The NHL is currently involved in the second round of expansion talks with potential ownership groups in Las Vegas and Quebec City. They've said that "nothing imminent" is going to happen, but I don't think there's a single person that actually buys that. When the NHL realigned into four divisions, with two divisions of eight teams and two of seven, expansion seemed inevitable. So, while it might not be for 2016-17 or even 2017-18, I think we can all agree that the NHL wouldn't be talking expansion with Las Vegas and Quebec City if they weren't planning on putting teams there.
I think it's funny that the NHL is saying that they're not necessarily expanding, and if they do, they're not necessarily adding more than one team. Well, they're either adding two or adding none. They aren't going to have a 31-team league. Is it possible they're just saying that so Seattle has time to get its act together and give them three options? Sure. But I think it's probably more likely the third city in the mix would be a relocation candidate rather than a potential expansion site.
When they first threw the idea of NHL expansion out there, it seemed like they were simply gauging interest to see if there was actually going to be any competition for the openings. Because professional sports leagues don't bring up expansion if they're not seriously considering it. (When's the last time someone talked about NFL or MLB expansion?)
You know the other 30 owners would love to get their hands on their share of that expansion fee, which is reported to be $500 million apiece. I'm sure when it comes time to include two more teams in the revenue sharing pie, they probably wouldn't be as eager to welcome Las Vegas and Quebec, though. However, with the increased revenue that those two cities would bring in, there'll be plenty more money to share.
On the surface, Las Vegas doesn't seem like much of a hockey town. But it's also the biggest city in the U.S. without a major league pro sports team. It's going to be mentioned in every expansion conversation until one of the leagues is bold enough to take the risk of putting a team there. One of the four will eventually. It's really just a matter of who does it first. The NHL has always seemed the most likely to take a chance on Vegas, and I'd be shocked if this didn't lead to a team there. Especially with that new arena being built on the Strip. Boxing and UNLV basketball are nice. But that arena's being built for one reason: the lure the NBA and/or NHL to Sin City.
Personally, I always thought the NBA would be the ones to make the Vegas move first. And they still might. If an NBA team doesn't relocate to Seattle within the next few years, you know the Sonics will return as an expansion team. That would bring the NBA to 31, and Las Vegas seems the likely candidate to join Seattle to be No. 32 and keep it at an even number. But if the NHL can get there first, would that change things?
Quebec City, on the other hand, is thinking about the NHL and the NHL only. They've wanted a new team ever since the Nordiques left and won the Stanley Cup in their first season as the Avalanche. That was 20 years ago! There's a whole generation of fans throughout French Canada who root for the Canadiens because they're the only team to root for. Montreal just played a sold out preseason game at the new arena in Quebec, and there were as many Canadiens jerseys in the stands as Nordiques jerseys, something that never would've been possible during that rivalry's heyday.
Winnipeg got its team back, and the NHL returning to Quebec seems the next logical place. The passion is clearly there. That fan base was able to support a team for a long time, and they'll embrace a new team just as quickly as they embraced the Nordiques. And the reason they left had nothing to do with any of that. They left because they played in a small market (that only speaks French) with a weak Canadian dollar, which made it difficult for them to compete. I'm not saying all of the issues that forced the original Nordiques to leave have been solved, but the NHL has since taken steps to protect these small-market Canadian teams.
Both cities are a risk--for completely different reasons. But they both seem like risks worth taking. Quebec City is chomping at the bit to be back in the NHL. And, while not as obvious as its desire to return to Winnipeg, I think the NHL would love to have Quebec City back, too. An eighth Canadian team, a second team in French Canada, a(nother) natural rival for Montreal. And it's not like they tried and failed in Quebec City. The situation in Quebec City was unique. They deserve a second chance.
As for Las Vegas, it's a matter of you don't know until you try it. Will they embrace the NHL, especially an expansion team that's likely not going to be any good, when there are so many other entertainment options in the city? Are there even hockey fans in Las Vegas to begin with? If the answer to both those questions is "Yes," imagine the potential!
Seattle's the wild card here. I'm pretty sure Seattle's priority is getting back its NBA team that never should've left, but the basketball team would need an arena, and it would be a lot easier to convince the taxpayers to finance an arena for two pro teams to play in. I think it's more likely Seattle will be used as a relocation target, though. If the NHL was thinking about Seattle for expansion, they'd be involved in these talks. They're not. The new teams will be in Las Vegas and Quebec City. That is, of course, if there are new teams at all (wink, wink).
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
The Baseball/Softball Return?
When the IOC announced that there would no longer be a 28-sport cap and Olympic hosts were free to propose sports/events for their specific Games, starting with Tokyo 2020, everyone knew that it was inevitable the Japanese would push for the reintroduction of baseball and softball to the Olympic program. So it came as no surprise that baseball/softball (it's a combined bid from the international federation that governs both sports) was included on the list of sports that Tokyo 2020 has proposed for inclusion. The others are a little more surprising. Skateboarding, surfing, sport climbing and karate, but no squash.
Now, I love that the IOC has eliminated the 28-sport cap. It seemed incredibly arbitrary, and, since the only way for a new sport to be added was for another to be eliminated, it was the source of a lot of controversy. Hence the great wrestling debacle. This new rule keeps the Olympics fresh and relevant without sports having to pay the ultimate price (Olympic status) simply because they aren't popular enough on TV.
However, I have problems with this new method, too. The main one being that you're proposing sports only for your Olympics. So, if any of these are added for 2020, they could just as easily be gone by 2024. Baseball and softball are the prime example of this. If the 2024 Games go to Los Angeles, there's no question they'd stay on the program. But that's the only guarantee. They'd probably be safe with Rome or Hamburg, but do you really think the organizers of the Paris and Budapest bids have any interest in holding an Olympic baseball tournament?
Once a sport's in the Olympics, it should be in the Olympics. That's it. There are 25 "core" sports that have nothing to worry about. They're guaranteed to be on the Olympic program. Rugby and golf are guaranteed at least Rio 2016 and Tokyo 2020, but is there any doubt they're now permanent Olympic fixtures? Same thing with wrestling. When it was reinstated, it was technically just for 2020 and 2024. But seeing as wrestling never should've been dropped from the Olympics in the first place, there's no way they're ever going to try removing it again.
Anyway, my whole point here is that baseball and softball are the favorites to be brought back in Tokyo, but what's the point if it's only for one Olympics? How would that be any less damaging to the sports than when they were dropped in 2005? In fact, it would probably be worse. They're already the first sports to be cut from the Olympic program in more than half a century. No sport has ever been cut twice. Yet I have a feeling that's exactly what will happen with baseball and softball if they don't put some sort of provision in that says the added sport must be included in at least two consecutive Olympics.
With all that being said, however, I'm glad baseball and softball will likely be returning to the Olympics, at least for Tokyo 2020. This rule change was made after Tokyo was awarded the Games, and many think the reason why was so that the door could be opened for baseball and softball to be brought back, especially since there are plenty of people who think it was a mistake to drop them in the first place. Remember, it was by no means unanimous to eliminate them. The vote in 2005 was close, and baseball/softball both almost made the cut (as separate sports) when they added rugby and golf for Rio and again (as a combined bid) when wrestling was kept on the program for Tokyo.
So, yeah, I'm fairly confident baseball and softball will be played at the Tokyo Olympics. Baseball is Japan's national sport, they won the first two World Baseball Classics, and the Japanese Major Leagues are the second-best in the world. And they obviously wouldn't need to build a venue. The Yomiuri Giants, Japan's version of the Yankees, play at the Tokyo Dome. No, Major Leaguers won't be there, but the Japanese pros will, and so will (presumably) the Cuban National Team. That's enough.
While baseball doesn't need the Olympics and vice-versa, softball does need the Olympics, and it was softball that felt the blow of the 2005 decision more deeply. Baseball players have the Major Leagues and the World Series. Softball players had the Olympic gold medal as their ultimate. Then that was taken away. And let's not forget, the United States won the first three Olympic softball gold medals, but the defending champions are? Japan!
As for the other sports, they're an obvious attempt to make the Olympics "appeal more to youth." Surfing makes very little sense to me. Only a handful of countries are capable of being good at it, and I can't see any Olympics in Europe including surfing. Likewise, I doubt there would be need for a "surf park," which can apparently work as a venue in lieu of the ocean (I'm not sure how).
Same thing with skateboarding. It's technically listed as "roller sports," but roller speed skating and roller figure skating weren't included in the proposal. Just skateboarding. Skateboarding, which has its own international federation (two in fact), was listed as "roller sports," while speed skating and figure skating, both of which actually require the use of roller skates, aren't? Please!
They're obviously looking at it in the same way as BMX, but, and it might just be me, I just don't see skateboarding in the Olympics. The X-Games athlete and fan is an entirely different demographic than the Olympic fan. I know the IOC is trying to change that perception, but I'm not sure it would be the mutually-beneficial relationship everything thinks it would.
Sport climbing, on the other hand, would be a really cool addition. There's nothing like it currently in the Olympics. It's been in both editions of the Youth Olympics and was a big hit. You've all seen (and probably tried) the rock climbing wall at your gym. That's all you would need to set up. They've proposed two different events: speed (think "The Wall" from American Gladiators) and bouldering (which is the type where you don't use a rope). Sport climbing has been included on finalist lists of proposed Olympic sports before, and it would be a fun addition to the program. It's also one I could see sticking around.
Like baseball/softball, karate seemed likely to make the cut. It's included in pretty much all of the continental Games and is native to Japan. But do we really need another martial art? There's already judo and taekwondo, and you've also got the combat sports of boxing and wrestling.
Squash, bowling and something called wushu didn't make the cut. That's another tough blow for squash, which has come so close to Olympic inclusion too many times to count now. Every time squash seems like it's on the cusp of being added to the Games, it once again isn't, leaving the International Squash Federation wondering what they have to do to make Olympic organizers change their minds.
The other five sports now move on to the final IOC vote during the Rio Games. It's possible that they could decide none of them will be added, but I think we all know that's unlikely. It's also possible they add all five, increasing the total number of events by 18, although that also seems unlikely. My guess is that baseball/softball and one or two of the others will be added to the Olympics for Tokyo 2020. Beyond that, though, who knows?
Now, I love that the IOC has eliminated the 28-sport cap. It seemed incredibly arbitrary, and, since the only way for a new sport to be added was for another to be eliminated, it was the source of a lot of controversy. Hence the great wrestling debacle. This new rule keeps the Olympics fresh and relevant without sports having to pay the ultimate price (Olympic status) simply because they aren't popular enough on TV.
However, I have problems with this new method, too. The main one being that you're proposing sports only for your Olympics. So, if any of these are added for 2020, they could just as easily be gone by 2024. Baseball and softball are the prime example of this. If the 2024 Games go to Los Angeles, there's no question they'd stay on the program. But that's the only guarantee. They'd probably be safe with Rome or Hamburg, but do you really think the organizers of the Paris and Budapest bids have any interest in holding an Olympic baseball tournament?
Once a sport's in the Olympics, it should be in the Olympics. That's it. There are 25 "core" sports that have nothing to worry about. They're guaranteed to be on the Olympic program. Rugby and golf are guaranteed at least Rio 2016 and Tokyo 2020, but is there any doubt they're now permanent Olympic fixtures? Same thing with wrestling. When it was reinstated, it was technically just for 2020 and 2024. But seeing as wrestling never should've been dropped from the Olympics in the first place, there's no way they're ever going to try removing it again.
Anyway, my whole point here is that baseball and softball are the favorites to be brought back in Tokyo, but what's the point if it's only for one Olympics? How would that be any less damaging to the sports than when they were dropped in 2005? In fact, it would probably be worse. They're already the first sports to be cut from the Olympic program in more than half a century. No sport has ever been cut twice. Yet I have a feeling that's exactly what will happen with baseball and softball if they don't put some sort of provision in that says the added sport must be included in at least two consecutive Olympics.
With all that being said, however, I'm glad baseball and softball will likely be returning to the Olympics, at least for Tokyo 2020. This rule change was made after Tokyo was awarded the Games, and many think the reason why was so that the door could be opened for baseball and softball to be brought back, especially since there are plenty of people who think it was a mistake to drop them in the first place. Remember, it was by no means unanimous to eliminate them. The vote in 2005 was close, and baseball/softball both almost made the cut (as separate sports) when they added rugby and golf for Rio and again (as a combined bid) when wrestling was kept on the program for Tokyo.
So, yeah, I'm fairly confident baseball and softball will be played at the Tokyo Olympics. Baseball is Japan's national sport, they won the first two World Baseball Classics, and the Japanese Major Leagues are the second-best in the world. And they obviously wouldn't need to build a venue. The Yomiuri Giants, Japan's version of the Yankees, play at the Tokyo Dome. No, Major Leaguers won't be there, but the Japanese pros will, and so will (presumably) the Cuban National Team. That's enough.
While baseball doesn't need the Olympics and vice-versa, softball does need the Olympics, and it was softball that felt the blow of the 2005 decision more deeply. Baseball players have the Major Leagues and the World Series. Softball players had the Olympic gold medal as their ultimate. Then that was taken away. And let's not forget, the United States won the first three Olympic softball gold medals, but the defending champions are? Japan!
As for the other sports, they're an obvious attempt to make the Olympics "appeal more to youth." Surfing makes very little sense to me. Only a handful of countries are capable of being good at it, and I can't see any Olympics in Europe including surfing. Likewise, I doubt there would be need for a "surf park," which can apparently work as a venue in lieu of the ocean (I'm not sure how).
Same thing with skateboarding. It's technically listed as "roller sports," but roller speed skating and roller figure skating weren't included in the proposal. Just skateboarding. Skateboarding, which has its own international federation (two in fact), was listed as "roller sports," while speed skating and figure skating, both of which actually require the use of roller skates, aren't? Please!
They're obviously looking at it in the same way as BMX, but, and it might just be me, I just don't see skateboarding in the Olympics. The X-Games athlete and fan is an entirely different demographic than the Olympic fan. I know the IOC is trying to change that perception, but I'm not sure it would be the mutually-beneficial relationship everything thinks it would.
Sport climbing, on the other hand, would be a really cool addition. There's nothing like it currently in the Olympics. It's been in both editions of the Youth Olympics and was a big hit. You've all seen (and probably tried) the rock climbing wall at your gym. That's all you would need to set up. They've proposed two different events: speed (think "The Wall" from American Gladiators) and bouldering (which is the type where you don't use a rope). Sport climbing has been included on finalist lists of proposed Olympic sports before, and it would be a fun addition to the program. It's also one I could see sticking around.
Like baseball/softball, karate seemed likely to make the cut. It's included in pretty much all of the continental Games and is native to Japan. But do we really need another martial art? There's already judo and taekwondo, and you've also got the combat sports of boxing and wrestling.
Squash, bowling and something called wushu didn't make the cut. That's another tough blow for squash, which has come so close to Olympic inclusion too many times to count now. Every time squash seems like it's on the cusp of being added to the Games, it once again isn't, leaving the International Squash Federation wondering what they have to do to make Olympic organizers change their minds.
The other five sports now move on to the final IOC vote during the Rio Games. It's possible that they could decide none of them will be added, but I think we all know that's unlikely. It's also possible they add all five, increasing the total number of events by 18, although that also seems unlikely. My guess is that baseball/softball and one or two of the others will be added to the Olympics for Tokyo 2020. Beyond that, though, who knows?
Saturday, September 26, 2015
2015 Football Picks, Week 3
Rough week last week. Some unexpected results across the league, with surprising upsets and teams that I thought were good once again underperforming. It's still early, though, so I guess there's plenty of time for things to get straightened out on the Road to Super Bowl 50. And with some significant injuries already coming into play, it's going to be an interesting season indeed.
Thursday Night: Giants (Win)
Raiders (1-1) at Browns (1-1): Cleveland-These are two of the teams that surprised me last week. I think the Raiders just took advantage of a shell-shocked Ravens team that spent a full week on the West Coast prior to the game. Now a trip to Cleveland for their third straight matchup against an AFC North opponent. The Browns got a win last week with Johnny Manziel at quarterback, leading to the inevitable calls of Johnny Overrated being the permanent starter. But Josh McCown is back and Manziel returns to the bench for this one. It's a chance for Cleveland to go above .500 before heading west to San Diego next week. The Browns are a better team than the Raiders, and Oakland's traveling for a 1:00 game. I like Cleveland.
Falcons (2-0) at Cowboys (2-0): Atlanta-Over the first two weeks of the season, Atlanta, despite playing in the NFC South, has proven to be the best team in the NFC East. In fact, both of these teams have beaten both the Eagles and Giants in their first two games. Except Dallas suffered a big loss last week when Tony Romo went down. This is now Branden Weeden's team for at least the next two months, although they did trade for Matt Cassell just in case. In a weakened NFC East, Dallas is still in a good position to win the division if they can hold out until Romo's back. I need to see the Romo-less Cowboys first, though. That's why I'm going with the Falcons here.
Colts (0-2) at Titans (1-1): Tennessee-My parents are actually going to this game during their trip to Nashville that also included a Saturday night stop at the Grand Ole Opry (so jealous). Anyway, Marcus Mariota makes his home debut after looking great in Tampa and shaky in Cleveland. The Colts, meanwhile, a popular preseason Super Bowl pick (including by this guy) don't look like it after two lackluster performances against the Bills and Jets. Where is this vaunted Colts offense? Indy badly needs a win, but I think Mariota and the Titans are going to be amped up to finally play at home. I'm calling the upset. Titans match last year's win total.
Steelers (1-1) at Rams (1-1): Pittsburgh-Where was that St. Louis Rams team that beat the Seahawks last week? Did they stay in St. Louis while some other guys borrowed their uniforms and flew to Washington? Now they return home to face a Steelers team that sure got over the sting of opening night by absolutely thumping the 49ers. The Rams should be 2-0 right now. Instead, they'll come out of this game 1-2.
Chargers (1-1) at Vikings (1-1): San Diego-Another matchup of 1-1 teams in the Twin Cities. San Diego travels east for an early game for the second time in as many weeks. The Chargers lost in Cincinnati, but it was a close game against a good Bengals team. The Vikings won their home opener against the Lions, but I still haven't seen this team some are calling a sleeper playoff pick. Even though the chalk says to pick Minnesota, I'm feeling the Chargers here for some reason.
Jaguars (1-1) at Patriots (2-0): New England-Don't look now, but the Jacksonville Jaguars are in first place in the AFC South. Well, actually, look now, because they're headed to New England this week. It's conceivable that the entire AFC South could be 1-2 at the end of the day, while the Patriots will be among the handful of teams that are 3-0.
Eagles (0-2) at Jets (2-0): Jets-It hasn't quite clicked for Chip Kelly's Eagles yet this year. Hence all the DeMarco Murray memes that have popped up all over social media this week. The Jets, though. They look like the real deal, especially on defense, after that performance in Indianapolis on Monday night. I still think the Eagles are a better team than the Jets, and I do expect Philly to turn it around. But not after they fall to 0-3 in their first of two visits to the Meadowlands this year.
Saints (0-2) at Panthers (2-0): Carolina-OK, I'll admit it. I was wrong about the Saints. Their time may be over. They're 0-2, they just lost at home to the Bucs, and now they won't have Drew Brees behind center for the first time since he came to New Orleans. Maybe it'll be just a one-week thing, but this was the worst possible week for that to happen. Because they'll effectively be four games behind Carolina after just three weeks.
Bengals (2-0) at Ravens (1-1): Cincinnati-Here we go. An AFC North battle between two playoff teams from last year. Baltimore finally gets to play at home after starting with two out west. Unfortunately, that first home game is against a division rival that's on a roll. The Bengals went out to Oakland and got a win, then knocked off San Diego. Can they make it 3-for-3 in Baltimore? The Ravens sure hope not. Especially with a short week before a Thursday-night visit to rival Pittsburgh.
Buccaneers (1-1) at Texans (0-2): Houston-I really don't know what to make of either of these teams. The Texans are 0-2, but they've played two good teams in Kansas City and Carolina. Tampa Bay got completely destroyed at home by Tennessee, only to go to New Orleans the next week and win. Unfortunately for them, Jamies Winston hasn't met J.J. Watt yet. Gimme the Texans to finally get in the win column.
49ers (1-1) at Cardinals (2-0): Arizona-Last year's Super Bowl host and this year's Super Bowl host square off in Phoenix with first place in the NFC West on the line. I think the 49ers team we saw last week in Pittsburgh is a more accurate representation of what we can expect from them this year. My confidence in them as they take a road trip to Arizona for a matchup with a Cardinals team that seemingly scores at will is limited.
Bills (1-1) at Dolphins (1-1): Buffalo-They're both coming off losses, and falling to 1-2 in a suddenly ultra-competitive AFC East isn't an intriguing possibility for either. The Bills losing to the Patriots could've been expected, even if Rex's vaunted defense was anything but. I'm still trying to figure out how Miami lost to Jacksonville, though. That shouldn't have happened. But since it did, that's enough of a reason for me to go with the Bills. Although, they hate going to Miami early in the season when it's still hot.
Bears (0-2) at Seahawks (0-2): Seattle-Can someone explain to me why a game between two NFC teams is the doubleheader game on CBS? I'm still trying to figure out how this whole "cross-flexing" thing works. Anyway, the Seahawks limp home at 0-2 after looking like a shell of the two-time defending NFC champions. However, Kam Chancellor's holdout is over, so I think we can expect Seattle to get a lot of its swagger back. Especially since they're playing a Bears team that isn't good. They'll be the one that drops to 0-3.
Broncos (2-0) at Lions (0-2): Denver-For the first time in its 10-year history, "Sunday Night Football" comes to Detroit. They go there to see Peyton Manning and the Broncos, who haven't played well at all this season (except for maybe five minutes in the Kansas City game), yet are 2-0. The suddenly awesome Denver defense might have a lot to do with that. For all the talk about who's got the best defense in football, I think it might be the Broncos, who are barely mentioned in those discussions. Peyton will be Peyton again before the season's out. But until then, I expect the defense to lift Denver to another win.
Chiefs (1-1) at Packers (2-0): Green Bay-We've got another Super Bowl rematch on Monday Night Football. It's fitting that on the 50th anniversary of the main event, the teams that met in the first one square off in the regular season. Kansas City has had extra long rest after giving the game away against Denver on Thursday night. The Steelers have that same thing coming up, and I don't like it. You shouldn't get two extra days off before a Monday night game (or go 11 days without playing!). But that's just me. Anyway, the Packers made a statement with their Sunday-night win over the Seahawks. Green Bays is my pick to win the Super Bowl and just might be the best team in the NFL. The Packers should be 3-0 come Tuesday.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-8
Season: 20-13
Thursday Night: Giants (Win)
Raiders (1-1) at Browns (1-1): Cleveland-These are two of the teams that surprised me last week. I think the Raiders just took advantage of a shell-shocked Ravens team that spent a full week on the West Coast prior to the game. Now a trip to Cleveland for their third straight matchup against an AFC North opponent. The Browns got a win last week with Johnny Manziel at quarterback, leading to the inevitable calls of Johnny Overrated being the permanent starter. But Josh McCown is back and Manziel returns to the bench for this one. It's a chance for Cleveland to go above .500 before heading west to San Diego next week. The Browns are a better team than the Raiders, and Oakland's traveling for a 1:00 game. I like Cleveland.
Falcons (2-0) at Cowboys (2-0): Atlanta-Over the first two weeks of the season, Atlanta, despite playing in the NFC South, has proven to be the best team in the NFC East. In fact, both of these teams have beaten both the Eagles and Giants in their first two games. Except Dallas suffered a big loss last week when Tony Romo went down. This is now Branden Weeden's team for at least the next two months, although they did trade for Matt Cassell just in case. In a weakened NFC East, Dallas is still in a good position to win the division if they can hold out until Romo's back. I need to see the Romo-less Cowboys first, though. That's why I'm going with the Falcons here.
Colts (0-2) at Titans (1-1): Tennessee-My parents are actually going to this game during their trip to Nashville that also included a Saturday night stop at the Grand Ole Opry (so jealous). Anyway, Marcus Mariota makes his home debut after looking great in Tampa and shaky in Cleveland. The Colts, meanwhile, a popular preseason Super Bowl pick (including by this guy) don't look like it after two lackluster performances against the Bills and Jets. Where is this vaunted Colts offense? Indy badly needs a win, but I think Mariota and the Titans are going to be amped up to finally play at home. I'm calling the upset. Titans match last year's win total.
Steelers (1-1) at Rams (1-1): Pittsburgh-Where was that St. Louis Rams team that beat the Seahawks last week? Did they stay in St. Louis while some other guys borrowed their uniforms and flew to Washington? Now they return home to face a Steelers team that sure got over the sting of opening night by absolutely thumping the 49ers. The Rams should be 2-0 right now. Instead, they'll come out of this game 1-2.
Chargers (1-1) at Vikings (1-1): San Diego-Another matchup of 1-1 teams in the Twin Cities. San Diego travels east for an early game for the second time in as many weeks. The Chargers lost in Cincinnati, but it was a close game against a good Bengals team. The Vikings won their home opener against the Lions, but I still haven't seen this team some are calling a sleeper playoff pick. Even though the chalk says to pick Minnesota, I'm feeling the Chargers here for some reason.
Jaguars (1-1) at Patriots (2-0): New England-Don't look now, but the Jacksonville Jaguars are in first place in the AFC South. Well, actually, look now, because they're headed to New England this week. It's conceivable that the entire AFC South could be 1-2 at the end of the day, while the Patriots will be among the handful of teams that are 3-0.
Eagles (0-2) at Jets (2-0): Jets-It hasn't quite clicked for Chip Kelly's Eagles yet this year. Hence all the DeMarco Murray memes that have popped up all over social media this week. The Jets, though. They look like the real deal, especially on defense, after that performance in Indianapolis on Monday night. I still think the Eagles are a better team than the Jets, and I do expect Philly to turn it around. But not after they fall to 0-3 in their first of two visits to the Meadowlands this year.
Saints (0-2) at Panthers (2-0): Carolina-OK, I'll admit it. I was wrong about the Saints. Their time may be over. They're 0-2, they just lost at home to the Bucs, and now they won't have Drew Brees behind center for the first time since he came to New Orleans. Maybe it'll be just a one-week thing, but this was the worst possible week for that to happen. Because they'll effectively be four games behind Carolina after just three weeks.
Bengals (2-0) at Ravens (1-1): Cincinnati-Here we go. An AFC North battle between two playoff teams from last year. Baltimore finally gets to play at home after starting with two out west. Unfortunately, that first home game is against a division rival that's on a roll. The Bengals went out to Oakland and got a win, then knocked off San Diego. Can they make it 3-for-3 in Baltimore? The Ravens sure hope not. Especially with a short week before a Thursday-night visit to rival Pittsburgh.
Buccaneers (1-1) at Texans (0-2): Houston-I really don't know what to make of either of these teams. The Texans are 0-2, but they've played two good teams in Kansas City and Carolina. Tampa Bay got completely destroyed at home by Tennessee, only to go to New Orleans the next week and win. Unfortunately for them, Jamies Winston hasn't met J.J. Watt yet. Gimme the Texans to finally get in the win column.
49ers (1-1) at Cardinals (2-0): Arizona-Last year's Super Bowl host and this year's Super Bowl host square off in Phoenix with first place in the NFC West on the line. I think the 49ers team we saw last week in Pittsburgh is a more accurate representation of what we can expect from them this year. My confidence in them as they take a road trip to Arizona for a matchup with a Cardinals team that seemingly scores at will is limited.
Bills (1-1) at Dolphins (1-1): Buffalo-They're both coming off losses, and falling to 1-2 in a suddenly ultra-competitive AFC East isn't an intriguing possibility for either. The Bills losing to the Patriots could've been expected, even if Rex's vaunted defense was anything but. I'm still trying to figure out how Miami lost to Jacksonville, though. That shouldn't have happened. But since it did, that's enough of a reason for me to go with the Bills. Although, they hate going to Miami early in the season when it's still hot.
Bears (0-2) at Seahawks (0-2): Seattle-Can someone explain to me why a game between two NFC teams is the doubleheader game on CBS? I'm still trying to figure out how this whole "cross-flexing" thing works. Anyway, the Seahawks limp home at 0-2 after looking like a shell of the two-time defending NFC champions. However, Kam Chancellor's holdout is over, so I think we can expect Seattle to get a lot of its swagger back. Especially since they're playing a Bears team that isn't good. They'll be the one that drops to 0-3.
Broncos (2-0) at Lions (0-2): Denver-For the first time in its 10-year history, "Sunday Night Football" comes to Detroit. They go there to see Peyton Manning and the Broncos, who haven't played well at all this season (except for maybe five minutes in the Kansas City game), yet are 2-0. The suddenly awesome Denver defense might have a lot to do with that. For all the talk about who's got the best defense in football, I think it might be the Broncos, who are barely mentioned in those discussions. Peyton will be Peyton again before the season's out. But until then, I expect the defense to lift Denver to another win.
Chiefs (1-1) at Packers (2-0): Green Bay-We've got another Super Bowl rematch on Monday Night Football. It's fitting that on the 50th anniversary of the main event, the teams that met in the first one square off in the regular season. Kansas City has had extra long rest after giving the game away against Denver on Thursday night. The Steelers have that same thing coming up, and I don't like it. You shouldn't get two extra days off before a Monday night game (or go 11 days without playing!). But that's just me. Anyway, the Packers made a statement with their Sunday-night win over the Seahawks. Green Bays is my pick to win the Super Bowl and just might be the best team in the NFL. The Packers should be 3-0 come Tuesday.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-8
Season: 20-13
Thursday, September 24, 2015
It Ain't Over Til It's Over
Like many people, I never met Yogi Berra. But that doesn't matter. Because like most, I felt like I "knew" him. The baseball world has lost a true icon. A quotable legend whose presence brightened up any room he was in. A figure beloved by all generations, from those who remember him as a player in the 50s and 60s, to those who followed his managing exploits in the 70s, to those around my age and younger who only saw his as a sort of unofficial Yankees mascot.
Yogi Berra was the link between the eras. His rookie year was 1946, when Joe DiMaggio was still the big man on campus. His prime coincided with the rise of the dynasty in the 1950s, when Mickey Mantle became the team's larger-than-life figure. Then in the 60s, he became the manager--and won the pennant in his first full season, 1964. After winning another pennant across town as manager of the Mets, he was the straight man during the Billy Martin-Reggie Jackson circus that was the Bronx Zoo era of the 1970s.
Despite a career spent seemingly entirely in pinstripes, Yogi stayed away for 15 years due to a long-running feud between him and George Steinbrenner. It started when Steinbrenner fired Yogi as manager 15 games into the 1984 season (despite promising he wouldn't) and didn't end until 1998, when Steinbrenner personally apologized to Yogi. From then on, Yogi Berra was once again a constant at Yankee Stadium, and we were all the better for it.
The timing of his return to the Yankees couldn't have been more perfect. Up until that time, it was always Joe DiMaggio who threw out the first pitch on Opening Day and was introduced last on Old-Timer's Day. Whenever DiMaggio was at the ballpark, you knew it was a big event. Joe DiMaggio died in January of 1999. Who threw out the first pitch on Opening Day that year? Yogi Berra. All had been forgiven. Yogi was back where he belonged. For the next 15 years, he'd be that guy. He took over that role from DiMaggio, and was the perfect man to do it. Despite the fact that Yogi was a little man, those are big shoes to fill.
And of course, Yogi had another something special up his sleeve. On July 18, 1999, the Yankees welcomed him back by celebrating "Yogi Berra Day" at the old Stadium. On that day, Don Larsen threw out the first pitch and Yogi caught it, recreating the scene of one of the iconic moments in all of baseball history--Larsen's perfect game in the 1956 World Series. So what happened on "Yogi Berra Day?" David Cone threw a perfect game against the Expos. What else?
That was one of the many special memories Yogi Berra would provide after his return to the Yankees. At the 2008 All-Star Game, Major League Baseball welcomed all living Hall of Famers onto the field for a pregame ceremony. The catchers were introduced last. And the last catcher announced was Yogi Berra. Later that season, as baseball and the Yankees said goodbye to the old Stadium, Yogi wore his uniform one last time and stood at home plate waving to an adoring crowd.
What most people remember about that final game was Derek Jeter's speech at the end. Evidently, that was Yogi's idea. It was supposed to be him, but he convinced Jeter to do it instead. Whether that story's true or not is irrelevant. Because Jeter giving the speech was the right call, and he nailed it. That final night at the House that Ruth Built couldn't have been more perfect.
After I went to see the Broadway play Bronx Bombers, where Yogi Berra is the main character, I argued that Yogi Berra was the only person they could make the main character and have the story make any semblance of sense. The final scene of that play takes place in the Yankees clubhouse on that night. It's just Yogi and Jeter. It's perfect. Because Yogi's relationship with Jeter was something special.
Everyone who knew Yogi Berra had their own humorous Yogi story, and a lot of them were shared yesterday. Ron Guidry called in to YES during the Yankees-Blue Jays game last night and talked about all the times he picked Yogi up from the airport during Spring Training. One time, Yogi was coming back from filming an AFLAC commercial and said to Guidry, "You know, that duck doesn't really talk." Ken Singleton then shared his Yogi story. So did Al Leiter. In the studio, Jack Curry told a story about Yogi giving directions back from somewhere, which were the exact reverse of the way they had gone there. When that was pointed out to Yogi, he replied, "I told you my way was faster."
It's probably that quote and the many others like it that made Yogi Berra so well known. Some have said that he's the most quoted figure of the 20th Century that wasn't a U.S. president. One of his most famous lines is, "I never said half the things I said." Well, according to Mets announcer Gary Cohen, that might actually be true. Yogi grew up on the same street in St. Louis as Joe Garagiola, who went on to a long broadcasting career. It's possible that Garagiola might've embellished some of these stories a little bit (or made them up entirely), so Yogi might actually be credited with "saying" things that he never actually said. To me, that doesn't matter. They'll always be Yogisms. (Between Yogi Berra and Casey Stengel, I don't know how anyone understood a single word that was said in the Yankees clubhouse during the 1950s.)
He became such a lovable figure later in life, that it's easy to forget Yogi Berra was a damn good ballplayer. He won three MVPs and got MVP votes a whopping 15 years in a row, led the Yankees in RBIs eight consecutive years at a time when they had Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle, and made the All-Star team 18 times. Then there are the World Series records that will never be touched: 75 games and 10 rings.
So much more than a Hall of Fame ballplayer, Yogi Berra is one of the most famous figures in all of American history. He was beloved by all, and his absence will definitely be felt by anyone he ever came in contact with (and those he didn't).
His most famous quote has got to be, "It ain't over til it's over." Well, I guess it's over. Goodbye, Yogi. You'll never be forgotten.
Yogi Berra was the link between the eras. His rookie year was 1946, when Joe DiMaggio was still the big man on campus. His prime coincided with the rise of the dynasty in the 1950s, when Mickey Mantle became the team's larger-than-life figure. Then in the 60s, he became the manager--and won the pennant in his first full season, 1964. After winning another pennant across town as manager of the Mets, he was the straight man during the Billy Martin-Reggie Jackson circus that was the Bronx Zoo era of the 1970s.
Despite a career spent seemingly entirely in pinstripes, Yogi stayed away for 15 years due to a long-running feud between him and George Steinbrenner. It started when Steinbrenner fired Yogi as manager 15 games into the 1984 season (despite promising he wouldn't) and didn't end until 1998, when Steinbrenner personally apologized to Yogi. From then on, Yogi Berra was once again a constant at Yankee Stadium, and we were all the better for it.
The timing of his return to the Yankees couldn't have been more perfect. Up until that time, it was always Joe DiMaggio who threw out the first pitch on Opening Day and was introduced last on Old-Timer's Day. Whenever DiMaggio was at the ballpark, you knew it was a big event. Joe DiMaggio died in January of 1999. Who threw out the first pitch on Opening Day that year? Yogi Berra. All had been forgiven. Yogi was back where he belonged. For the next 15 years, he'd be that guy. He took over that role from DiMaggio, and was the perfect man to do it. Despite the fact that Yogi was a little man, those are big shoes to fill.
And of course, Yogi had another something special up his sleeve. On July 18, 1999, the Yankees welcomed him back by celebrating "Yogi Berra Day" at the old Stadium. On that day, Don Larsen threw out the first pitch and Yogi caught it, recreating the scene of one of the iconic moments in all of baseball history--Larsen's perfect game in the 1956 World Series. So what happened on "Yogi Berra Day?" David Cone threw a perfect game against the Expos. What else?
That was one of the many special memories Yogi Berra would provide after his return to the Yankees. At the 2008 All-Star Game, Major League Baseball welcomed all living Hall of Famers onto the field for a pregame ceremony. The catchers were introduced last. And the last catcher announced was Yogi Berra. Later that season, as baseball and the Yankees said goodbye to the old Stadium, Yogi wore his uniform one last time and stood at home plate waving to an adoring crowd.
What most people remember about that final game was Derek Jeter's speech at the end. Evidently, that was Yogi's idea. It was supposed to be him, but he convinced Jeter to do it instead. Whether that story's true or not is irrelevant. Because Jeter giving the speech was the right call, and he nailed it. That final night at the House that Ruth Built couldn't have been more perfect.
After I went to see the Broadway play Bronx Bombers, where Yogi Berra is the main character, I argued that Yogi Berra was the only person they could make the main character and have the story make any semblance of sense. The final scene of that play takes place in the Yankees clubhouse on that night. It's just Yogi and Jeter. It's perfect. Because Yogi's relationship with Jeter was something special.
Everyone who knew Yogi Berra had their own humorous Yogi story, and a lot of them were shared yesterday. Ron Guidry called in to YES during the Yankees-Blue Jays game last night and talked about all the times he picked Yogi up from the airport during Spring Training. One time, Yogi was coming back from filming an AFLAC commercial and said to Guidry, "You know, that duck doesn't really talk." Ken Singleton then shared his Yogi story. So did Al Leiter. In the studio, Jack Curry told a story about Yogi giving directions back from somewhere, which were the exact reverse of the way they had gone there. When that was pointed out to Yogi, he replied, "I told you my way was faster."
It's probably that quote and the many others like it that made Yogi Berra so well known. Some have said that he's the most quoted figure of the 20th Century that wasn't a U.S. president. One of his most famous lines is, "I never said half the things I said." Well, according to Mets announcer Gary Cohen, that might actually be true. Yogi grew up on the same street in St. Louis as Joe Garagiola, who went on to a long broadcasting career. It's possible that Garagiola might've embellished some of these stories a little bit (or made them up entirely), so Yogi might actually be credited with "saying" things that he never actually said. To me, that doesn't matter. They'll always be Yogisms. (Between Yogi Berra and Casey Stengel, I don't know how anyone understood a single word that was said in the Yankees clubhouse during the 1950s.)
He became such a lovable figure later in life, that it's easy to forget Yogi Berra was a damn good ballplayer. He won three MVPs and got MVP votes a whopping 15 years in a row, led the Yankees in RBIs eight consecutive years at a time when they had Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle, and made the All-Star team 18 times. Then there are the World Series records that will never be touched: 75 games and 10 rings.
So much more than a Hall of Fame ballplayer, Yogi Berra is one of the most famous figures in all of American history. He was beloved by all, and his absence will definitely be felt by anyone he ever came in contact with (and those he didn't).
His most famous quote has got to be, "It ain't over til it's over." Well, I guess it's over. Goodbye, Yogi. You'll never be forgotten.
Monday, September 21, 2015
October Pitching Questions
Even though there's two weeks left in the regular season, Major League Baseball's playoff picture is becoming more and more clear. Especially in the National League, where the five teams have been set for like a month now. (No need to freak out Mets fans, you don't have the 2007-08 Phillies on your tail, you're not gonna blow it this time.)
But just because we know the teams, there are still plenty of questions that need to be asked and answered before the wonderfulness of October baseball gets underway. Most of them involving pitching. Everybody needs to figure out their rotations, while the makeup of the bullpens could make the difference between losing the Division Series (cough, Tigers, cough) and getting to the World Series (Royals).
Let's start with the inevitable NL Wild Card Game matchup between the Cubs and the Pirates. Chicago has arguably the National League's best pitcher over the second half in Jake Arrieta. But they also spent a lot of money on Jon Lester in the offseason basically for this moment. Lester's won a World Series in Boston and started last year's AL Wild Card Game for Oakland. At least they have the "problem" of choosing between their two aces, but what if they're not a position to use either (which seems unlikely given the standings)? Same thing with Pittsburgh. Do they line up Gerrit Cole, their best pitcher overall, or Francisco Liriano, their best pitcher recently, to start the one-game playoff?
It's a worthwhile question. Because not only are you choosing your starter for the Wild Card Game, you're choosing which starter would pitch twice in the Division Series. That's a decision the Dodgers have to make, too. I'm sure it doesn't really make a difference to LA if Greinke or Kershaw starts Game 1 against the Mets, but they made the wrong decision against the Cardinals two years in a row and paid for it. (Personally, I'd start Greinke in Game 1 and Kershaw in Game 2, but where they are in their rotation might have a lot to do with it.) The Dodgers' real problem, though, is who's going to be their third starter? And do they only use three so that Greinke and Kershaw can both possibly start twice (leaving neither available for Game 1 of the NLCS)?
As for the Dodgers' opponent, the Mets have a problem that every team would love to have. They currently use a six-man rotation. They have to cut it down to four. Maybe the Matt Harvey innings thing (which is a situation I'm sure they didn't expect themselves to be in when Harvey was going eight innings in April) will solve this problem for them. But Harvey says he's ready to go for the postseason and Terry Collins has said he'll make at least one start, so that means he's in for the Division Series. You'd have to think Jacob de Grom, the Mets' second-best pitcher, is a lock, too. So is Bartolo Colon. He's developed a cult following and is the only Mets starter with playoff experience. Have to use him. So, that leaves Noah Syndergaard, Steven Matz and Jon Niese for one rotation spot. It's probably safe to say Niese is headed to the bullpen. The choice between Syndergaard and Matz isn't an easy one, but Syndergaard has proven himself all year, so you'd figure he'll get the opportunity.
Whoever gets home field for the Mets-Dodgers series could dictate a lot of things, too. Greinke and Kershaw are starting Games 1 & 2 in whatever order. Whether they're at Dodger Stadium or Citi Field doesn't matter. But for the Mets, that could be huge. Knowing that neither is pitching Game 3, do you hold Harvey back in case you're down 0-2? Likewise, Syndergaard is a much better pitcher at home. Do you set it up for him to pitch in Citi Field? If they end up tied, the Mets get home field since they won the season series 4-3. But if the Dodgers do get home field, I'd set up the Mets rotation like this: Games 1/5-Colon, Game 2-de Grom, Game 3-Harvey, Game 4-Syndergaard. If the series starts in New York, though, I'd go: Games 1/5-de Grom, Game 2-Syndergaard, Game 3-Harvey, Game 4-Colon.
Over in the American League, things are a little more unsettled. I'm confident in saying the Royals, Blue Jays and Yankees are in, but I've got no idea what's gonna happen in the AL West. If Houston ends up in the Wild Card Game, you'd assume they want Dallas Keuchel to start it if possible. Same thing with the Rangers and Cole Hamels. That's the reason they got him. Minnesota and the Angels, though? Beats me.
I say Houston would like to start Keuchel and Texas would like to start Hamels with the caveat that only one of them is going to end up in the Wild Card Game. And this division's gonna go down to the last day, so neither one will be able to hold a pitcher back for the potential one-game playoff. Should it get to the situation that Keuchel and Hamels are both unavailable, Houston would probably be in better shape for the Wild Card Game since they could start either Collin McHugh or Scott Kazmir. If Texas goes into Yankee Stadium with somebody other than Cole Hamels pitching, they'd better hope their hitters bring their bats.
The Yankees, of course, would prefer to have Masahiro Tanaka start the Wild Card Game (or, at the very worst, Michael Pineda). But Tanaka's missing his start on Wednesday in Toronto because he strained his hamstring running the bases on Friday. For the Yankees, it would almost be a good thing if the Blue Jays clinch the division earlier. That way they can set up Tanaka to pitch in the Wild Card Game, even if it means skipping his final regular-season start. And if the Yankees do win the Wild Card Game, the rotation for the Division Series seems to have settled itself out: Tanaka, Pineda, Sabathia and Severino.
Toronto, meanwhile, has a similar problem to the Yankees' crosstown neighbors. After David Price, who are their starters going to be? Assuming Drew Hutchison (who started on Opening Day, mind you) gets sent to the bullpen, they still have to choose three of their remaining four starters. Toronto loves Marcus Stroman, but he only just came back from a torn ACL and will have made about five starts before the postseason. He's looked great so far (but what Blue Jays pitcher hasn't looked great against the Yankees this season?), but, as much as you love him, how much can you count on Stroman to start in the playoffs? The Blue Jays have shrewdly kept Mark Buehrle from pitching against the Yankees this year, so I haven't seen that much of him, but he won a ring with the White Sox and is one of the few players on that team with any playoff experience. I say you've gotta start him. I'd leave Game 4 as TBA between R.A. Dickey and Marco Estrada, but if I were John Gibbons, I'd be leaning towards Estrada making that start. That also leaves open the possibility of Price on three-days' rest if need-be.
Two weeks is a lot of time in a baseball season. A lot can still change. And a lot of this stuff will probably sort itself out as divisions are clinched and teams set themselves up for the postseason. Hopefully not, but an injury may derail plans, too.
All I know is that if I'm this excited for playoff baseball now, imagine how I'll be come October!
But just because we know the teams, there are still plenty of questions that need to be asked and answered before the wonderfulness of October baseball gets underway. Most of them involving pitching. Everybody needs to figure out their rotations, while the makeup of the bullpens could make the difference between losing the Division Series (cough, Tigers, cough) and getting to the World Series (Royals).
Let's start with the inevitable NL Wild Card Game matchup between the Cubs and the Pirates. Chicago has arguably the National League's best pitcher over the second half in Jake Arrieta. But they also spent a lot of money on Jon Lester in the offseason basically for this moment. Lester's won a World Series in Boston and started last year's AL Wild Card Game for Oakland. At least they have the "problem" of choosing between their two aces, but what if they're not a position to use either (which seems unlikely given the standings)? Same thing with Pittsburgh. Do they line up Gerrit Cole, their best pitcher overall, or Francisco Liriano, their best pitcher recently, to start the one-game playoff?
It's a worthwhile question. Because not only are you choosing your starter for the Wild Card Game, you're choosing which starter would pitch twice in the Division Series. That's a decision the Dodgers have to make, too. I'm sure it doesn't really make a difference to LA if Greinke or Kershaw starts Game 1 against the Mets, but they made the wrong decision against the Cardinals two years in a row and paid for it. (Personally, I'd start Greinke in Game 1 and Kershaw in Game 2, but where they are in their rotation might have a lot to do with it.) The Dodgers' real problem, though, is who's going to be their third starter? And do they only use three so that Greinke and Kershaw can both possibly start twice (leaving neither available for Game 1 of the NLCS)?
As for the Dodgers' opponent, the Mets have a problem that every team would love to have. They currently use a six-man rotation. They have to cut it down to four. Maybe the Matt Harvey innings thing (which is a situation I'm sure they didn't expect themselves to be in when Harvey was going eight innings in April) will solve this problem for them. But Harvey says he's ready to go for the postseason and Terry Collins has said he'll make at least one start, so that means he's in for the Division Series. You'd have to think Jacob de Grom, the Mets' second-best pitcher, is a lock, too. So is Bartolo Colon. He's developed a cult following and is the only Mets starter with playoff experience. Have to use him. So, that leaves Noah Syndergaard, Steven Matz and Jon Niese for one rotation spot. It's probably safe to say Niese is headed to the bullpen. The choice between Syndergaard and Matz isn't an easy one, but Syndergaard has proven himself all year, so you'd figure he'll get the opportunity.
Whoever gets home field for the Mets-Dodgers series could dictate a lot of things, too. Greinke and Kershaw are starting Games 1 & 2 in whatever order. Whether they're at Dodger Stadium or Citi Field doesn't matter. But for the Mets, that could be huge. Knowing that neither is pitching Game 3, do you hold Harvey back in case you're down 0-2? Likewise, Syndergaard is a much better pitcher at home. Do you set it up for him to pitch in Citi Field? If they end up tied, the Mets get home field since they won the season series 4-3. But if the Dodgers do get home field, I'd set up the Mets rotation like this: Games 1/5-Colon, Game 2-de Grom, Game 3-Harvey, Game 4-Syndergaard. If the series starts in New York, though, I'd go: Games 1/5-de Grom, Game 2-Syndergaard, Game 3-Harvey, Game 4-Colon.
Over in the American League, things are a little more unsettled. I'm confident in saying the Royals, Blue Jays and Yankees are in, but I've got no idea what's gonna happen in the AL West. If Houston ends up in the Wild Card Game, you'd assume they want Dallas Keuchel to start it if possible. Same thing with the Rangers and Cole Hamels. That's the reason they got him. Minnesota and the Angels, though? Beats me.
I say Houston would like to start Keuchel and Texas would like to start Hamels with the caveat that only one of them is going to end up in the Wild Card Game. And this division's gonna go down to the last day, so neither one will be able to hold a pitcher back for the potential one-game playoff. Should it get to the situation that Keuchel and Hamels are both unavailable, Houston would probably be in better shape for the Wild Card Game since they could start either Collin McHugh or Scott Kazmir. If Texas goes into Yankee Stadium with somebody other than Cole Hamels pitching, they'd better hope their hitters bring their bats.
The Yankees, of course, would prefer to have Masahiro Tanaka start the Wild Card Game (or, at the very worst, Michael Pineda). But Tanaka's missing his start on Wednesday in Toronto because he strained his hamstring running the bases on Friday. For the Yankees, it would almost be a good thing if the Blue Jays clinch the division earlier. That way they can set up Tanaka to pitch in the Wild Card Game, even if it means skipping his final regular-season start. And if the Yankees do win the Wild Card Game, the rotation for the Division Series seems to have settled itself out: Tanaka, Pineda, Sabathia and Severino.
Toronto, meanwhile, has a similar problem to the Yankees' crosstown neighbors. After David Price, who are their starters going to be? Assuming Drew Hutchison (who started on Opening Day, mind you) gets sent to the bullpen, they still have to choose three of their remaining four starters. Toronto loves Marcus Stroman, but he only just came back from a torn ACL and will have made about five starts before the postseason. He's looked great so far (but what Blue Jays pitcher hasn't looked great against the Yankees this season?), but, as much as you love him, how much can you count on Stroman to start in the playoffs? The Blue Jays have shrewdly kept Mark Buehrle from pitching against the Yankees this year, so I haven't seen that much of him, but he won a ring with the White Sox and is one of the few players on that team with any playoff experience. I say you've gotta start him. I'd leave Game 4 as TBA between R.A. Dickey and Marco Estrada, but if I were John Gibbons, I'd be leaning towards Estrada making that start. That also leaves open the possibility of Price on three-days' rest if need-be.
Two weeks is a lot of time in a baseball season. A lot can still change. And a lot of this stuff will probably sort itself out as divisions are clinched and teams set themselves up for the postseason. Hopefully not, but an injury may derail plans, too.
All I know is that if I'm this excited for playoff baseball now, imagine how I'll be come October!
Sunday, September 20, 2015
2015 Football Picks, Week 2
Yes, I'm kinda late on releasing this week's football picks. It's a long story. But here we go with Week 2...
Thursday Night: Denver (Win)
Patriots (1-0) at Bills (1-0): New England-When there was still uncertainty about whether or not Tom Brady was going to play in the first four games, this one was tabbed as a potential New England loss without him. And it's understandable why. Because the Bills looked mighty impressive last week against the Colts. I also think it's hilarious that the Bills stirred the pot by having a sale on air pumps and putting them right in the front at the team store. Except adding fuel to the Patriots' fire isn't necessarily a good thing. It'll be close, but the Bills will become the first AFC East team to lose this season.
Cardinals (1-0) at Bears (0-1): Arizona-The Bears weren't as bad as I thought they'd be against the Packers last week. The Cardinals, meanwhile, had an impressive win over the Saints. I forgot that Arizona is a different team with Carson Palmer.We'll see how they do on the road this week. I've got confidence, though.
Chargers (1-0) at Bengals (1-0): Cincinnati-Was there any team more impressive last week than Cincinnati? Sure, they were playing the Raiders, but the Bengals went on the road (to a place they hadn't won in a long time) and were completely dominant. Now they head home to take on a San Diego team that has traditionally had trouble with 1:00 starts.
Titans (1-0) at Browns (0-1): Tennessee-Marcus Mariota had quite a debut, didn't he? We obviously can't put him in the Hall of Fame yet, but he was certainly as good as advertised, and there's no question who won the battle of No. 1 vs. No. 2. The 2014 Heisman winner knocked of 2013 Heisman winner Jamies Winston in Week 1. Now he gets Johnny Overrated, the 2012 winner, and the Browns in Week 2. Cleveland's not a good team, and Manziel at quarterback doesn't make them better. I think the Titans equal their entire 2014 win total in Week 2.
Lions (0-1) at Vikings (0-1): Minnesota-Neither team's trip to California went well. But, the Lions at least had something resembling an offense in San Diego. Minnesota was tabbed as a sleeper playoff team with Teddy Bridgewater and the return of Adrian Peterson. Where were they in San Francisco? Three points! For an offense with Adrian Peterson! Pathetic! Like I said last week, the Vikings are gonna need to make me believe. Regardless, I do think they get a home win here.
Buccaneers (0-1) at Saints (0-1): New Orleans-Famous Jamies hits the road for the first time and will have to be significantly better than he was in Week 1. Problem is, the Saints are really good at home. New Orleans wins it.
Falcons (1-0) at Giants (0-1): Giants-So, as it turns out, Eli Manning isn't the best at late game clock management. Either that or math. Because of their quarterback's stupidity, the Giants would up losing a game they had no business winning in the first place, but were certainly in position to. They absolutely need to rebound against the Falcons in the home opener, or this could end up being a long season at the Meadowlands.
49ers (1-0) at Steelers (0-1): Pittsburgh-It seems like Pittsburgh hasn't played all season, doesn't it? Last Thursday was so long ago. The 49ers, meanwhile, played the second game on Monday night and now have to fly cross-country for an early game against a good Steelers team. All of that amounts to a Steelers win.
Rams (1-0) at Redskins (0-1): St. Louis-Of all the surprising results last week (and there weren't many), I think St. Louis over Seattle is probably the one that caught people off guard the most. Not me. I had a feeling the Rams would keep that one tight, so it wasn't totally out of the blue to see them win that. St. Louis has a chance to go 2-0 against a Washington team that still needs to figure a lot of things out. Nick Foles' experience playing the Redskins when he was with the Eagles will pay off here, too.
Texans (0-1) at Panthers (1-0): Houston-This is officially the hardest game of the week to pick. The Texans outplayed last week against Kansas City, especially early. That's why the Chiefs went into Houston and got a win. The Panthers, meanwhile, beat Jacksonville. They're gonna have to show me more. The Texans will be more prepared this week and the Panthers will be out of whack defensively without Kuechly. As a result, I like Houston in this one.
Ravens (0-1) at Raiders (0-1): Baltimore-Does anyone actually think the Raiders will beat the Ravens? No. I didn't think so. And you can't even use the back-to-back trips west as a reason why Oakland might pull the upset. Because the Ravens stayed out west after their game in Denver and trained in San Jose all week.
Dolphins (1-0) at Jaguars (0-1): Miami-Florida has one NFL team, one quasi-NFL team, and one glorified college team. The NFL team plays the glorified college team this week. Which one do you think will win? The AFC East ain't getting its first non-division loss here.
Cowboys (1-0) at Eagles (0-1): Dallas-Oh man, you've got Dallas, which was lucky to escape last week in a game they tried to hand to the Giants, but Eli insisted they take back. And you've got Philadelphia, which is in the opposite situation. The Eagles lost to a Falcons team they're probably better than, and now face the prospect of falling to 0-2. Despite the loss of Dez Bryant essentially for the year, Dallas has the weapons to make-do without him. They went undefeated on the road last year too (well, until that playoff game in Green Bay). That's the main reason why I'm going with the Cowboys.
Seahawks (0-1) at Packers (1-0): Green Bay-A rematch of last year's NFC Championship Game that suddenly has a lot more urgency for Seattle after that Week 1 loss in St. Louis. The Seahawks obviously don't want to go home 0-2, but that possibility is staring them directly in the face. You think the Packers forget the NFC title game? They've got their chance for revenge, and they're gonna take it. A win here could be big come January.
Jets (1-0) at Colts (0-1): Indianapolis-In this week's Super Bowl rematch, we go back to one of the greatest upsets in Super Bowl history, the 3rd edition with Joe Namath's guarantee. The modern-day Jets and Colts come in here with very different Week 1 experiences. The Jets played Cleveland at home, which was virtually a guaranteed win. The Colts went into Buffalo expecting a victory, but were punched in the gut by Rex Ryan's new-look Bills. The Indianapolis offense will definitely recover at home, and this will be a real test to see how good the Jets actually are. Indy can afford 0-2 more than some other leading Super Bowl contenders, but they're not gonna have to worry about it.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-5
Season: 12-5
Thursday Night: Denver (Win)
Patriots (1-0) at Bills (1-0): New England-When there was still uncertainty about whether or not Tom Brady was going to play in the first four games, this one was tabbed as a potential New England loss without him. And it's understandable why. Because the Bills looked mighty impressive last week against the Colts. I also think it's hilarious that the Bills stirred the pot by having a sale on air pumps and putting them right in the front at the team store. Except adding fuel to the Patriots' fire isn't necessarily a good thing. It'll be close, but the Bills will become the first AFC East team to lose this season.
Cardinals (1-0) at Bears (0-1): Arizona-The Bears weren't as bad as I thought they'd be against the Packers last week. The Cardinals, meanwhile, had an impressive win over the Saints. I forgot that Arizona is a different team with Carson Palmer.We'll see how they do on the road this week. I've got confidence, though.
Chargers (1-0) at Bengals (1-0): Cincinnati-Was there any team more impressive last week than Cincinnati? Sure, they were playing the Raiders, but the Bengals went on the road (to a place they hadn't won in a long time) and were completely dominant. Now they head home to take on a San Diego team that has traditionally had trouble with 1:00 starts.
Titans (1-0) at Browns (0-1): Tennessee-Marcus Mariota had quite a debut, didn't he? We obviously can't put him in the Hall of Fame yet, but he was certainly as good as advertised, and there's no question who won the battle of No. 1 vs. No. 2. The 2014 Heisman winner knocked of 2013 Heisman winner Jamies Winston in Week 1. Now he gets Johnny Overrated, the 2012 winner, and the Browns in Week 2. Cleveland's not a good team, and Manziel at quarterback doesn't make them better. I think the Titans equal their entire 2014 win total in Week 2.
Lions (0-1) at Vikings (0-1): Minnesota-Neither team's trip to California went well. But, the Lions at least had something resembling an offense in San Diego. Minnesota was tabbed as a sleeper playoff team with Teddy Bridgewater and the return of Adrian Peterson. Where were they in San Francisco? Three points! For an offense with Adrian Peterson! Pathetic! Like I said last week, the Vikings are gonna need to make me believe. Regardless, I do think they get a home win here.
Buccaneers (0-1) at Saints (0-1): New Orleans-Famous Jamies hits the road for the first time and will have to be significantly better than he was in Week 1. Problem is, the Saints are really good at home. New Orleans wins it.
Falcons (1-0) at Giants (0-1): Giants-So, as it turns out, Eli Manning isn't the best at late game clock management. Either that or math. Because of their quarterback's stupidity, the Giants would up losing a game they had no business winning in the first place, but were certainly in position to. They absolutely need to rebound against the Falcons in the home opener, or this could end up being a long season at the Meadowlands.
49ers (1-0) at Steelers (0-1): Pittsburgh-It seems like Pittsburgh hasn't played all season, doesn't it? Last Thursday was so long ago. The 49ers, meanwhile, played the second game on Monday night and now have to fly cross-country for an early game against a good Steelers team. All of that amounts to a Steelers win.
Rams (1-0) at Redskins (0-1): St. Louis-Of all the surprising results last week (and there weren't many), I think St. Louis over Seattle is probably the one that caught people off guard the most. Not me. I had a feeling the Rams would keep that one tight, so it wasn't totally out of the blue to see them win that. St. Louis has a chance to go 2-0 against a Washington team that still needs to figure a lot of things out. Nick Foles' experience playing the Redskins when he was with the Eagles will pay off here, too.
Texans (0-1) at Panthers (1-0): Houston-This is officially the hardest game of the week to pick. The Texans outplayed last week against Kansas City, especially early. That's why the Chiefs went into Houston and got a win. The Panthers, meanwhile, beat Jacksonville. They're gonna have to show me more. The Texans will be more prepared this week and the Panthers will be out of whack defensively without Kuechly. As a result, I like Houston in this one.
Ravens (0-1) at Raiders (0-1): Baltimore-Does anyone actually think the Raiders will beat the Ravens? No. I didn't think so. And you can't even use the back-to-back trips west as a reason why Oakland might pull the upset. Because the Ravens stayed out west after their game in Denver and trained in San Jose all week.
Dolphins (1-0) at Jaguars (0-1): Miami-Florida has one NFL team, one quasi-NFL team, and one glorified college team. The NFL team plays the glorified college team this week. Which one do you think will win? The AFC East ain't getting its first non-division loss here.
Cowboys (1-0) at Eagles (0-1): Dallas-Oh man, you've got Dallas, which was lucky to escape last week in a game they tried to hand to the Giants, but Eli insisted they take back. And you've got Philadelphia, which is in the opposite situation. The Eagles lost to a Falcons team they're probably better than, and now face the prospect of falling to 0-2. Despite the loss of Dez Bryant essentially for the year, Dallas has the weapons to make-do without him. They went undefeated on the road last year too (well, until that playoff game in Green Bay). That's the main reason why I'm going with the Cowboys.
Seahawks (0-1) at Packers (1-0): Green Bay-A rematch of last year's NFC Championship Game that suddenly has a lot more urgency for Seattle after that Week 1 loss in St. Louis. The Seahawks obviously don't want to go home 0-2, but that possibility is staring them directly in the face. You think the Packers forget the NFC title game? They've got their chance for revenge, and they're gonna take it. A win here could be big come January.
Jets (1-0) at Colts (0-1): Indianapolis-In this week's Super Bowl rematch, we go back to one of the greatest upsets in Super Bowl history, the 3rd edition with Joe Namath's guarantee. The modern-day Jets and Colts come in here with very different Week 1 experiences. The Jets played Cleveland at home, which was virtually a guaranteed win. The Colts went into Buffalo expecting a victory, but were punched in the gut by Rex Ryan's new-look Bills. The Indianapolis offense will definitely recover at home, and this will be a real test to see how good the Jets actually are. Indy can afford 0-2 more than some other leading Super Bowl contenders, but they're not gonna have to worry about it.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-5
Season: 12-5
Friday, September 18, 2015
Yankees Town? Mets Town? Baseball Town!
When Major League Baseball's schedule makers decided that the second half of this year's Subway Series wouldn't take place until mid-September, there's no way they could've known how big it would actually be for both teams. The Mets aren't just in first place, they're running away with the NL East. The Yankees, meanwhile, currently hold the first AL wild card and are trying to catch the first-place Blue Jays in the AL East.
It's been a while since they were both good this late in the season. They've only both made the playoffs in the same year three times, of course famously meeting in the 2000 World Series. The last time was in 2006, when the Yankees lost to the Tigers in the ALDS and the Mets lost in seven to the Cardinals in the NLCS. This year certainly looks like it'll be the fourth time New York has had both of its current baseball teams playing in October.
All of this has led to the inevitable back-and-forth between the fans of each team claiming this is either a "Mets town" or a "Yankees town." Since they're never good at the same time (except in 1999-2000), it definitely seems like one is favored more, then it flips and the other is more popular. The truth is somewhere in the middle, though. In a city of 8 million people, there's plenty of room for two teams.
I'm sure this will probably be taken with a grain of salt because my Yankee fandom is well-advertised, but even the most die-hard Mets fan would have a hard time convincing a neutral observer that the National League side is New York's more popular team. I doubt they would even believe that themselves. Which is not meant as a knock on the Mets at all. Fans of the A's and Angels would undoubtedly have to make the same concession, although don't tell White Sox fans that Chicago loves the Cubs more (even though it's true).
The Yankees are the most successful team in the history of North American professional sports. They're also probably the most famous. Their history goes back more than a century, and seemingly every legendary figure ever to play baseball wore Yankee pinstripes. The Yankees have been in families for generations. And their fanbase isn't just limited to New York. What team leads the Majors in road attendance every year? The Yankees. Their fans are everywhere.
And let's not forget, it was the Yankees' popularity in the '50s that drove the Giants and Dodgers out of town. The Mets only came into existence as a replacement for the two National League teams that left. They have fans, a lot of whom they inherited from the Giants and Dodgers, that go back to that original team in 1962, so there are plenty of people who've been Mets fans for a long time, too. (There are probably some people who can still remember the Mets' first-ever game, while it's impossible for anybody living to have been a Yankees fan from the beginning.)
Even things like attendance and TV ratings suggest that the Yankees are the bigger draw. Yankee Stadium is larger than Citi Field and is usually full or pretty close to it. The Yankees normally lead or rank near the top of the American League in attendance. Same thing with their ratings on YES. Both of those figures blow the Mets' numbers out of the water. The attendance at Citi Field and ratings on SNY this season are the best they've been in years. Not coincidentally, they both went up once the Mets started winning.
Don't get me wrong. None of this is meant to say "the Yankees are better than the Mets" or "Yankees fans are better than Mets fans," They're just numbers. Numbers which seemingly prove that, on the surface, the Yankees are the more popular team. Again, this isn't a knock on the Mets. New York is a town with two teams for a reason. It's only natural that one's going to be more popular than the other. The Mets know it. And you know what, they're fine with it. The Giants are more popular than the Jets and the Rangers are more popular than the Islanders, too. That's just the way it is. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Personally, I think all of this is great. I'm probably in the minority among Yankees fans, but I don't dislike the Mets. When they're not playing the Yankees, I want them to do well, and I enjoy it when they do. It's so much better when the Mets are good and their fans show passion. You know something else? They're fun to watch, too. I've bought in on these 2015 Mets. And that doesn't make me any less of a Yankees fan, either.
What all of this proves is that Yankees, Mets, it doesn't matter. New York is a BASEBALL town. And it's great. All three games this weekend have been sold out for weeks, and the cheapest ticket you can get on StubHub is $50 for standing-room only (for an actual seat you're looking at $60 or more). The atmosphere at Citi Field is going to be awesome all weekend.
There's no need for Yankees fans and Mets fans to argue over which one is New York's "team." Because they both are. This season has proven that.
It's been a while since they were both good this late in the season. They've only both made the playoffs in the same year three times, of course famously meeting in the 2000 World Series. The last time was in 2006, when the Yankees lost to the Tigers in the ALDS and the Mets lost in seven to the Cardinals in the NLCS. This year certainly looks like it'll be the fourth time New York has had both of its current baseball teams playing in October.
All of this has led to the inevitable back-and-forth between the fans of each team claiming this is either a "Mets town" or a "Yankees town." Since they're never good at the same time (except in 1999-2000), it definitely seems like one is favored more, then it flips and the other is more popular. The truth is somewhere in the middle, though. In a city of 8 million people, there's plenty of room for two teams.
I'm sure this will probably be taken with a grain of salt because my Yankee fandom is well-advertised, but even the most die-hard Mets fan would have a hard time convincing a neutral observer that the National League side is New York's more popular team. I doubt they would even believe that themselves. Which is not meant as a knock on the Mets at all. Fans of the A's and Angels would undoubtedly have to make the same concession, although don't tell White Sox fans that Chicago loves the Cubs more (even though it's true).
The Yankees are the most successful team in the history of North American professional sports. They're also probably the most famous. Their history goes back more than a century, and seemingly every legendary figure ever to play baseball wore Yankee pinstripes. The Yankees have been in families for generations. And their fanbase isn't just limited to New York. What team leads the Majors in road attendance every year? The Yankees. Their fans are everywhere.
And let's not forget, it was the Yankees' popularity in the '50s that drove the Giants and Dodgers out of town. The Mets only came into existence as a replacement for the two National League teams that left. They have fans, a lot of whom they inherited from the Giants and Dodgers, that go back to that original team in 1962, so there are plenty of people who've been Mets fans for a long time, too. (There are probably some people who can still remember the Mets' first-ever game, while it's impossible for anybody living to have been a Yankees fan from the beginning.)
Even things like attendance and TV ratings suggest that the Yankees are the bigger draw. Yankee Stadium is larger than Citi Field and is usually full or pretty close to it. The Yankees normally lead or rank near the top of the American League in attendance. Same thing with their ratings on YES. Both of those figures blow the Mets' numbers out of the water. The attendance at Citi Field and ratings on SNY this season are the best they've been in years. Not coincidentally, they both went up once the Mets started winning.
Don't get me wrong. None of this is meant to say "the Yankees are better than the Mets" or "Yankees fans are better than Mets fans," They're just numbers. Numbers which seemingly prove that, on the surface, the Yankees are the more popular team. Again, this isn't a knock on the Mets. New York is a town with two teams for a reason. It's only natural that one's going to be more popular than the other. The Mets know it. And you know what, they're fine with it. The Giants are more popular than the Jets and the Rangers are more popular than the Islanders, too. That's just the way it is. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Personally, I think all of this is great. I'm probably in the minority among Yankees fans, but I don't dislike the Mets. When they're not playing the Yankees, I want them to do well, and I enjoy it when they do. It's so much better when the Mets are good and their fans show passion. You know something else? They're fun to watch, too. I've bought in on these 2015 Mets. And that doesn't make me any less of a Yankees fan, either.
What all of this proves is that Yankees, Mets, it doesn't matter. New York is a BASEBALL town. And it's great. All three games this weekend have been sold out for weeks, and the cheapest ticket you can get on StubHub is $50 for standing-room only (for an actual seat you're looking at $60 or more). The atmosphere at Citi Field is going to be awesome all weekend.
There's no need for Yankees fans and Mets fans to argue over which one is New York's "team." Because they both are. This season has proven that.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
2024's Final Five (Maybe Six)
As we celebrate the 15th anniversary of the Sydney Games (which still rank as my second-favorite Olympics of all-time, behind only London), today was an important day for the IOC for another reason. Today was the deadline for countries to submit their bids to host the 2024 Olympics, which will be the first bid process since the 2022 disaster, as well as the first held completely under the Agenda 2020 reforms. While the IOC won't confirm the official list until sometime on Wednesday, we know the five contenders. It's possible that there's a sixth that wasn't announced publicly ahead of time, but there's at least five for sure.
That list does not include Toronto. After the success of the Pan Am Games, many assumed Toronto was going to bid. The Canadian Olympic Committee had the letter to the IOC and the application fee ready to go. They were just waiting on Toronto Mayor John Tory to say "Yes," Except he didn't. Toronto's going to sit out the bidding for 2024, but hasn't ruled out doing so in the future. This just isn't the right time, Tory said.
Here's exactly what Tory said in the press conference announcing that Toronto wasn't going to enter the race: "I can't look people in the eye at this point in our city's development and tell them that an Olympic bid is the best use of our time, our energy, or our investment. Toronto can be an Olympic city; we are already a world-class city. I have no doubt, the Olympic Games is a significant opportunity that would put the eyes of the world on Toronto. I love this city, and I want nothing more than to show the world our spirit, our people, our strength and our values. And I believe that one day, Toronto will be a great venue for the Olympic Games. But not in 2024. I am not saying no to the Olympics. I am saying 'not this time.'"
This wasn't a Boston-like situation. There's support for the Olympics in Toronto. I'd suspect that we see a Toronto bid for 2028 or 2032. They've bid twice before, finishing third for 1996 and second for 2008, and they will again. But I actually think it was wise for Toronto to sit this one out. A leading Canadian Olympic official (the head of Toronto's 1996 bid) suspects that these Games will go to Europe. And I happen to agree with him. With the next two Olympics set for Rio and Tokyo, 2024 will be 12 years since the London Games. The gap between European Olympics has never been longer.
Olympic bid regular Istanbul is joining Toronto on the sidelines, and so is (presumably) Doha, although that's likely because Qatari officials know there's absolutely no chance the IOC will go to Asia four consecutive times. Likewise, 2024 won't be that long-awaited first Olympics in Africa. Durban, South Africa is hosting the 2022 Commonwealth Games, so they're focusing on that right now. Once South Africa bids, it will win (and they know it). We'll just have to wait until 2028 or 2032 for that African Olympics. Surprisingly, Madrid is also taking a pass. After finishing second, second, third in the last three Olympic races, the Spanish capital may just be taking a break while they gear up for another bid in the future.
Of the five cities we're left with, four of them are in Europe. Paris, Rome, Hamburg and Budapest are confirmed bidders, with Baku, Azerbaijan, which just hosted the inaugural European Games, as that wild card potential sixth bidder. The only outlier is Los Angeles, the American bid that the IOC wanted (and a better bid than Boston that, unlike its predecessor, actually has a chance of winning). It's the first time since LA ran unopposed for 1984 that there are no bids from outside Europe or the U.S. (Rio and Havana were cut before the final round for 2012), but that's OK. Because the IOC has quality bids from World cities. And, more importantly, they won't be going back to the same exact part of the world a fourth consecutive time. This race is exactly what they were looking for after the nightmare that was the 2022 bid process.
IOC President Thomas Bach has said that as part of the Agenda 2020 changes, there won't be a cut down and all cities that enter an Olympic bid race will be there until the finish line. While I don't think that would be entirely feasible if there were, say, eight or more bids, it's not relevant in this case, since four or five is generally the IOC's preferred number of finalists anyway.
On the surface, Budapest and Hamburg appear to be the long shots. Hungary is the only nation in the Top 10 on the all-time Olympic medal standings to have never hosted, which the Budapest organizers were sure to point out. Budapest has bid several times, but not since 1960. Now they're back in the mix against a strong field. They aren't going to win, but I think they know that. This is more about learning for the future.
Hamburg won a domestic race against Berlin and would have a very compact Games, which is definitely a great selling point. Like Budapest, Hamburg has never hosted either. And President Bach is German, so you know he likes having a German city in the running. However, public support is nowhere near the level it is in the other cities, and a public referendum is due in November that may end up killing the bid.
So, that leaves us with Rome, the 1960 host city, as well as two-time hosts Paris and Los Angeles. Rome was considered the favorites for 2020 before withdrawing in 2012 due to the Italian economic crisis. With that situation resolved, Rome was the first city to express interest for 2024. Rome has history on its side and will have one of the strongest bids. But Torino just hosted the Winter Games in 2006, so that may work against them.
I'm not alone in thinking Rome will probably finish third in this race. As the race begins, two long years before the host is chosen, the two front runners appear to be Paris and Los Angeles, which are both hoping to join London as the only three-time Olympic hosts. And they've both got plenty of things working in their favor. The 2024 Games will mark the 100th anniversary of the last time Paris hosted and many feel the city is due after several second-place finishes (in 2005, Paris lost to London by two votes for 2012). Many also feel the U.S. is due for a turn to host again, and LA just might be the city to end that 28-year gap since Atlanta.
Right now, Paris is the clubhouse favorite, but they don't want to hear it. They were the favorites for 2012, too, and those Games ended up in London. Paris has learned from its recent failed bids, though, and this time they've got a number of scenic venues planned to display one of the most beautiful cities on Earth in all its glory. In addition, hosting the Olympics has become a national priority for the French government. They want the Paris bid to finally succeed. It's almost a matter of national pride. I don't want to say Paris is arrogant enough to think they "deserve" these Games, but there are a lot of outside observers who feel that way. And if the IOC members (a majority of whom are European) want to go back to Europe, that certainly works in Paris's favor.
The main challenger Paris has to deal with will probably be Los Angeles, which will be celebrating an anniversary of its own in 2024. It'll be the 40th anniversary of the 1984 Games that many credit with saving the Olympic movement. What LA did in a span of a about three weeks after Boston dropped out is nothing short of remarkable. It takes months, if not years, to get an Olympic bid together, and they did it in a couple of weeks! The IOC made it clear they wanted a U.S. bid, and it would not have been good if Boston knocked out the U.S. completely. It'll be interesting to see how things work out after a strained relationship between the USOC and IOC led to the embarrassing defeats for New York 2012 and Chicago 2016. That relationship has been repaired and many in the Olympic community know they need the Olympics to return to the United States soon. And LA might be the best place for that to happen.
We're still two years away from finding out the host city of the 2024 Olympics, but this race already has the makings of an intriguing one. It's not quite the marquee field that we saw in the running for 2012 (where the finalists were Madrid and Moscow in addition to London, Paris and New York), but it's close. More importantly, it's what the IOC needed after nobody wanted to host the 2022 Winter Games.
In 2024, the Olympics will take place in either Europe or Los Angeles. The most wonderful thing, though, is that none of the five would be a bad host. They're all Olympic cities. Three of the five have been before. Only one can be again. We'll have to wait two years to find out who, though. For the five bid cities, it'll be two long years.
That list does not include Toronto. After the success of the Pan Am Games, many assumed Toronto was going to bid. The Canadian Olympic Committee had the letter to the IOC and the application fee ready to go. They were just waiting on Toronto Mayor John Tory to say "Yes," Except he didn't. Toronto's going to sit out the bidding for 2024, but hasn't ruled out doing so in the future. This just isn't the right time, Tory said.
Here's exactly what Tory said in the press conference announcing that Toronto wasn't going to enter the race: "I can't look people in the eye at this point in our city's development and tell them that an Olympic bid is the best use of our time, our energy, or our investment. Toronto can be an Olympic city; we are already a world-class city. I have no doubt, the Olympic Games is a significant opportunity that would put the eyes of the world on Toronto. I love this city, and I want nothing more than to show the world our spirit, our people, our strength and our values. And I believe that one day, Toronto will be a great venue for the Olympic Games. But not in 2024. I am not saying no to the Olympics. I am saying 'not this time.'"
This wasn't a Boston-like situation. There's support for the Olympics in Toronto. I'd suspect that we see a Toronto bid for 2028 or 2032. They've bid twice before, finishing third for 1996 and second for 2008, and they will again. But I actually think it was wise for Toronto to sit this one out. A leading Canadian Olympic official (the head of Toronto's 1996 bid) suspects that these Games will go to Europe. And I happen to agree with him. With the next two Olympics set for Rio and Tokyo, 2024 will be 12 years since the London Games. The gap between European Olympics has never been longer.
Olympic bid regular Istanbul is joining Toronto on the sidelines, and so is (presumably) Doha, although that's likely because Qatari officials know there's absolutely no chance the IOC will go to Asia four consecutive times. Likewise, 2024 won't be that long-awaited first Olympics in Africa. Durban, South Africa is hosting the 2022 Commonwealth Games, so they're focusing on that right now. Once South Africa bids, it will win (and they know it). We'll just have to wait until 2028 or 2032 for that African Olympics. Surprisingly, Madrid is also taking a pass. After finishing second, second, third in the last three Olympic races, the Spanish capital may just be taking a break while they gear up for another bid in the future.
Of the five cities we're left with, four of them are in Europe. Paris, Rome, Hamburg and Budapest are confirmed bidders, with Baku, Azerbaijan, which just hosted the inaugural European Games, as that wild card potential sixth bidder. The only outlier is Los Angeles, the American bid that the IOC wanted (and a better bid than Boston that, unlike its predecessor, actually has a chance of winning). It's the first time since LA ran unopposed for 1984 that there are no bids from outside Europe or the U.S. (Rio and Havana were cut before the final round for 2012), but that's OK. Because the IOC has quality bids from World cities. And, more importantly, they won't be going back to the same exact part of the world a fourth consecutive time. This race is exactly what they were looking for after the nightmare that was the 2022 bid process.
IOC President Thomas Bach has said that as part of the Agenda 2020 changes, there won't be a cut down and all cities that enter an Olympic bid race will be there until the finish line. While I don't think that would be entirely feasible if there were, say, eight or more bids, it's not relevant in this case, since four or five is generally the IOC's preferred number of finalists anyway.
On the surface, Budapest and Hamburg appear to be the long shots. Hungary is the only nation in the Top 10 on the all-time Olympic medal standings to have never hosted, which the Budapest organizers were sure to point out. Budapest has bid several times, but not since 1960. Now they're back in the mix against a strong field. They aren't going to win, but I think they know that. This is more about learning for the future.
Hamburg won a domestic race against Berlin and would have a very compact Games, which is definitely a great selling point. Like Budapest, Hamburg has never hosted either. And President Bach is German, so you know he likes having a German city in the running. However, public support is nowhere near the level it is in the other cities, and a public referendum is due in November that may end up killing the bid.
So, that leaves us with Rome, the 1960 host city, as well as two-time hosts Paris and Los Angeles. Rome was considered the favorites for 2020 before withdrawing in 2012 due to the Italian economic crisis. With that situation resolved, Rome was the first city to express interest for 2024. Rome has history on its side and will have one of the strongest bids. But Torino just hosted the Winter Games in 2006, so that may work against them.
I'm not alone in thinking Rome will probably finish third in this race. As the race begins, two long years before the host is chosen, the two front runners appear to be Paris and Los Angeles, which are both hoping to join London as the only three-time Olympic hosts. And they've both got plenty of things working in their favor. The 2024 Games will mark the 100th anniversary of the last time Paris hosted and many feel the city is due after several second-place finishes (in 2005, Paris lost to London by two votes for 2012). Many also feel the U.S. is due for a turn to host again, and LA just might be the city to end that 28-year gap since Atlanta.
Right now, Paris is the clubhouse favorite, but they don't want to hear it. They were the favorites for 2012, too, and those Games ended up in London. Paris has learned from its recent failed bids, though, and this time they've got a number of scenic venues planned to display one of the most beautiful cities on Earth in all its glory. In addition, hosting the Olympics has become a national priority for the French government. They want the Paris bid to finally succeed. It's almost a matter of national pride. I don't want to say Paris is arrogant enough to think they "deserve" these Games, but there are a lot of outside observers who feel that way. And if the IOC members (a majority of whom are European) want to go back to Europe, that certainly works in Paris's favor.
The main challenger Paris has to deal with will probably be Los Angeles, which will be celebrating an anniversary of its own in 2024. It'll be the 40th anniversary of the 1984 Games that many credit with saving the Olympic movement. What LA did in a span of a about three weeks after Boston dropped out is nothing short of remarkable. It takes months, if not years, to get an Olympic bid together, and they did it in a couple of weeks! The IOC made it clear they wanted a U.S. bid, and it would not have been good if Boston knocked out the U.S. completely. It'll be interesting to see how things work out after a strained relationship between the USOC and IOC led to the embarrassing defeats for New York 2012 and Chicago 2016. That relationship has been repaired and many in the Olympic community know they need the Olympics to return to the United States soon. And LA might be the best place for that to happen.
We're still two years away from finding out the host city of the 2024 Olympics, but this race already has the makings of an intriguing one. It's not quite the marquee field that we saw in the running for 2012 (where the finalists were Madrid and Moscow in addition to London, Paris and New York), but it's close. More importantly, it's what the IOC needed after nobody wanted to host the 2022 Winter Games.
In 2024, the Olympics will take place in either Europe or Los Angeles. The most wonderful thing, though, is that none of the five would be a bad host. They're all Olympic cities. Three of the five have been before. Only one can be again. We'll have to wait two years to find out who, though. For the five bid cities, it'll be two long years.
Monday, September 14, 2015
A Serena-Sized Upset
This year's US Open was all about Serena Williams. How much so? Instead of the tournament logo or some sort of artwork as is usually the case, the cover of the US Open program was a picture of Serena Williams. She was also on the cover of the draw sheet on opening night. And why not? Serena was attempting to make history.
Well, the story of the tournament turned out NOT to be her finishing off the first Grand Slam in 27 years. And it wasn't that Serena lost, either. It was when she lost and who she lost to. She was two wins away. She had just beaten Venus in the quarters, with unseeded Italian Roberta Vinci awaiting in the semis. She was going to cruise into the finals. Until she didn't. Vinci pulled off the massive upset, 6-4 in the third, ending the Grand Slam quest.
Vinci's win will go down as one of the biggest upsets in tennis history. The immediate conversation put it in Miracle On Ice or Giants-Patriots territory. While we're always prone to hyperbole in the moment, I'm not sure Roberta Vinci over Serena Williams in the US Open semifinals will automatically go in that same category. Tennis fans will remember it, sure, and it will certainly go down in the narrative of 2015: The Year In Sports. But five years from now, will it immediately come to mind in the same breath as those epic upsets of the past? I doubt it.
By its very nature, tennis is a sport prone to upsets. It's one-on-one and a bad day against a hot opponent can lead to unexpected results. Take last year's US Open, for example. Everyone expected the men's final to be Federer-Djokovic. Instead they both lost in the semis and the final was Marin Cilic vs. Kei Nishikori. Rafael Nadal has become notorious for losing early in Grand Slams. At the US Open it was Fabio Fognini. At Wimbledon it was Dustin Brown. Last year it was Nick Kyrgios. In 2013, Nadal lost to Steve Darcis in the 1st round before Federer lost to Sergiy Stakhovsky in the 2nd round. And the year before that, it was Lukas Rosol that beat Nadal at Wimbledon! My point is, tennis upsets happen a lot. This one just seems bigger because of the historical context.
In fact, Serena's losses in Grand Slams usually come to lower-ranked players. Her last loss at a Grand Slam came to France's Alize Cornet in the 3rd round at Wimbledon last year. At the 2013 Australian Open, she lost to Sloane Stephens in the quarterfinals. Then there's her most infamous Grand Slam loss of all. The 1st round of the 2012 French Open against Virginie Razzano. She also has Grand Slam losses to Ekaterina Makarova, Marion Bartoli and Sam Stosur (twice, including the 2011 US Open final), to name just a few. Not exactly a who's who of women's tennis. (The crazy thing is that she never loses to the other top players at Grand Slams. Just ask Maria Sharapova.)
All credit to Vinci and all credit to her countrywoman Flavia Pennetta on her first (and last) Grand Slam title. She's the latest in a long line of unexpected champions. Francesca Schiavone, Marion Bartoli, Anastasia Myskina, Samantha Stosur. Those are just some of the women who've won Grand Slams in the last 10 years. And don't forget Iva Majoli, who beat Martina Hingis, who won the other three Slams that year, in the 1997 French Open final.
Sports fans being sports fans, though, everyone immediately started looking for parallels after Serena's loss to Vinci. The one I heard most often was the Mike Tyson-Buster Douglas fight in 1990, when Douglas, the 42-1 underdog, knocked out the previously undefeated Iron Mike in the 10th round to win the heavyweight championship. I think that's an excellent parallel. One of the key elements of an upset is that the result is unexpected, and this fight certainly fits the bill. Everyone expected Tyson to win the same way everyone expected Serena to beat Vinci on the way to the Grand Slam. Neither happened.
It just wasn't meant to be for Serena Williams this year. Or maybe we were just getting greedy. After all, American Pharoah already gave us a moment for the ages by becoming horse racing's first Triple Crown winner in 37 years. There's been plenty of near-misses at the Belmont Stakes in the years between Affirmed and American Pharoah, usually with an unheralded longshot ending the Triple Crown chances. Like in 2002, when 70-1 shot Sarava stunned War Emblem. Or 38-1 Da'Tara ending Big Brown's quest in 2008.
The magnitude of Serena's loss make it seem bigger than it is. Everyone wanted to see a Grand Slam. And we got so close. But the loss won't define Serena's career. That I think is another element that comes in to make an upset truly historic. The Giants beat the undefeated Patriots in the Super Bowl. The American collegians beat the Soviet "amateurs" at the height of the Cold War. Villanova beat top-ranked, defending champion Georgetown.
Serena Williams will still go down as one of the greatest women's tennis players in history, if not THE greatest. She's an 18-time Grand Slam champion and four-time Olympic gold medalist (one in singles, three in doubles). And while she's never won the "Grand Slam," she's completed the "Serena Slam" twice, winning all four titles in 2002-03 and again more than a decade later! We're all disappointed she didn't author another chapter in her illustrious career by clinching the 2015 calendar-year Grand Slam.
But I guess that just gives her motivation to try it again next year, when she also has a chance to defend her Olympic gold and equal Steffi's 1988 Golden Slam. After all, who's gonna stop her?
Well, the story of the tournament turned out NOT to be her finishing off the first Grand Slam in 27 years. And it wasn't that Serena lost, either. It was when she lost and who she lost to. She was two wins away. She had just beaten Venus in the quarters, with unseeded Italian Roberta Vinci awaiting in the semis. She was going to cruise into the finals. Until she didn't. Vinci pulled off the massive upset, 6-4 in the third, ending the Grand Slam quest.
Vinci's win will go down as one of the biggest upsets in tennis history. The immediate conversation put it in Miracle On Ice or Giants-Patriots territory. While we're always prone to hyperbole in the moment, I'm not sure Roberta Vinci over Serena Williams in the US Open semifinals will automatically go in that same category. Tennis fans will remember it, sure, and it will certainly go down in the narrative of 2015: The Year In Sports. But five years from now, will it immediately come to mind in the same breath as those epic upsets of the past? I doubt it.
By its very nature, tennis is a sport prone to upsets. It's one-on-one and a bad day against a hot opponent can lead to unexpected results. Take last year's US Open, for example. Everyone expected the men's final to be Federer-Djokovic. Instead they both lost in the semis and the final was Marin Cilic vs. Kei Nishikori. Rafael Nadal has become notorious for losing early in Grand Slams. At the US Open it was Fabio Fognini. At Wimbledon it was Dustin Brown. Last year it was Nick Kyrgios. In 2013, Nadal lost to Steve Darcis in the 1st round before Federer lost to Sergiy Stakhovsky in the 2nd round. And the year before that, it was Lukas Rosol that beat Nadal at Wimbledon! My point is, tennis upsets happen a lot. This one just seems bigger because of the historical context.
In fact, Serena's losses in Grand Slams usually come to lower-ranked players. Her last loss at a Grand Slam came to France's Alize Cornet in the 3rd round at Wimbledon last year. At the 2013 Australian Open, she lost to Sloane Stephens in the quarterfinals. Then there's her most infamous Grand Slam loss of all. The 1st round of the 2012 French Open against Virginie Razzano. She also has Grand Slam losses to Ekaterina Makarova, Marion Bartoli and Sam Stosur (twice, including the 2011 US Open final), to name just a few. Not exactly a who's who of women's tennis. (The crazy thing is that she never loses to the other top players at Grand Slams. Just ask Maria Sharapova.)
All credit to Vinci and all credit to her countrywoman Flavia Pennetta on her first (and last) Grand Slam title. She's the latest in a long line of unexpected champions. Francesca Schiavone, Marion Bartoli, Anastasia Myskina, Samantha Stosur. Those are just some of the women who've won Grand Slams in the last 10 years. And don't forget Iva Majoli, who beat Martina Hingis, who won the other three Slams that year, in the 1997 French Open final.
Sports fans being sports fans, though, everyone immediately started looking for parallels after Serena's loss to Vinci. The one I heard most often was the Mike Tyson-Buster Douglas fight in 1990, when Douglas, the 42-1 underdog, knocked out the previously undefeated Iron Mike in the 10th round to win the heavyweight championship. I think that's an excellent parallel. One of the key elements of an upset is that the result is unexpected, and this fight certainly fits the bill. Everyone expected Tyson to win the same way everyone expected Serena to beat Vinci on the way to the Grand Slam. Neither happened.
It just wasn't meant to be for Serena Williams this year. Or maybe we were just getting greedy. After all, American Pharoah already gave us a moment for the ages by becoming horse racing's first Triple Crown winner in 37 years. There's been plenty of near-misses at the Belmont Stakes in the years between Affirmed and American Pharoah, usually with an unheralded longshot ending the Triple Crown chances. Like in 2002, when 70-1 shot Sarava stunned War Emblem. Or 38-1 Da'Tara ending Big Brown's quest in 2008.
The magnitude of Serena's loss make it seem bigger than it is. Everyone wanted to see a Grand Slam. And we got so close. But the loss won't define Serena's career. That I think is another element that comes in to make an upset truly historic. The Giants beat the undefeated Patriots in the Super Bowl. The American collegians beat the Soviet "amateurs" at the height of the Cold War. Villanova beat top-ranked, defending champion Georgetown.
Serena Williams will still go down as one of the greatest women's tennis players in history, if not THE greatest. She's an 18-time Grand Slam champion and four-time Olympic gold medalist (one in singles, three in doubles). And while she's never won the "Grand Slam," she's completed the "Serena Slam" twice, winning all four titles in 2002-03 and again more than a decade later! We're all disappointed she didn't author another chapter in her illustrious career by clinching the 2015 calendar-year Grand Slam.
But I guess that just gives her motivation to try it again next year, when she also has a chance to defend her Olympic gold and equal Steffi's 1988 Golden Slam. After all, who's gonna stop her?
Saturday, September 12, 2015
2015 Football Picks, Week 1
We've reached the start of football season, which means our weekly Saturday posting of picks has returned. For those of you new to the blog, I still pick the Thursday night game and count it in my record. I just don't talk about it. The only exception to the Thursday rule is Thanksgiving, because there are three games instead of one. Also, I don't pick against the spread. The reason? I don't actually care. They don't take the win away from you if you were "supposed" to win by six and only win by three. A win is a win.
So, with that being said, here we go with 2015's first edition of my weekly NFL picks...
Thursday Night: New England (Win)
Colts at Bills: Indianapolis-I'm interested to see this new-look Bills team with Rex Ryan at the helm. I definitely think Buffalo's going to be better and a nightmare to play. Except I think Indianapolis will be up for the challenge. Andrew Luck's got all these new toys to play with as his team thinks about the Super Bowl. The first step will be a Week 1 road win.
Packers at Bears: Green Bay-Like Indianapolis, I picked Green Bay to be in the Super Bowl. They start with the renewal of their rivalry with Chicago at Soldier Field. This is John Fox's first game as Bears coach. I'd like his chances of winning it better if they were playing another team. But against the Packers? Not so much. I've gotta say Aaron Rodgers and Co. (who don't have to play San Francisco in the opener for a change) have the edge.
Seahawks at Rams: Seattle-A lot of people are picking the Seahawks to win their third straight NFC title. I think a lot's going to need to go their way for that to happen. I can even see them losing their opener against a much improved Rams team that teams are not going to want to play as the season goes on. Fortunately for Seattle, they get their trip to St. Louis out of the way early. They should come away with a win.
Browns at Jets: Jets-Why, NFL? Why? Last year the Jets opened with the Raiders at home, and this year it's the Browns. Is it some sort of rule that the Jets play the crappiest team possible so they can start 1-0? If I didn't have Red Zone, I'd be subjected to this as my only option for an early game. (Or I could just watch the Yankees lose to the Blue Jays yet again.)
Dolphins at Redskins: Miami-With the Super Bowl anniversary this year, they're doing something special for all previous Super Bowl matchups that are being played in the regular season. This is the first of those. Miami capped its undefeated 1972 season with a win over the Redskins in Super Bowl VII, while Washington returned the favor 10 years later in the strike-shortened 1982 season. Neither team has any legitimate Super Bowl aspirations this year, but Miami in the playoffs isn't an outrageous suggestion. The Dolphins should win this one.
Panthers at Jaguars: Carolina-In celebration of both these teams' 20th anniversary seasons, they meet in the opener. The Panthers have won back-to-back NFC South titles, while Jacksonville vs. a good college team would probably be a pretty good matchup. I still have no idea how the Jaguars haven't picked No. 1 at any point over the last five years. Maybe this year's the one!
Chiefs at Texans: Kansas City-This is one of the better Week 1 matchups, and it could have a major impact on the playoff race. If these two end up tied for a wild card spot, the winner here could actually decide who's in and who's out, providing the counter argument to all those morons who say Week 1 isn't that important. Even with the game in Houston, I'm going with Kansas City as the winner.
Saints at Cardinals: New Orleans-I've got a feeling about the Saints. I don't know why, but I think they're gonna have a really good year. It should start with a victory in Arizona. The Cardinals, of course, got off to that awesome start last year before totally collapsing over the final six weeks, then lost to Carolina in the playoffs. Will that linger? Either way, I'm not sure it matters.
Lions at Chargers: San Diego-Detroit's not going to be good this season as last year's playoff team, and a cross country trip to San Diego for the opener doesn't help. Of course, the Chargers are notorious for starting slow before picking it up down the stretch. I do see them beating the Lions, though.
Ravens at Broncos: Denver-For the first time in I don't even know how long, CBS has late games in Week 1, and their national game is a good one between Baltimore and Denver. Of course, the last time the Ravens opened the season in Denver, it didn't go too well for them, as Peyton set a single-game NFL record for touchdown passes. Baltimore's a popular Super Bowl pick, but I think their 2015 season will start the same way their 2013 season did. With a loss in Denver.
Bengals at Raiders: Cincinnati-Marvin Lewis doesn't get enough credit for the perennial contender he's built in Cincinnati. Sure, the Bengals haven't won a playoff game since the 1990 season (which is their punishment for ending Bo Jackson's career?), so it's been overshadowed, but the Bengals could easily be playing in January again this year. A trip to Oakland late in the season sometimes becomes a trap game for good teams. Fortunately, this isn't late in the season. The Bengals should be fine.
Titans at Buccaneers: Tennessee-See what the NFL did here? They knew the quarterbacks were going 1-2 in either order, so they set it up that they'd face each other in the first game no matter what. Sneaky. So, one of them gets a win in his first NFL start. That should be Mariota.
Giants at Cowboys: Dallas-NBC's annual Giants-Cowboys Sunday night opener. As Cris Collinsworth said on Thursday, "We do all of them!" That was a bit of an exaggeration, but not completely...because at least one Giants-Cowboys game is on a Sunday night every year. Until last season, the Giants owned the Cowboys at Jerry's World, but that changed last year, when Dallas swept the season series. The Cowboys are still the better team, so I expect them to make it two in a row at home over the Giants. Expect a shootout. This one should be fun.
Eagles at Falcons: Philadelphia-The Eagles are better than the Falcons, yet for some reason, the NFL and ESPN think that America wants to see this game as part of the Week 1 Monday night doubleheader. Philadelphia is fun to watch, and I think they'll continue to be so with Sam Bradford at quarterback instead of Nick Foles, but as for the game, I'm just not feeling it. Atlanta's going to struggle again this season.
Vikings at 49ers: San Francisco-Talk about teams that are going to struggle this season. The San Francisco 49ers. Week 1 ends at the same site as the Super Bowl with them playing the Vikings in another game that the NFL thinks people want to watch on a Monday night. The Vikings think they can make the playoffs (I don't), and this is Adrian Peterson's first game in almost a year. He's gonna run wild agaisnt that San Francisco defense. Even still, I like the 49ers to win. The Vikings will need to make me a believer.
This Week: 1-0
Season: 1-0
So, with that being said, here we go with 2015's first edition of my weekly NFL picks...
Thursday Night: New England (Win)
Colts at Bills: Indianapolis-I'm interested to see this new-look Bills team with Rex Ryan at the helm. I definitely think Buffalo's going to be better and a nightmare to play. Except I think Indianapolis will be up for the challenge. Andrew Luck's got all these new toys to play with as his team thinks about the Super Bowl. The first step will be a Week 1 road win.
Packers at Bears: Green Bay-Like Indianapolis, I picked Green Bay to be in the Super Bowl. They start with the renewal of their rivalry with Chicago at Soldier Field. This is John Fox's first game as Bears coach. I'd like his chances of winning it better if they were playing another team. But against the Packers? Not so much. I've gotta say Aaron Rodgers and Co. (who don't have to play San Francisco in the opener for a change) have the edge.
Seahawks at Rams: Seattle-A lot of people are picking the Seahawks to win their third straight NFC title. I think a lot's going to need to go their way for that to happen. I can even see them losing their opener against a much improved Rams team that teams are not going to want to play as the season goes on. Fortunately for Seattle, they get their trip to St. Louis out of the way early. They should come away with a win.
Browns at Jets: Jets-Why, NFL? Why? Last year the Jets opened with the Raiders at home, and this year it's the Browns. Is it some sort of rule that the Jets play the crappiest team possible so they can start 1-0? If I didn't have Red Zone, I'd be subjected to this as my only option for an early game. (Or I could just watch the Yankees lose to the Blue Jays yet again.)
Dolphins at Redskins: Miami-With the Super Bowl anniversary this year, they're doing something special for all previous Super Bowl matchups that are being played in the regular season. This is the first of those. Miami capped its undefeated 1972 season with a win over the Redskins in Super Bowl VII, while Washington returned the favor 10 years later in the strike-shortened 1982 season. Neither team has any legitimate Super Bowl aspirations this year, but Miami in the playoffs isn't an outrageous suggestion. The Dolphins should win this one.
Panthers at Jaguars: Carolina-In celebration of both these teams' 20th anniversary seasons, they meet in the opener. The Panthers have won back-to-back NFC South titles, while Jacksonville vs. a good college team would probably be a pretty good matchup. I still have no idea how the Jaguars haven't picked No. 1 at any point over the last five years. Maybe this year's the one!
Chiefs at Texans: Kansas City-This is one of the better Week 1 matchups, and it could have a major impact on the playoff race. If these two end up tied for a wild card spot, the winner here could actually decide who's in and who's out, providing the counter argument to all those morons who say Week 1 isn't that important. Even with the game in Houston, I'm going with Kansas City as the winner.
Saints at Cardinals: New Orleans-I've got a feeling about the Saints. I don't know why, but I think they're gonna have a really good year. It should start with a victory in Arizona. The Cardinals, of course, got off to that awesome start last year before totally collapsing over the final six weeks, then lost to Carolina in the playoffs. Will that linger? Either way, I'm not sure it matters.
Lions at Chargers: San Diego-Detroit's not going to be good this season as last year's playoff team, and a cross country trip to San Diego for the opener doesn't help. Of course, the Chargers are notorious for starting slow before picking it up down the stretch. I do see them beating the Lions, though.
Ravens at Broncos: Denver-For the first time in I don't even know how long, CBS has late games in Week 1, and their national game is a good one between Baltimore and Denver. Of course, the last time the Ravens opened the season in Denver, it didn't go too well for them, as Peyton set a single-game NFL record for touchdown passes. Baltimore's a popular Super Bowl pick, but I think their 2015 season will start the same way their 2013 season did. With a loss in Denver.
Bengals at Raiders: Cincinnati-Marvin Lewis doesn't get enough credit for the perennial contender he's built in Cincinnati. Sure, the Bengals haven't won a playoff game since the 1990 season (which is their punishment for ending Bo Jackson's career?), so it's been overshadowed, but the Bengals could easily be playing in January again this year. A trip to Oakland late in the season sometimes becomes a trap game for good teams. Fortunately, this isn't late in the season. The Bengals should be fine.
Titans at Buccaneers: Tennessee-See what the NFL did here? They knew the quarterbacks were going 1-2 in either order, so they set it up that they'd face each other in the first game no matter what. Sneaky. So, one of them gets a win in his first NFL start. That should be Mariota.
Giants at Cowboys: Dallas-NBC's annual Giants-Cowboys Sunday night opener. As Cris Collinsworth said on Thursday, "We do all of them!" That was a bit of an exaggeration, but not completely...because at least one Giants-Cowboys game is on a Sunday night every year. Until last season, the Giants owned the Cowboys at Jerry's World, but that changed last year, when Dallas swept the season series. The Cowboys are still the better team, so I expect them to make it two in a row at home over the Giants. Expect a shootout. This one should be fun.
Eagles at Falcons: Philadelphia-The Eagles are better than the Falcons, yet for some reason, the NFL and ESPN think that America wants to see this game as part of the Week 1 Monday night doubleheader. Philadelphia is fun to watch, and I think they'll continue to be so with Sam Bradford at quarterback instead of Nick Foles, but as for the game, I'm just not feeling it. Atlanta's going to struggle again this season.
Vikings at 49ers: San Francisco-Talk about teams that are going to struggle this season. The San Francisco 49ers. Week 1 ends at the same site as the Super Bowl with them playing the Vikings in another game that the NFL thinks people want to watch on a Monday night. The Vikings think they can make the playoffs (I don't), and this is Adrian Peterson's first game in almost a year. He's gonna run wild agaisnt that San Francisco defense. Even still, I like the 49ers to win. The Vikings will need to make me a believer.
This Week: 1-0
Season: 1-0
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Football Preview, Part 2
It's definitely weird to talk football using regular numbers instead of Roman numerals. But here we go with Part 2 of the Joe Brackets 2015 football preview. Today a look at the NFC, which, like the AFC, should see a lot of repeat contenders this season. Because, if it's possible, Green Bay, Seattle and Dallas all got better. And they were the three best teams in the NFC last season!
Of course, everything goes through Seattle, as the Seahawks look to become the first NFC team ever to play in three consecutive Super Bowls. A lot of people are picking Seattle to make it three straight NFC titles, but there's a reason why no team has made it to three straight Super Bowls since that incredible run by the Bills in the early 90s. Seattle has gotten lucky over the past two seasons in that they've been remarkably injury-free.
But you know the Packers are going to be coming after them hard, especially after last year's NFC Championship Game. And speaking of rough playoff losses, I'm still not sure how that wasn't a catch for Dez Bryant! So, all three of the top teams have plenty of motivation coming into the season. So do the NFC South teams. Nobody in that division finished .500 last year, with Carolina winning the division at 7-8-1. The Panthers want to prove that they actually belong in the conversation, while the Saints are looking to turn it around.
NFC East: If the cycle holds, this is the year for a Giants-Patriots Super Bowl. I don't think anybody actually thinks that'll happen, though. There are too many question marks surrounding the Giants, and they'll be lucky to get a wild card. Offense is usually the problem, but Eli now has LeGarrette Blount and two of best wide receivers in football, so they're actually set on that side of the ball for a change. But who knows when Nine Fingers will be back and how good he'll be when he does? (Since he won't play at Dallas, I put Week 6 at Philadelphia the first time an opposing team plays Katy Perry's "Firework," provided he's actually playing by then.) The Giants are the third-best team in the NFC East. The team most likely to challenge Dallas for the division title in Philadelphia. As long as Sam Bradford stays in one piece. But even if he doesn't Mark Sanchez is plenty capable. I like the Eagles to snag a wild card. Washington, meanwhile, needs to realize the RG3 experiment is a bust and move on. The Redskins remain the fourth-best team in the division.
NFC North: In the NFC North, it's the Packers and everybody else. Green Bay isn't just the class of the division. They're among the class of the league. Even with Jordy Nelson injured, they'll be fine. They've got the best quarterback in the game. Detroit joined Green Bay in the playoffs last season, but I don't think they will again. The Lions aren't as good this year, mainly because of their key losses on defense. It'll be up to Matthew Stafford, Reggie Bush and Megatron to keep them in games (and maybe win some). Minnesota gets Adrian Peterson back and has finally found a QB in Teddy Bridgewater. A lot of people are calling the Vikings a sleeper playoff team, but I just don't see it. I think they're 7-9 at best. Those same experts are calling for a last-place finish from the Chicago Bears. I know that I tend to overrate the Bears every year, but they were smart to scoop up John Fox practically the second he was fired by the Broncos. He'll do for Chicago what Andy Reid did for Kansas City. Does it mean 10-6 and a wild card? I don't know. But the Bears will definitely be an improved team from the one we saw last year.
NFC South: Oh, NFC South. I know you're not as bad as you pretended to be last season. This year you don't have to play the AFC North in the interconference games, so those automatic losses to Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Cincinnati won't happen. As a result, all four records should improve. Carolina is favored to repeat as division champions, and I can see why. Cam Newton is the real deal, and that defense is first-rate. Remember, they won a playoff game last season. However, while I think they'll return to the playoffs, I don't think they'll win their third straight NFC South title. I can't pinpoint an exact reason why, but I really like the Saints to win the division this year. I'd like to say that Lovie Smith and the Bucs are going to turn it around, but I just can't. And that's because they drafted Jamies Winston over Marcus Mariota. Winston's got bust written all over him, and he really needed to get out of Florida. So, I think we'll see another last-place finish for Tampa Bay. Barely ahead of them will be Atlanta. I'm just not sure the Falcons are much better than last season's 6-10 team.
NFC West: Last season, this was arguably the best division in the NFC. This year, I expect Seattle to dominate it. The Seahawks' main challenge will be to earn home field for the playoffs again. If the road to the Super Bowl goes through CenturyLink Field for the third straight season, it'll be awfully tough for any visiting team. Even if they only realized they have a football team three years ago, the 12th Man definitely makes a difference. In addition, Arizona and San Francisco have both regressed. The Cardinals fell apart last year after Carson Palmer went down, going from 10-1 to a wild card loss in Charlotte. The 49ers, meanwhile, have entered into rebuilding mode. Everyone knew Jim Harbaugh had worn out his welcome and they needed a change, but I still don't know the name of the guy they hired to replace him. I know it's a system guy, which they did to ease the transition and for consistency within the organization, but I doubt it's going to work. And Frank Gore's gone. At least with the Super Bowl in Santa Clara, 49ers fans are guaranteed to see a playoff game. Because they won't be playing in one. Then there's the Rams. The LA flirtation will last throughout the season and could become a distraction, but I hope it doesn't. Because I think this team has a real shot at a wild card. Especially now that they've made the trade for Nick Foles, who doesn't have anywhere near the injury history of Sam Bradford that really derailed his Rams career. At the very least, teams won't want to play the Rams. With the NFC West weakened, a .500 record and second place are definite possibilities.
So, when it's all said and done, I think the NFC division winners will be Dallas, Green Bay, New Orleans and Seattle, with Philadelphia and Carolina joining them as wild cards. I'll say we see a Packers-Seahawks repeat in the NFC title game, but this time, I think it'll be in Lambeu, which will be good for the Packers. Because that will be the difference that gets them to the Super Bowl.
My AFC Champion is Indianapolis, which means I've got us set up for a Packers-Colts Super Bowl. And I can't think of a better way to celebrate the Super Bowl's 50th anniversary than by having the team that won the first one also take the 50th one. I see very few weaknesses in Green Bay. That's why I see the Vince Lombardi Trophy coming home to Titletown for the fifth time (the day after Brett Favre is elected to the Hall of Fame).
Of course, everything goes through Seattle, as the Seahawks look to become the first NFC team ever to play in three consecutive Super Bowls. A lot of people are picking Seattle to make it three straight NFC titles, but there's a reason why no team has made it to three straight Super Bowls since that incredible run by the Bills in the early 90s. Seattle has gotten lucky over the past two seasons in that they've been remarkably injury-free.
But you know the Packers are going to be coming after them hard, especially after last year's NFC Championship Game. And speaking of rough playoff losses, I'm still not sure how that wasn't a catch for Dez Bryant! So, all three of the top teams have plenty of motivation coming into the season. So do the NFC South teams. Nobody in that division finished .500 last year, with Carolina winning the division at 7-8-1. The Panthers want to prove that they actually belong in the conversation, while the Saints are looking to turn it around.
NFC East: If the cycle holds, this is the year for a Giants-Patriots Super Bowl. I don't think anybody actually thinks that'll happen, though. There are too many question marks surrounding the Giants, and they'll be lucky to get a wild card. Offense is usually the problem, but Eli now has LeGarrette Blount and two of best wide receivers in football, so they're actually set on that side of the ball for a change. But who knows when Nine Fingers will be back and how good he'll be when he does? (Since he won't play at Dallas, I put Week 6 at Philadelphia the first time an opposing team plays Katy Perry's "Firework," provided he's actually playing by then.) The Giants are the third-best team in the NFC East. The team most likely to challenge Dallas for the division title in Philadelphia. As long as Sam Bradford stays in one piece. But even if he doesn't Mark Sanchez is plenty capable. I like the Eagles to snag a wild card. Washington, meanwhile, needs to realize the RG3 experiment is a bust and move on. The Redskins remain the fourth-best team in the division.
NFC North: In the NFC North, it's the Packers and everybody else. Green Bay isn't just the class of the division. They're among the class of the league. Even with Jordy Nelson injured, they'll be fine. They've got the best quarterback in the game. Detroit joined Green Bay in the playoffs last season, but I don't think they will again. The Lions aren't as good this year, mainly because of their key losses on defense. It'll be up to Matthew Stafford, Reggie Bush and Megatron to keep them in games (and maybe win some). Minnesota gets Adrian Peterson back and has finally found a QB in Teddy Bridgewater. A lot of people are calling the Vikings a sleeper playoff team, but I just don't see it. I think they're 7-9 at best. Those same experts are calling for a last-place finish from the Chicago Bears. I know that I tend to overrate the Bears every year, but they were smart to scoop up John Fox practically the second he was fired by the Broncos. He'll do for Chicago what Andy Reid did for Kansas City. Does it mean 10-6 and a wild card? I don't know. But the Bears will definitely be an improved team from the one we saw last year.
NFC South: Oh, NFC South. I know you're not as bad as you pretended to be last season. This year you don't have to play the AFC North in the interconference games, so those automatic losses to Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Cincinnati won't happen. As a result, all four records should improve. Carolina is favored to repeat as division champions, and I can see why. Cam Newton is the real deal, and that defense is first-rate. Remember, they won a playoff game last season. However, while I think they'll return to the playoffs, I don't think they'll win their third straight NFC South title. I can't pinpoint an exact reason why, but I really like the Saints to win the division this year. I'd like to say that Lovie Smith and the Bucs are going to turn it around, but I just can't. And that's because they drafted Jamies Winston over Marcus Mariota. Winston's got bust written all over him, and he really needed to get out of Florida. So, I think we'll see another last-place finish for Tampa Bay. Barely ahead of them will be Atlanta. I'm just not sure the Falcons are much better than last season's 6-10 team.
NFC West: Last season, this was arguably the best division in the NFC. This year, I expect Seattle to dominate it. The Seahawks' main challenge will be to earn home field for the playoffs again. If the road to the Super Bowl goes through CenturyLink Field for the third straight season, it'll be awfully tough for any visiting team. Even if they only realized they have a football team three years ago, the 12th Man definitely makes a difference. In addition, Arizona and San Francisco have both regressed. The Cardinals fell apart last year after Carson Palmer went down, going from 10-1 to a wild card loss in Charlotte. The 49ers, meanwhile, have entered into rebuilding mode. Everyone knew Jim Harbaugh had worn out his welcome and they needed a change, but I still don't know the name of the guy they hired to replace him. I know it's a system guy, which they did to ease the transition and for consistency within the organization, but I doubt it's going to work. And Frank Gore's gone. At least with the Super Bowl in Santa Clara, 49ers fans are guaranteed to see a playoff game. Because they won't be playing in one. Then there's the Rams. The LA flirtation will last throughout the season and could become a distraction, but I hope it doesn't. Because I think this team has a real shot at a wild card. Especially now that they've made the trade for Nick Foles, who doesn't have anywhere near the injury history of Sam Bradford that really derailed his Rams career. At the very least, teams won't want to play the Rams. With the NFC West weakened, a .500 record and second place are definite possibilities.
So, when it's all said and done, I think the NFC division winners will be Dallas, Green Bay, New Orleans and Seattle, with Philadelphia and Carolina joining them as wild cards. I'll say we see a Packers-Seahawks repeat in the NFC title game, but this time, I think it'll be in Lambeu, which will be good for the Packers. Because that will be the difference that gets them to the Super Bowl.
My AFC Champion is Indianapolis, which means I've got us set up for a Packers-Colts Super Bowl. And I can't think of a better way to celebrate the Super Bowl's 50th anniversary than by having the team that won the first one also take the 50th one. I see very few weaknesses in Green Bay. That's why I see the Vince Lombardi Trophy coming home to Titletown for the fifth time (the day after Brett Favre is elected to the Hall of Fame).
Monday, September 7, 2015
Football Preview, Part 1
Football season is here! And we all again know what we'll be doing on Sunday afternoons for the next five months. The Road to Super Bowl 50 starts in Foxboro, and the Patriots don't show any signs of letting up. In fact, the teams that have dominated the AFC over the past couple seasons all look like they might be headed back to the playoffs. So much for parity in the NFL!
We've reached the Giants-Patriots year in the cycle, but I don't think there's a single person out there who thinks that will actually be the Super Bowl matchup. More on the Giants and the rest of the NFC next time, but it certainly looks more likely that the Patriots will be playing in February than the Giants. Are they the AFC favorites, though? That's a totally different question.
New England will be there just like they always are, but the top teams in the AFC are all very good. This might be Peyton Manning's final season (I think it will be). Will he ride off into the sunset hoisting the Lombardi Trophy like another legendary Denver quarterback? Will Peyton's successor in Indianapolis, who's gone a round further in the playoffs each season, continue that trend all the way to Santa Clara? Who's going to win the AFC North, the best division in football?
AFC East: Until Bradicheck retires and/or the other three teams in the AFC East get significantly better, you can just put the Patriots down for at least 11 wins and a division title. If the Brady suspension had stood, I'd say maybe there's a chance the Patriots could face some competition for the division. But since he'll be playing all 16 games, I don't see that happening. As if they needed one, the Commissioner gave the defending champions a chip on their shoulder. The Dolphins and Bills have both gotten better. Just not enough to challenge New England. With Miami's upgraded defense, Ryan Tannehill's continued development, and the Rock's help (wait, that's just on Ballers), I actually do think the Dolphins will be in the mix for a wild card. And while I ridiculed it at first, the Rex Ryan hiring actually looks like it was a really smart thing for the Bills. Buffalo's always had a good defense. Now it's going to be even better. The offense still needs work, but Rex did go to consecutive AFC Championship Games with Mark Sanchez at quarterback and not much else. I don't see the Bills' playoff drought ending this season, but they'll give some good teams fits, and 8-8/9-7 isn't out of the question. The Jets are also going to be better, and they've got Darrelle Revis back. Give them a year or two to get past their own Rex Ryan Era.
AFC North: You could pull a name out of a hat to choose your AFC North champion and you'd have as good a chance of being right as any of the experts. This division sent three teams to the playoffs last season and could easily do so again. I think my pick for the division winner, though, is Baltimore. The Ravens have always had the defense, and this year I think they'll be improved offensively, too. It really is the slightest of margins between the Ravens and the rival Steelers, though. Pittsburgh has more firepower and won the division last year, but that's exactly why I don't think the Steelers will win it again. Since they finished first, they have to play New England and Indianapolis, while the Ravens (who finished third last season), get the Dolphins and Jaguars in addition to the AFC West. That's at least one additional win for Baltimore on paper, and that might make the difference. Cincinnati, meanwhile, has quietly built itself into a playoff contender year-in and year-out. Some say this is Marvin Lewis' best Bengals team, and it better be. Because another playoff loss, or not making it entirely, could be his ticket out of Cincinnati at the end of the year. I really feel bad for the Browns. They got new uniforms that make them look like a college team, and they're stuck playing in this division. In any other division, Cleveland could be a sleeper playoff pick. But in the AFC North, they're the fourth-best team.
AFC South: Except for the Peyton-Luck transition year, this has been the Indianapolis Colts' domain since the division was formed in 2002. That shouldn't change this season. If it's possible, the Colts are even better than last year's squad that went to the AFC Championship Game (and started the whole Deflategate mess). They aren't thinking about winning the AFC South. They're thinking about the Super Bowl. Houston will easily finish second and will fight for a wild card. They have the best defensive player in the game in J.J. Watt, and he's got plenty of friends (Jadeveon Clowney?) to keep that defense fierce. The problem is on offense. Brian Hoyer and Ryan Mallet are your quarterbacks? Really?! They're not challenging the Colts for the division title. Fortunately for the Texans, Tennessee and Jacksonville are still in the AFC South. Which one is less bad? I'll say the Titans. I think Marcus Mariota is going to be a very good NFL quarterback. At the very least, he'll make the Tennessee offense better and more fun to watch. And who knows? Maybe he'll have an RG3-like rookie season and lead the Titans to the playoffs. As far as I know, the Jaguars are still technically an NFL team. How they've managed to avoid the No. 1 pick over the past couple years amazes me.
AFC West: Denver got so used to winning in its first three seasons with Peyton Manning that John Fox was fired after losing to Indianapolis in the Divisional Playoffs (with an injured Manning). So are the expectations Gary Kubiak walks into. Anything less than a trip to Santa Clara for the Super Bowl's golden anniversary will be a disappointment for a franchise that desperately wants more to represent the Manning Era than a blowout loss in its only Super Bowl appearance. They also know the window is closing, so they did everything they could to give Peyton what he needs to succeed. Winning the division shouldn't be a problem. It's what happens in January that will determine whether or not the Broncos' 2015 season is considered a success. Andy Reid, meanwhile, is one of the underrated great coaches in the game. Kansas City's done nothing but win in his two years there. As he keeps adding players that brought him so much success in Philadelphia, Jeremy Maclin can do it all, and that addition alone could be enough to get the Chiefs back to the playoffs. San Diego's that team nobody wants to play, but you also know won't be sticking around come January. As for the Chargers' LA stadium buddies, the Raiders, things won't be getting any better until they get an actual offense/quarterback. Hiring Jack Del Rio as head coach was a huge positive step, but they need a lot more before they'll be contenders again. It might not happen until they're back in LA.
So, my division winners will look awfully familiar. New England, Baltimore, Indianapolis and Denver. It's the last four teams standing in the AFC from last season. They haven't gotten any worse, so it's up to everybody else to catch them. As for the wild cards, I think five teams will challenge for the two spots: Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Houston, Kansas City and Miami. And when all is said and done, the Steelers and Chiefs will join the four division winners in the playoffs.
All of the top teams in the AFC are evenly-matched, and they know each other so well. The Patriots aren't going to give up their crown that easy. Somebody's gonna have to take it from them. But I don't think New England's as good as they were a year ago, either. I'm saying it's Baltimore vs. Indianapolis in the AFC Championship Game, with the Colts heading to the Super Bowl.
We've reached the Giants-Patriots year in the cycle, but I don't think there's a single person out there who thinks that will actually be the Super Bowl matchup. More on the Giants and the rest of the NFC next time, but it certainly looks more likely that the Patriots will be playing in February than the Giants. Are they the AFC favorites, though? That's a totally different question.
New England will be there just like they always are, but the top teams in the AFC are all very good. This might be Peyton Manning's final season (I think it will be). Will he ride off into the sunset hoisting the Lombardi Trophy like another legendary Denver quarterback? Will Peyton's successor in Indianapolis, who's gone a round further in the playoffs each season, continue that trend all the way to Santa Clara? Who's going to win the AFC North, the best division in football?
AFC East: Until Bradicheck retires and/or the other three teams in the AFC East get significantly better, you can just put the Patriots down for at least 11 wins and a division title. If the Brady suspension had stood, I'd say maybe there's a chance the Patriots could face some competition for the division. But since he'll be playing all 16 games, I don't see that happening. As if they needed one, the Commissioner gave the defending champions a chip on their shoulder. The Dolphins and Bills have both gotten better. Just not enough to challenge New England. With Miami's upgraded defense, Ryan Tannehill's continued development, and the Rock's help (wait, that's just on Ballers), I actually do think the Dolphins will be in the mix for a wild card. And while I ridiculed it at first, the Rex Ryan hiring actually looks like it was a really smart thing for the Bills. Buffalo's always had a good defense. Now it's going to be even better. The offense still needs work, but Rex did go to consecutive AFC Championship Games with Mark Sanchez at quarterback and not much else. I don't see the Bills' playoff drought ending this season, but they'll give some good teams fits, and 8-8/9-7 isn't out of the question. The Jets are also going to be better, and they've got Darrelle Revis back. Give them a year or two to get past their own Rex Ryan Era.
AFC North: You could pull a name out of a hat to choose your AFC North champion and you'd have as good a chance of being right as any of the experts. This division sent three teams to the playoffs last season and could easily do so again. I think my pick for the division winner, though, is Baltimore. The Ravens have always had the defense, and this year I think they'll be improved offensively, too. It really is the slightest of margins between the Ravens and the rival Steelers, though. Pittsburgh has more firepower and won the division last year, but that's exactly why I don't think the Steelers will win it again. Since they finished first, they have to play New England and Indianapolis, while the Ravens (who finished third last season), get the Dolphins and Jaguars in addition to the AFC West. That's at least one additional win for Baltimore on paper, and that might make the difference. Cincinnati, meanwhile, has quietly built itself into a playoff contender year-in and year-out. Some say this is Marvin Lewis' best Bengals team, and it better be. Because another playoff loss, or not making it entirely, could be his ticket out of Cincinnati at the end of the year. I really feel bad for the Browns. They got new uniforms that make them look like a college team, and they're stuck playing in this division. In any other division, Cleveland could be a sleeper playoff pick. But in the AFC North, they're the fourth-best team.
AFC South: Except for the Peyton-Luck transition year, this has been the Indianapolis Colts' domain since the division was formed in 2002. That shouldn't change this season. If it's possible, the Colts are even better than last year's squad that went to the AFC Championship Game (and started the whole Deflategate mess). They aren't thinking about winning the AFC South. They're thinking about the Super Bowl. Houston will easily finish second and will fight for a wild card. They have the best defensive player in the game in J.J. Watt, and he's got plenty of friends (Jadeveon Clowney?) to keep that defense fierce. The problem is on offense. Brian Hoyer and Ryan Mallet are your quarterbacks? Really?! They're not challenging the Colts for the division title. Fortunately for the Texans, Tennessee and Jacksonville are still in the AFC South. Which one is less bad? I'll say the Titans. I think Marcus Mariota is going to be a very good NFL quarterback. At the very least, he'll make the Tennessee offense better and more fun to watch. And who knows? Maybe he'll have an RG3-like rookie season and lead the Titans to the playoffs. As far as I know, the Jaguars are still technically an NFL team. How they've managed to avoid the No. 1 pick over the past couple years amazes me.
AFC West: Denver got so used to winning in its first three seasons with Peyton Manning that John Fox was fired after losing to Indianapolis in the Divisional Playoffs (with an injured Manning). So are the expectations Gary Kubiak walks into. Anything less than a trip to Santa Clara for the Super Bowl's golden anniversary will be a disappointment for a franchise that desperately wants more to represent the Manning Era than a blowout loss in its only Super Bowl appearance. They also know the window is closing, so they did everything they could to give Peyton what he needs to succeed. Winning the division shouldn't be a problem. It's what happens in January that will determine whether or not the Broncos' 2015 season is considered a success. Andy Reid, meanwhile, is one of the underrated great coaches in the game. Kansas City's done nothing but win in his two years there. As he keeps adding players that brought him so much success in Philadelphia, Jeremy Maclin can do it all, and that addition alone could be enough to get the Chiefs back to the playoffs. San Diego's that team nobody wants to play, but you also know won't be sticking around come January. As for the Chargers' LA stadium buddies, the Raiders, things won't be getting any better until they get an actual offense/quarterback. Hiring Jack Del Rio as head coach was a huge positive step, but they need a lot more before they'll be contenders again. It might not happen until they're back in LA.
So, my division winners will look awfully familiar. New England, Baltimore, Indianapolis and Denver. It's the last four teams standing in the AFC from last season. They haven't gotten any worse, so it's up to everybody else to catch them. As for the wild cards, I think five teams will challenge for the two spots: Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Houston, Kansas City and Miami. And when all is said and done, the Steelers and Chiefs will join the four division winners in the playoffs.
All of the top teams in the AFC are evenly-matched, and they know each other so well. The Patriots aren't going to give up their crown that easy. Somebody's gonna have to take it from them. But I don't think New England's as good as they were a year ago, either. I'm saying it's Baltimore vs. Indianapolis in the AFC Championship Game, with the Colts heading to the Super Bowl.
Saturday, September 5, 2015
The Real Loser? Roger Goodell
There were no winners in the Deflategate saga, which is over for now, but I don't think we've heard the last about it. The NFL has appealed (as you knew the losing side would), so the court battle is likely to continue dragging on, even if everybody is beyond sick of this story by now.
I don't think the judge wanted to throw out Brady's suspension completely. That's why he wanted them to settle so badly. In my opinion, Brady deserved some sort of punishment for his role in the scandal, but the one levied down upon him was too harsh. I think the judge felt that way, too. So he encouraged them to settle, which was never going happen. Brady was never going to accept anything that required him to admit having a role and taking blame for it. Goodell was never going to admit he was wrong.
As a result, the decision was left in the hands of the judge. And he didn't have the option of reducing the suspension. If he did, that's likely what he would've done. Instead, he had to rule that either the NFL was right and uphold the penalty or that the NFL went too far and wipe it out completely. He went with option B. Not necessarily because he believed Brady's side of the story or thought he had nothing to do with it, but because he thought the entire process is unfair.
Roger Goodell is judge, jury and executioner, and there's nothing "impartial" about it. That's what this ruling is about more than anything else. He thinks Goodell has too much power in the area of player discipline and that Mr. Brilliant Commissioner invokes that power whenever it's convenient for him. The players don't know what falls under Goodell's jurisdiction under the personal conduct policy, which is incredibly vague. Nor are there specified penalties, which Goodell does seem to arbitrarily make up at whim.
This is just the latest in a long line of Goodell missteps in the personal conduct area. From the Saints' Bountygate, where he was right to suspend, but was too harsh in his penalties, that were all eventually either reduced or overturned. With Ray Rice, he got it incredibly wrong at first, tried to correct himself, and was called out for punishing the same guy twice for the same thing. Then there's Adrian Peterson and the indefinite suspension. Now Brady. That's four major losses on his ledger without a single major win on his resume. Not a good record to say the least.
What's been clear for a long time and was further affirmed during this case is that the NFL's system of player discipline is broken. Everyone already knew this, but it was also a position the players put themselves in when they agreed to it in the CBA. In order to get it changed, you would've figured they'd have to wait for the new CBA, where it would obviously be an important point of discussion.
But with all these highly publicized missteps, it's clear that waiting for the new CBA to make a change isn't in the best interest of anybody. In fact, the owners are already looking at an alternative method to having the commissioner have the sole decision-making voice. Unless the NFL wants to keep going to court with the NFLPA,
Goodell can't be the only one involved in the process. Should he be involved? Yes. But he shouldn't hear the appeals. Or, even better, he should only be hearing the appeals after an owner-appointed player disciplinary committee hears each case and issues a ruling first. There also needs to be a set of guidelines on which to base any punishments. That's as much a part of the problem as anything. You violate the substance abuse policy, it's four games. But with the personal conduct policy, nobody knows. It could be two, it could be six, it could be an entire year. The whole thing is completely arbitrary. The players deserve to know what type of suspension they might be looking at for violating the policy, and what kinds of violations would warrant a suspension.
The Personal Conduct Policy isn't a bad thing. The "integrity of the game" is something worth protecting. But Goodell has proven time and again that he can get way too aggressive in his attempts to protect that integrity. And in doing so, he's made a mockery of the process and turned himself into a laughingstock. Roger Goodell badly needed a win here and he didn't get one. Instead, he added to his own mistake-filled legacy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the two biggest winners here are Tom Brady and the NFLPA. It's set a dangerous precedent, though. If you want to fight the NFL, and specifically the Commissioner, in federal court, go ahead. With Goodell's record in these cases, your chances look pretty good.
Unfortunately, until a change is made, that's the way it's going to be. So, if Roger Goodell really does care about the "integrity of the game" as much as he says he does (and I truly do think he thinks he's doing the right thing for the league), he has to know that, too. For the good of the game, he needs to step away. The man who needs ultimate control has to cede some. It'll be difficult, sure. But it's necessary.
They say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think we can all agree that Roger Goodell has proven that idiom true. But him having all the power isn't working for anybody. At all. The players, for the most part, think he's out to get them, and the owners can't like all these lawsuits or the fact that every time Goodell is challenged, the league loses.
In order to prevent Deflategate becoming the norm, Goodell needs to take a back seat during some part of the process. It needs to be fair and transparent. Right now it's not. And the only way to fix it is by making that change. So, in a strange way, Deflategate might've been a good thing. Because it brought the issue to the forefront and a change not only seems likely, but inevitable. And not a moment too soon.
I don't think the judge wanted to throw out Brady's suspension completely. That's why he wanted them to settle so badly. In my opinion, Brady deserved some sort of punishment for his role in the scandal, but the one levied down upon him was too harsh. I think the judge felt that way, too. So he encouraged them to settle, which was never going happen. Brady was never going to accept anything that required him to admit having a role and taking blame for it. Goodell was never going to admit he was wrong.
As a result, the decision was left in the hands of the judge. And he didn't have the option of reducing the suspension. If he did, that's likely what he would've done. Instead, he had to rule that either the NFL was right and uphold the penalty or that the NFL went too far and wipe it out completely. He went with option B. Not necessarily because he believed Brady's side of the story or thought he had nothing to do with it, but because he thought the entire process is unfair.
Roger Goodell is judge, jury and executioner, and there's nothing "impartial" about it. That's what this ruling is about more than anything else. He thinks Goodell has too much power in the area of player discipline and that Mr. Brilliant Commissioner invokes that power whenever it's convenient for him. The players don't know what falls under Goodell's jurisdiction under the personal conduct policy, which is incredibly vague. Nor are there specified penalties, which Goodell does seem to arbitrarily make up at whim.
This is just the latest in a long line of Goodell missteps in the personal conduct area. From the Saints' Bountygate, where he was right to suspend, but was too harsh in his penalties, that were all eventually either reduced or overturned. With Ray Rice, he got it incredibly wrong at first, tried to correct himself, and was called out for punishing the same guy twice for the same thing. Then there's Adrian Peterson and the indefinite suspension. Now Brady. That's four major losses on his ledger without a single major win on his resume. Not a good record to say the least.
What's been clear for a long time and was further affirmed during this case is that the NFL's system of player discipline is broken. Everyone already knew this, but it was also a position the players put themselves in when they agreed to it in the CBA. In order to get it changed, you would've figured they'd have to wait for the new CBA, where it would obviously be an important point of discussion.
But with all these highly publicized missteps, it's clear that waiting for the new CBA to make a change isn't in the best interest of anybody. In fact, the owners are already looking at an alternative method to having the commissioner have the sole decision-making voice. Unless the NFL wants to keep going to court with the NFLPA,
Goodell can't be the only one involved in the process. Should he be involved? Yes. But he shouldn't hear the appeals. Or, even better, he should only be hearing the appeals after an owner-appointed player disciplinary committee hears each case and issues a ruling first. There also needs to be a set of guidelines on which to base any punishments. That's as much a part of the problem as anything. You violate the substance abuse policy, it's four games. But with the personal conduct policy, nobody knows. It could be two, it could be six, it could be an entire year. The whole thing is completely arbitrary. The players deserve to know what type of suspension they might be looking at for violating the policy, and what kinds of violations would warrant a suspension.
The Personal Conduct Policy isn't a bad thing. The "integrity of the game" is something worth protecting. But Goodell has proven time and again that he can get way too aggressive in his attempts to protect that integrity. And in doing so, he's made a mockery of the process and turned himself into a laughingstock. Roger Goodell badly needed a win here and he didn't get one. Instead, he added to his own mistake-filled legacy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the two biggest winners here are Tom Brady and the NFLPA. It's set a dangerous precedent, though. If you want to fight the NFL, and specifically the Commissioner, in federal court, go ahead. With Goodell's record in these cases, your chances look pretty good.
Unfortunately, until a change is made, that's the way it's going to be. So, if Roger Goodell really does care about the "integrity of the game" as much as he says he does (and I truly do think he thinks he's doing the right thing for the league), he has to know that, too. For the good of the game, he needs to step away. The man who needs ultimate control has to cede some. It'll be difficult, sure. But it's necessary.
They say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think we can all agree that Roger Goodell has proven that idiom true. But him having all the power isn't working for anybody. At all. The players, for the most part, think he's out to get them, and the owners can't like all these lawsuits or the fact that every time Goodell is challenged, the league loses.
In order to prevent Deflategate becoming the norm, Goodell needs to take a back seat during some part of the process. It needs to be fair and transparent. Right now it's not. And the only way to fix it is by making that change. So, in a strange way, Deflategate might've been a good thing. Because it brought the issue to the forefront and a change not only seems likely, but inevitable. And not a moment too soon.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
What Went Wrong In Beijing
A lot has gone on in the sports world over the past couple days. Tom Brady's suspension was lifted (more on that tomorrow), LA stepped in as the U.S. bid city for the 2024 Olympics, the U.S. Open is in full swing as Serena Williams chases history, football season is right around the corner, and baseball's pennant races are heating up. But first I want to go back to the Track & Field World Championships in Beijing, which were a huge disappointment for the United States.
On paper, the U.S. did "fine" in Beijing. They won 18 medals, the most of any nation, six of which were gold, the same number they won at the World Championships in Moscow two years ago. And the U.S. finished at the top of the unofficial placing table, which awards points top-eight finishes in each event. However, a deeper look at those numbers shows exactly why the 2015 edition of Worlds have to be classified as a disappointment.
First and foremost, the six gold medals were only the third-most of any nation. Jamaica and Kenya both won seven golds. The U.S. had never finished lower than second in the gold medal count at Worlds before. And the 18 total medals were the fewest for an American team since 2003, when subsequent positive doping test resulted in medals getting stripped and the total being knocked down to an official number of 16. By comparison, the U.S. medal total is usually somewhere in the mid- to high-20s (it was 25 at both the 2011 and 2013 World Championships and 29 at the London Olympics). Track & Field News, in its World Championships predictions, projected 31 medals for the U.S. in Beijing.
Adding insult to injury, the Americans won a grand total of two gold medals on the track. The men's team didn't win a single individual gold, and it took until the final event of the meet--the 4x400 relay--for the American men to take a gold medal in a running event. The American men had NEVER been shut out in individual running events at a Worlds or Olympics before. Meanwhile, the women also only won one gold medal in a track event--Allyson Felix in the 400. Felix then ran a blistering third leg to give the U.S. the lead in the 4x400 relay, only to see it given all back on the anchor leg and Jamaica win its seventh sprinting gold of the meet.
To sum it up, Jamaica won three of the four relays, both 100s, Usain Bolt in the 200, and a surprise win in the women's 100 hurdles. And Kenya didn't just clean up in the distance events, either. Kenya had gold medalists in the men's 400 hurdles and javelin, too. Meanwhile, the Americans are limited to one individual gold on the track, one relay gold, Ashton Eaton's incredible decathlon world record, and three field event wins. That's unacceptable.
In some cases, bad luck or superior performances were to blame. Justin Gatlin won two silvers behind Usain Bolt. There's no shame in that, even if Gatlin could've (and probably should've) won the 100. LaShawn Merritt ran a personal best in the 400, only to have South Africa's Wayde Van Niekerk run the race of his life to win the gold. Jenny Simpson lost her shoe in the women's 1500 and Alysia Montano fell in the heats of the women's 800.
There were also some ill-timed injuries that contributed to the American fortunes. From Trey Hardee not being able to finish the decathlon to Ajee Wilson not even being able to make the trip. All that makes what Aries Merritt did all the more remarkable. He had a kidney transplant on Tuesday, less than a week after winning a bronze medal that's worth its weight in gold. (See, it wasn't all bad.)
And Emma Coburn and Evan Jager were disappointed in themselves that they didn't come away with medals, but they both finished fifth in the steeplechases, the best-ever finish for an American, and simply got beat on the last lap. Nothing wrong there. The fact that they're disappointed is a good thing. It shows that they know they're contenders, and they're not content with the best-ever finish by an American. The steeplechasers could've medaled, but I'm not calling fifth place there a "disappointment."
But, for the most part, "disappointing" is the only word you can use to describe the American team's performance. Bershawn Jackson and Johnny Dutch both failed to get out of the heats in the men's 400 hurdles, and that's just one example of an event where American medal favorites didn't deliver. David Oliver fell in the 110 hurdles final and was never in it. Jeff Henderson fizzled out in the long jump. There wasn't a single American man in the 800 final, and the 1500 runners finished well back in the pack. Then there was the traditional handoff issue in the 4x100 relay that resulted in another DQ.
It was almost an indentical script on the women's side. No finalists in the 800 despite having five runners ranked in the Top 10. No medals in the 1500, where Simpson and Shannon Rowbury were ranked 2-3. A disaster in the 100 hurdles. Four athletes (all of whom were considered medal contenders), two finalists, no medals. And I don't know what happened in the 4x400, where the U.S. selections were highly questionable and Jamaica was clearly the superior team (they placed four in the individual 400 final). Brittney Reese didn't even make the final of the long jump, which is easy to forget because Tianna Bartoletta won the gold 10 years after her first World Championship.
Even some of the good stuff was overshadowed by negative storylines. Emily Infeld won a surprise bronze medal in the women's 10,000. But all anybody could talk about after the race was how Molly Huddle had the bronze in her hand before celebrating too early and getting clipped by Infeld at the line. Even Infeld felt terrible for Huddle, who will sadly have her entire career defined by that one moment, saying in her post-race press conference that she felt like she "stole" the medal.
So how did this happen and how does USATF fix it? The biggest explanation people have offered is that the gap between U.S. Nationals and Worlds is too great. Athletes have to peak at Nationals, which are held two months before Worlds, just to make the team. It's impossible to maintain peak performance that long. Maybe the gap should be less. In London, it was 33 days and the U.S. came home with 29 track & field medals. Next year, the gap between Olympic Trials and the Rio Games will be the same 33 days as it was in 2012.
U.S. Nationals have always been held in late June/early July, but tradition is the only thing keeping USATF bound to that date. And it is a legitimate concern. The 2019 Worlds will take place at the end of September. That's three months after the traditional date for Nationals. If the performance in Beijing is any indication, USATF needs to be more flexible in its scheduling of the U.S. Nationals. Because peak performance at Worlds/Olympics is optimal. With the U.S. Nationals as competitive as they always are, moving Nationals later would also assure the best team possible heads to the global meet.
Perhaps going hand-in-hand with that is the fact that all of those top times run by Americans took place early in the year. What good is it to run super-fast in April or May when Worlds are in August? Maybe that was part of the problem. The expectations became somewhat unrealistic because of these times being put up, but these times were being put up so far in advance of the meet that they really were somewhat irrelevant. How athletes are performing as the meet draws closer is the real indicator of how they'll do at Worlds. Because anyone can put up a good time running behind a rabbit in early May.
The field events weren't as publicized as the problems on the track, but there were issues in the field, too. I obviously mentioned the long jumps, but the U.S. didn't qualify anyone in the women's triple jump or women's high jump (although, the national champions in those two events were both given a wild card by the IAAF to fill the field). The men's triple jump had four Florida Gators who were all expected to challenge, and Christian Taylor had a remarkable jump that was close to the world record, but the other three floundered. And Joe Kovacs' gold in the men's shot put (an event the U.S. used to dominate, but only got the one medal in this time), along with Michelle Carter's bronze in the women's shot put, were the only medals in the throws. The U.S. didn't even have any finalists in the men's discus or javelin.
It's not just a sprint problem. It's an all-around problem. And don't even get me started on the relays. I know Sanya Richards-Ross is Sanya Richards-Ross, but she didn't even make the finals in the 400 at Nationals. Why is she running the 4x400 final at Worlds and Phyllis Francis, who finished sixth in the open event, isn't? And why is Francena McCororoy running the anchor instead of Allyson Felix? And it's gotten past the point of blaming the men's 4x100 on Jamaica and Usain Bolt. They can't even get the stick around the track, which has been an issue for years. That has nothing to do with Jamaica. Finishing the race and taking silver behind Jamaica is fine. Dropping the baton and getting DQed--again--isn't.
Traveling to Beijing and the time difference and all that might've come into play, too. And who knows how much of a distraction all of the crap involving Nick Symmonds and the various doping scandals were? Adjusting to the time difference should've been a non-issue. They had a week-long training camp in Japan for the sole purpose of getting their bodies acclimated. As for the external distractions, no matter which side they were on, I'm sure getting in the middle of Nick Symmonds vs. the USATF wasn't on anybody's pre-Worlds agenda.
I don't know what the solutions are. Maybe USATF doesn't need to do anything. This might've just been a bad meet. But I suspect it's more than that. The U.S. has long been the dominant power in the sport of track & field and in many ways still is. But that perch at the top is being seriously threatened. And if the U.S. doesn't rebound in Rio, the doubters will become even more vocal.
If you want to call yourselves the world's best, you've got to go out and prove it. Put your money where your mouth is. I think we can all agree, that during the nine days of the World Championships in Beijing, USA Track & Field didn't do that.
On paper, the U.S. did "fine" in Beijing. They won 18 medals, the most of any nation, six of which were gold, the same number they won at the World Championships in Moscow two years ago. And the U.S. finished at the top of the unofficial placing table, which awards points top-eight finishes in each event. However, a deeper look at those numbers shows exactly why the 2015 edition of Worlds have to be classified as a disappointment.
First and foremost, the six gold medals were only the third-most of any nation. Jamaica and Kenya both won seven golds. The U.S. had never finished lower than second in the gold medal count at Worlds before. And the 18 total medals were the fewest for an American team since 2003, when subsequent positive doping test resulted in medals getting stripped and the total being knocked down to an official number of 16. By comparison, the U.S. medal total is usually somewhere in the mid- to high-20s (it was 25 at both the 2011 and 2013 World Championships and 29 at the London Olympics). Track & Field News, in its World Championships predictions, projected 31 medals for the U.S. in Beijing.
Adding insult to injury, the Americans won a grand total of two gold medals on the track. The men's team didn't win a single individual gold, and it took until the final event of the meet--the 4x400 relay--for the American men to take a gold medal in a running event. The American men had NEVER been shut out in individual running events at a Worlds or Olympics before. Meanwhile, the women also only won one gold medal in a track event--Allyson Felix in the 400. Felix then ran a blistering third leg to give the U.S. the lead in the 4x400 relay, only to see it given all back on the anchor leg and Jamaica win its seventh sprinting gold of the meet.
To sum it up, Jamaica won three of the four relays, both 100s, Usain Bolt in the 200, and a surprise win in the women's 100 hurdles. And Kenya didn't just clean up in the distance events, either. Kenya had gold medalists in the men's 400 hurdles and javelin, too. Meanwhile, the Americans are limited to one individual gold on the track, one relay gold, Ashton Eaton's incredible decathlon world record, and three field event wins. That's unacceptable.
In some cases, bad luck or superior performances were to blame. Justin Gatlin won two silvers behind Usain Bolt. There's no shame in that, even if Gatlin could've (and probably should've) won the 100. LaShawn Merritt ran a personal best in the 400, only to have South Africa's Wayde Van Niekerk run the race of his life to win the gold. Jenny Simpson lost her shoe in the women's 1500 and Alysia Montano fell in the heats of the women's 800.
There were also some ill-timed injuries that contributed to the American fortunes. From Trey Hardee not being able to finish the decathlon to Ajee Wilson not even being able to make the trip. All that makes what Aries Merritt did all the more remarkable. He had a kidney transplant on Tuesday, less than a week after winning a bronze medal that's worth its weight in gold. (See, it wasn't all bad.)
And Emma Coburn and Evan Jager were disappointed in themselves that they didn't come away with medals, but they both finished fifth in the steeplechases, the best-ever finish for an American, and simply got beat on the last lap. Nothing wrong there. The fact that they're disappointed is a good thing. It shows that they know they're contenders, and they're not content with the best-ever finish by an American. The steeplechasers could've medaled, but I'm not calling fifth place there a "disappointment."
But, for the most part, "disappointing" is the only word you can use to describe the American team's performance. Bershawn Jackson and Johnny Dutch both failed to get out of the heats in the men's 400 hurdles, and that's just one example of an event where American medal favorites didn't deliver. David Oliver fell in the 110 hurdles final and was never in it. Jeff Henderson fizzled out in the long jump. There wasn't a single American man in the 800 final, and the 1500 runners finished well back in the pack. Then there was the traditional handoff issue in the 4x100 relay that resulted in another DQ.
It was almost an indentical script on the women's side. No finalists in the 800 despite having five runners ranked in the Top 10. No medals in the 1500, where Simpson and Shannon Rowbury were ranked 2-3. A disaster in the 100 hurdles. Four athletes (all of whom were considered medal contenders), two finalists, no medals. And I don't know what happened in the 4x400, where the U.S. selections were highly questionable and Jamaica was clearly the superior team (they placed four in the individual 400 final). Brittney Reese didn't even make the final of the long jump, which is easy to forget because Tianna Bartoletta won the gold 10 years after her first World Championship.
Even some of the good stuff was overshadowed by negative storylines. Emily Infeld won a surprise bronze medal in the women's 10,000. But all anybody could talk about after the race was how Molly Huddle had the bronze in her hand before celebrating too early and getting clipped by Infeld at the line. Even Infeld felt terrible for Huddle, who will sadly have her entire career defined by that one moment, saying in her post-race press conference that she felt like she "stole" the medal.
So how did this happen and how does USATF fix it? The biggest explanation people have offered is that the gap between U.S. Nationals and Worlds is too great. Athletes have to peak at Nationals, which are held two months before Worlds, just to make the team. It's impossible to maintain peak performance that long. Maybe the gap should be less. In London, it was 33 days and the U.S. came home with 29 track & field medals. Next year, the gap between Olympic Trials and the Rio Games will be the same 33 days as it was in 2012.
U.S. Nationals have always been held in late June/early July, but tradition is the only thing keeping USATF bound to that date. And it is a legitimate concern. The 2019 Worlds will take place at the end of September. That's three months after the traditional date for Nationals. If the performance in Beijing is any indication, USATF needs to be more flexible in its scheduling of the U.S. Nationals. Because peak performance at Worlds/Olympics is optimal. With the U.S. Nationals as competitive as they always are, moving Nationals later would also assure the best team possible heads to the global meet.
Perhaps going hand-in-hand with that is the fact that all of those top times run by Americans took place early in the year. What good is it to run super-fast in April or May when Worlds are in August? Maybe that was part of the problem. The expectations became somewhat unrealistic because of these times being put up, but these times were being put up so far in advance of the meet that they really were somewhat irrelevant. How athletes are performing as the meet draws closer is the real indicator of how they'll do at Worlds. Because anyone can put up a good time running behind a rabbit in early May.
The field events weren't as publicized as the problems on the track, but there were issues in the field, too. I obviously mentioned the long jumps, but the U.S. didn't qualify anyone in the women's triple jump or women's high jump (although, the national champions in those two events were both given a wild card by the IAAF to fill the field). The men's triple jump had four Florida Gators who were all expected to challenge, and Christian Taylor had a remarkable jump that was close to the world record, but the other three floundered. And Joe Kovacs' gold in the men's shot put (an event the U.S. used to dominate, but only got the one medal in this time), along with Michelle Carter's bronze in the women's shot put, were the only medals in the throws. The U.S. didn't even have any finalists in the men's discus or javelin.
It's not just a sprint problem. It's an all-around problem. And don't even get me started on the relays. I know Sanya Richards-Ross is Sanya Richards-Ross, but she didn't even make the finals in the 400 at Nationals. Why is she running the 4x400 final at Worlds and Phyllis Francis, who finished sixth in the open event, isn't? And why is Francena McCororoy running the anchor instead of Allyson Felix? And it's gotten past the point of blaming the men's 4x100 on Jamaica and Usain Bolt. They can't even get the stick around the track, which has been an issue for years. That has nothing to do with Jamaica. Finishing the race and taking silver behind Jamaica is fine. Dropping the baton and getting DQed--again--isn't.
Traveling to Beijing and the time difference and all that might've come into play, too. And who knows how much of a distraction all of the crap involving Nick Symmonds and the various doping scandals were? Adjusting to the time difference should've been a non-issue. They had a week-long training camp in Japan for the sole purpose of getting their bodies acclimated. As for the external distractions, no matter which side they were on, I'm sure getting in the middle of Nick Symmonds vs. the USATF wasn't on anybody's pre-Worlds agenda.
I don't know what the solutions are. Maybe USATF doesn't need to do anything. This might've just been a bad meet. But I suspect it's more than that. The U.S. has long been the dominant power in the sport of track & field and in many ways still is. But that perch at the top is being seriously threatened. And if the U.S. doesn't rebound in Rio, the doubters will become even more vocal.
If you want to call yourselves the world's best, you've got to go out and prove it. Put your money where your mouth is. I think we can all agree, that during the nine days of the World Championships in Beijing, USA Track & Field didn't do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)