingram, Giants (Super Bowl XXV)
Mark Ingram, Sr., the one in jail, had what might've been the decisive play of Super Bowl XXV before Scott Norwood's stroke of misfortune.  On the drive that put the Giants ahead, he evaded six would-be tacklers on 3rd-and-13 for a big first down that set up a field goal.

12. Antwaan Randle El to Hines Ward, Steelers (Super Bowl XL)
Who doesn't think this play is just cool?  You had the big Barry Foster run at the start of the second half that basically iced the game, but a wide receiver throwing a touchdown pass to another wide receiver?  Too good.

11. Mike Jones, Rams (Super Bowl XXXIV)
The 85-yard Kurt Warner-to-Torry Holt TD pass to give St. Louis the winning points could've been the call, but it's the game-saving tackle by Mike Jones that gets the nod.  He stopped the Titans' Kevin Dyson one yard short of the end zone on the final play of the game.

10. Marcus Allen, Raiders (Super Bowl XVIII)
The game was long decided (an interception return late in the first half did that), but the highlight of the Raiders' demolition of the Redskins was handled by MVP Marcus Allen with his electrifying 74-yard TD run.

9. Thomas Moorstead, Saints (Super Bowl XLIV)
One of the ballsiest calls in Super Bowl history, Sean Payton's onside kick on the second half kickoff in Super Bowl XLIV.  It wasn't sealed until Peyton threw that pick-6 when the Colts were driving late, but the onside kick is what won the game for New Orleans.

8. Jake Delhomme to Muhsin Muhammad, Panthers (Super Bowl XXXVIII)
In that crazy shootout that was the fourth quarter of Super Bowl XXXVIII, the Panthers took the lead on the longest touchdown pass in Super Bowl history, Jake Delhomme's 85-yard strike to Muhsin Muhammad that capped a 45-second drive.  Of course, it was all for naught thanks to Adam Vinatieri.

7. Russell Wilson to Jermaine Kearse, Seahawks (Super Bowl XLIX)
If Seattle had won the game, this would've been the defining play, and it would certainly rank much higher on the list if that was the case.  As it is, it was still pretty damn spectacular.

6. Eli Manning to Mario Manningham, Giants (Super Bowl XLVI)
Not as spectacular as Tyree, but this was the defining play the second time the Giants beat the Patriots.  It was on the drive that was capped by Ahmad Bradshaw's accidental winning touchdown.  The best part?  It happened right in front of Bill Belichick.

5. Terry Bradshaw to Lynn Swann, Steelers (Super Bowl X)
The first really "defining" Super Bowl play, it's the one that they always feature in the opening of those Super Bowl highlights marathons that used to be on ESPN and are now on NFL Network.  It also made Swann a Hall of Famer.

4. Desmond Howard, Packers (Super Bowl XXXI)
Just when the Patriots thought they were back in the game, Desmond Howard made one of the most electrifying plays in Super Bowl history.  Using the stadium video board as a rearview mirror, he ran 99 yards to pay dirt and an MVP award.

3. James Harrison, Steelers (Super Bowl XLIII)
With all due respect to Larry Fitzgerald and Santonio Holmes, the best play of Super Bowl XLIII was the longest play in Super Bowl history.  James Harrison's 100-yard pick-6 at the end of the first half in that classic between the Steelers and Cardinals.

2. Joe Montana to John Taylor, 49ers (Super Bowl XXIII)Perhaps the defining play of Joe Montana's outstanding career, the capper of the 92-yard drive that won Super Bowl XXIII.  Montana found John Taylor in the back of the end zone to beat Cincinnati and give San Francisco the first of back-to-back titles.

1. Eli Manning to David Tyree, Giants (Super Bowl XLII)
Even though I'm a Giants fan, I think this ranks No. 1 for a couple of other reasons.  First, the obvious and how spectacular it was.  Then there's the fact that Eli Manning was almost sacked on the play.  But most importantly, you've got the historical context.  Without this catch, one of the defining plays in Super Bowl history, there's no Plaxico Burress go-ahead touchdown and Patriots finish 19-0.

So, there you have it.  My Top 15 Super Bowl plays ever.  There were obviously plenty more to choose from, but I think I'll get very little argument about the ones I've selected, especially at the top of the list.

Some Early Guesses For Next Season's Schedule

Now that the Patriots have won the Super Bowl, the NFL avoided a potentially major dilemma.  The Mariners have a home game on the same day as the NFL season opener, and their stadium shares a parking lot with the Seahawks' stadium.  The baseball game is during the day, so they probably would've been able to figure something out, but now they don't have to worry about the Super Bowl champ beginning its defense on the road like they did two years ago when the Ravens had to open in Denver because of an Orioles game.

So who are the Patriots going to play in NFL Kickoff 2015?  Well, if you look at their home opponents, the options are pretty limited.  The AFC East plays the NFC East and AFC South next season, which gives the NFL plenty of TV-friendly options.  Except New England plays Dallas, the Giants, Indianapolis and Houston all on the road.  And their game against Denver is on the road, too.  That really leaves only two options for the season-opening game.  Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.  To me, that isn't much of a choice.  It'll be the Steelers.  The NFL might as well just announce it now.  (For the record, Pittsburgh's chances of playing on opening night looked good either way, since they're perhaps the most attractive home opponent for Seattle, although the Seahawks' division games are certainly more appealing than the Patriots'.)

Don't worry, that New England-Dallas game WILL end up on national TV.  It's the Cowboys' year to be on CBS on Thanksgiving, and they're playing the AFC East.  More specifically, their AFC East home games are against the Patriots and the Jets.  There's no chance the Jets are going to play on Thanksgiving.  And since (unlike last year) you actually have an attractive interconference matchup involving one of the traditional Thanksgiving teams, that's pretty much a no-brainer.

I also thought it was incredibly unfair that the AFC was completely shut out of Thanksgiving in 2014, which is another reason why I don't think they'll do it again.  I expect Cowboys-Patriots and an AFC-AFC night game, maybe from the AFC West.  As for who the Lions are going to play, it usually ends up being the Packers when they have the FOX Thanksgiving game, and I wouldn't expect that to be any different.

We do know one of Detroit's games.  The Lions are playing in one of the London games again, and all three will start at 9:30 a.m.  For the first time, there's going to be a division game across the pond, as the Jets take on the Dolphins in Week 4.  Jacksonville's "home" game is against Buffalo in Week 7, while Detroit will face Kansas City in Week 8.

As for the other national games, I think we're probably going to get a steady helping of the same teams we usually see on Sunday Night Football.  That means a whole lot of the Packers.  And the Steelers.  And the Patriots.  And the Seahawks.  And the Cowboys.  And the Giants.  And, assuming Peyton comes back, the Broncos.  Denver goes to Indy next season, so I think it's safe to say we'll see that one on a Sunday night.  I have a feeling Seattle at Green Bay is going to be the opening Sunday night game.  It also wouldn't surprise me to see Giants-Patriots on a Sunday night.  It's their first official meeting since the Super Bowl (they play each other in the final preseason game every year), and, if the pattern holds, they'll play twice next season.  Once in the regular season and again in the Super Bowl.

Thursday Night Football will do the CBS/NFL Network simulcast thing again, which means the most attractive Thursday night games will probably take place earlier in the season.  That means the NFC East game (whichever one they pick), Pittsburgh's Thursday night game, Green Bay's Thursday night game (even though that may end up later if the Packers play on Thanksgiving).  Denver goes to Chicago.  If it was the other way, I'd say it's a lock that Broncos-Bears is picked up, but with the game in Chicago, I'm not so sure.  One game I'm fairly certain will be selected for Thursday night is Bills at Jets.  Rex Ryan's return to the Meadowlands.

My biggest question regarding the Thursday night schedule is which game will be on Christmas.  Christmas Eve is a Thursday, but the NFL doesn't play night games on Christmas Eve, which means the Thursday night game that week will likely get moved to Christmas night.  Should that happen, you know it'll be a marquee matchup.  And I wouldn't be surprised to see CBS grab that one instead of the Saturday night game that week.

There's also that Saturday doubleheader in Week 16, which I think might actually become a Thursday-Saturday in Week 15 and a Christmas night-Saturday in Week 16.  As well as New England's Thursday night game.  When they expanded the NFL Network schedule to 16 games, it was so that every team would play on NFL Network once.  Except, assuming they play on Thanksgiving, New England would have three Thursday games, two of them on short weeks.  How the NFL handles that will be interesting.

One last little nugget about the Super Bowl champs and how the schedule is going to be affected.  The Bruins are hosting the 2016 Winter Classic at Gillette Stadium.  New Year's Day is the Friday between Weeks 16 and 17.  So, that means they obviously can't play a home game in Week 16 and probably can't in Week 17.  The only other shared venue schedule concern is in Week 3, when the Raiders have to be away because the A's are home.  Oakland can play an AFC home game in Week 1, though.  Because CBS lost its US Open rights to ESPN and won't be showing the men's final at 4:30 on that Sunday, they're able to have a Week 1 doubleheader for the first time in God knows how long.

Just some things to keep in mind before that day in April when the NFL reveals the schedule and everyone starts making their plans for the months of September thru December.  The season just ended, and we're already looking forward to next year.  So is the dominance of the NFL in America's collective consciousness.