Sports Illustrated Cover Couples

This is what happens when I get bored on the World Series off day.  And when ESPN.com puts up an article about that couple that met on their Big Ten football message board and ends up getting married during Michigan's bye week.  And when Derek Jeter and Hannah Davis announce that they're engaged.

Derek and Hannah aren't just a celebrity couple.  They're that rare couple that's both been on the cover of Sports Illustrated.  Obviously, a woman on the cover is rare in its own right.  So that makes the odds of two SI cover subjects coupling up even more rare.  But that doesn't mean the Jeter-Davis pairing is the only one where they've both been on the cover, either together or separately.

First, a look at those couples where, surprisingly, one made the cut and the other didn't.  The most notable of which is Brooklyn Decker and Andy Roddick.  That's the most unique of them all because she's been on the cover, but he never has...even though he was the athlete (and his 2003 US Open victory is still the most recent Grand Slam title by an American man).  FloJo and Al Joyner is another pairing where she's been on the cover and he hasn't.  It's obvious why FloJo was featured multiple times in 1988.  Her husband, Al, was the 1984 Olympic gold medalist in the triple jump, but he never earned a cover story.  His sister, of course, is Jackie Joyner-Kersee, and she's been on the cover plenty of times (again for obvious reasons).

Honorable mention also goes to Rebecca Lobo and Steve Rushin.  They had regional covers when UConn won its first National Championship in 1995, so I don't know if Lobo was on the cover or not, but she was the star of that team, so she deserves to be.  Rushin, meanwhile, has been an SI writer for years.  He took over the back page for a while after Rick Reilly left and is one of my favorite writers in the magazine.

Now for those where they've both been on the cover.  It's possible that there's more (I have no idea about some of the cover subjects from SI's early years), but these are the ones where I know the two athletes either are or were together at some point.

There's no order to these rankings.  It's basically just the order that I either thought of them or realized they were both on the cover in.

• Kate Upton and Justin Verlander: She's a two-time swimsuit cover girl, and she was even on the cover of a non-swimsuit issue along with her "brothers" B.J. (I refuse to call him Melvin) and Justin.  I wasn't sure if Verlander ever had been, but sure enough, the Tigers pitcher has been on the cover once.  Although, interestingly, it wasn't during the three years he was dominating the American League.
• Lindsey Vonn and Tiger Woods: Yes, they broke up.  But they're still one of the most successful pairings on this list.  I think Tiger's among the all-time Top 10 (maybe even Top 5) for cover appearances, and Lindsey's right up there among women.
• Steffi Graf and Andre Agassi: The King and Queen of sports couples.  A combined 33 Grand Slam titles and two Olympic gold medals between the two tennis champions, who've been married since 2001 and have two kids.
• Mia Hamm and Nomar Garciaparra: During this year's Women's World Cup, we kept hearing about the '99ers.  Mia Hamm was the face of that squad 16 years ago.  The entire team was SI's Sportswomen of the Year in 1999 (and I wouldn't be surprised if this year's squad gets the same honor).  No-mah was only on the cover once...during his 1997 Rookie of the Year season.
• Chris Evert and Jimmy Connors: Back in the 1970s, they were tennis' "It" couple.  They were engaged when they both won Wimbledon in 1974.  That engagement ended and they both married other people, but they've remained friends.  If they'd stayed together, they'd trump Andre and Steffi as tennis' greatest couple.  As it is, ranking No. 2 in that category ain't too bad.
• Ray Knight and Nancy Lopez: I had to go back and make sure they had both been on the cover, and, sure enough, they have.  Knight was on after his heroics in the 1986 World Series.  His wife was on while she was dominating the LPGA Tour during the late 70s.

Like I said, there might be more.  But I think you've gotta agree that this list is pretty impressive as-is.

30 Years In the Making

Be honest.  When the season started, did anybody think it was going to be a Mets-Royals World Series?  But that's what we've got.  And one of these two teams will win its first title since the mid-80s.  It's been 30 years for the Royals and 29 for the Mets, so, needless to say, both teams are due.  And one of these fan bases will get to celebrate a championship for the first time in a generation.

Let's start with the Royals.  Nobody expected them to get this far last year.  Not only did they get to the World Series in 2014, they got all the way to Game 7.  And if not for Madison Bumgarner, they probably would've held a parade in Kansas City last year.  Even with most of the team back, and new parts that many felt made them better, there were some that thought last season was a fluke.  I even saw some places where the Royals were picked fourth in the AL Central!  Instead, they dominate the division from start to finish, end up with the best record in the American League, and win a second straight pennant for the first time in franchise history.

Kansas City has been thinking about this since Game 7 last year, which has driven everything they've done this season.  That's why Ned Yost included 85 setup guys on the All-Star roster.  He knew that if the AL won this game, it would mean home field for the World Series.  And he was fully expecting to be back there.

As for the Mets, I'm not sure even they thought they'd be here when the season started.  Everyone knew the Mets were going to be good, but Washington was crowned NL East champions--by everybody--during Spring Training.  But as it turned out, the Nationals were a major disappointment, and the Mets improved their offense to go along with that dominant starting pitching.  Suddenly the team that many thought was a year or two away was in the driver's seat in the NL East, and, because of that pitching, nobody wanted to face them in October.  Well, they had good reason to be weary.  Because the Mets used that incredible pitching and an otherworldly performance by Daniel Murphy to get past the Dodgers, then sweep the Cubs, and capture their first pennant in 15 years.

With that pitching, the Mets were definitely building something in Queens.  I'm not sure many thought it would lead to a World Series appearance this season.  It was a year or two away.  But a lot of things went right for the 2015 New York Mets, and they grabbed the bull by the horns.  This might not be a one-shot deal, either.  All indications are that they're gonna be good for a while.

So we have this refreshingly unexpected matchup where history will be made no matter what.  This is the first all-expansion World Series, and it's also the first time that there will be a World Series rematch on Opening Day of the following season.  Although, imagine how awkward that might be.  If the Royals win, they're gonna raise their championship flag and hand out their rings with the team they beat watching from the visitor's dugout.  If the Mets win, Kansas City fans will have to relive another World Series loss just six months later.  With those guys who beat them ruining Opening Day.

But which of those scenarios will it be?  Will Opening Day be awkward for the Mets, or will it be awkward for the Royals?

Well, Kansas City is one of the most resilient teams in all of baseball.  Ask the Blue Jays.  It's impossible to put them away.  And once they get into that bullpen, it's game over.  All they need is six innings from the starter.  Plus, they've got that experience.  Last year is fresh in their minds.  There are a lot of new faces on this Royals roster, but most of the principals are in their second straight Fall Classic.  And they don't want to follow in the path of the Texas Rangers as back-to-back World Series losers.

One of the reasons they rely so much on that bullpen, though, is because their rotation isn't the strongest.  Last year, the Royals had a legitimate ace in James Shields, who unfortunately was matched up against Bumgarner twice.  This year, they're nowhere near as strong.  Yordano Ventura is back, but their Game 1 and 2 starters are Edinson Volquez and Johnny Cueto...who'll go against Matt Harvey and Jacob de Grom.  Advantage Mets.  The two former Reds will have to go toe-to-toe against the Mets' two best starters for the Royals to hold serve at home and potentially bring the series back to Kansas City.

The Mets, meanwhile, didn't trail at any point in the NLCS.  Life's easier when you're never behind.  (You can ask the Blue Jays about that, too.)  You're a lot looser and everything seems to go your way.  While it's unlikely that they'll get every break against the Royals just like they did against the Cubs, the Mets' offense has proven that it'll take advantage of every opportunity it's given.  Combine that with the pitching, and it's a lethal combination.

If there's one concern I have about the Mets, though, it's the bullpen.  We all know that the bullpen is one of the Royals' biggest strengths.  But for the Mets, the bridge between the starters and Familia might be where they're most vulnerable.  Other than Colon, who's actually one of the starters, there isn't a single guy in that bullpen Terry Collins has shown much faith in.  How long can you rely on the starter going seven and Familia going two, though?  Somebody else in that Mets bullpen is gonna have to step up.

There's one last thing that needs to be considered.  Since 2007, when the Rockies entered the World Series having won 21 of 22 and got swept by the Red Sox, the team with a long layoff after the LCS has traditionally not fared well in the World Series, especially if the other series goes six or seven.  This year, it's the Mets that come into the World Series with that extended rest.  They last played on Wednesday, which means Murphy hasn't hit a home run in almost a week, and that all four starting pitchers will be on longer rest than usual.  Kansas City, meanwhile, finished up on Friday.

I never really bought into that thing in the past, but it's proven itself over and over again.  There has to be some credence to it.  That's why I'm picking the Royals to win the World Series.  I'll say it goes six games, with Kansas City locking up its first title since 1985 at home.

Although, seeing as I picked both the Dodgers and Cubs, I'm sure Mets fans are fine with that selection.  So, congratulations to the Seventh Line Army.  Mayor de Blasio should probably start planning another parade down the Canyon of Heroes.

2015 Football Picks, Week 7

During the Seahawks-49ers game on Thursday night, CBS put up a very interesting graphic.  This is the first time in NFL history that this many teams (five) are still undefeated this late in the season.  With three of those five enjoying their bye this week, we're gonna hit November with at least three undefeateds.

But we also have the fewest number of teams above .500 after Week 6 since 1970.  So, basically, the 2015 NFL season has been one of extremes.  There are a few really good teams, some really bad teams, and a whole bunch of mediocre teams.  And some where we don't know which category they fall into.  I'm not sure this week will give us much clarity, either.

Thursday Night: Seattle (Win)

Bills (3-3) vs. Jaguars (1-5): Buffalo-London game No. 2, as the Jaguars play their annual "home" sellout in front of British fans who don't know any better.  Eventually they'll get to see a real NFL team in London, especially now that they've extended the deal.  This is also the experiment.  Unless you're in Buffalo or Jacksonville, you can't watch it on TV.  But everyone can watch it on Yahoo.  We'll see how that works out.  Again, I wish the NFL was giving this worldwide audience to a better game.  Because this one will be a Bills rout.  The only game in London worth watching on Sunday will be the Rugby World Cup semifinal between Australia and Argentina.

Vikings (3-2) at Lions (1-5): Detroit-We've got five undefeated teams and no winless teams thanks to the Lions finally putting a "1" in the left column last week against the Bears.  Now they go for a second straight division win against the Vikings.  Minnesota's two different teams.  They're unbeatable at home, but are winless on the road.  And they were simply average last week against the Chiefs.  I've got a good feeling about the Lions here.

Falcons (5-1) at Titans (1-4): Atlanta-After that Thursday night beatdown in New Orleans, the Falcons dropped from the ranks of the unbeaten.  Now they head to Nashville for a matchup with a desperate Titans team that hasn't won since the opener.  I think it's safe to say that Tennessee belongs in the "not good" category.  Atlanta needs to keep pace with Carolina, so winning games like this is a must.

Saints (2-4) at Colts (3-3): Indianapolis-Remember when these two met in the Super Bowl?  Can you believe that was SIX years ago?!  A lot has happened with both franchises since then.  The Colts are still winless outside the division, but I think they took a lot away from last week's seven-point loss to New England.  Most people were expecting a Patriots blowout, but the Colts made them earn it.  I still don't know what to make of New Orleans.  They've got two marquee wins (Dallas on a Sunday night, Atlanta on a Thursday night), but no others.  Something's gotta give here.  I'm encouraged by Indy's showing last week, so I'll take the Colts.

Steelers (4-2) at Chiefs (1-5): Pittsburgh-My outlook for Kansas City is growing dimmer by the week.  Five losses in a row for the Chiefs.  It's about to be six with the Steelers coming to town.  The good news is there probably aren't many people in Kansas City who've noticed.  The World Series starts across the parking lot on Tuesday night.

Browns (2-4) at Rams (2-3): St. Louis-This is a very interesting matchup.  St. Louis and Cleveland have both surprised a lot of people this season, even if their records don't necessarily indicate that.  But the Rams have beaten the Seahawks and Cardinals, and the Browns took Denver to overtime last week.  It's St. Louis that actually has a shot at getting into the race in its division, though.  Depending on what happens with the Cardinals on Monday night, the Rams could be just a half-game out in the NFC West after this week.

Texans (2-4) at Dolphins (2-3): Houston-Maybe Joe Philbin was the problem in Miami.  Or maybe it was just playing the Titans after a bye that got the Dolphins back on the winning track.  Either way, things should be different against a Texans team that finally snapepd its own skid last week against Jacksonville.  I think they make it two in a row here.

Jets (4-1) at Patriots (5-0): New England-Sheldon Richardson has predicted a Jets win.  Careful, Sheldon.  You don't want to poke the bear.  Yes, the Jets are very good.  And yes, they'll technically be in first place if they do win here.  But that's easier said than done.  There's a reason why the Patriots own this division.  Make it four 6-0 teams heading into November.

Buccaneers (2-3) at Redskins (2-4): Tampa Bay-I wish I had something profound to say about this game, but I don't.  Washington-Tampa Bay does nothing to excite me in any way.  I'm sure people in Virginia, Maryland and central Florida wish they weren't being subjected to this game, but they don't have a choice.  Fortunately for the rest of us, we don't have to watch it.

Raiders (2-3) at Chargers (2-4): San Diego-With Jack Del Rio at the helm, the Oakland Raiders are a completely different team.  Now they have a real test against their potential future stadium-mates (am I the only one who finds that whole thing weird?), as they battle for second place in the division.  San Diego might be 2-4, but three of their losses are to Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Green Bay.  The Chargers are a good team.  The Raiders aren't at that point yet.

Cowboys (2-3) at Giants (3-3): Giants-Another fascinating stat that was thrown out there during last Monday night's debacle in Philadelphia...the Giants are just 1-9 in their last 10 games against the Eagles and Cowboys.  That includes a Week 1 loss in Dallas this season when they blew a 10-point fourth-quarter lead.  So what's going to be different this time?  Easy.  Dallas doesn't have Tony Romo.  The Cowboys should be better under Matt Cassel than they were under Branden Weeden, but they still need to prove they can win without Romo.  And Eli needs to prove he's still capable of beating the Cowboys, which used to happen so easily.

Eagles (3-3) at Panthers (5-0): Carolina-When NBC picked this for Sunday night, I don't think they were expecting to see an undefeated Panthers team.  Or that this would be a battle of first-place teams.  It's funny to think that Carolina had just seven wins all of last season, which was still enough to win the NFC South, and now they're looking at winning their first six of this season.  Oh, how things are different from one year to the next.  Five undefeated teams enter Week 7.  Five undefeated teams enter Week 8.

Ravens (1-5) at Cardinals (4-2): Arizona-The good news for the Ravens is that they go home after this, and they don't play another road game for a month.  If there's any team that deserves a little home cooking, it's Baltimore.  Because their early schedule has been brutal.  It's only Week 7, and this is already their fourth road game in either the Mountain or Pacific time zone.  They stayed in San Jose during the week between their games in Denver and Oakland.  It didn't work.  They lost both.  I'm not sure what they did this week, but a Monday night game in Phoenix is no favor for an East Coast team that wasn't just in San Francisco.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 10-4
Season: 64-28

Murphy or Cespedes: Who to Keep?

Congratulations to the New York Mets and their fans.  They certainly deserve their place in the World Series.  The last time they made it, it was a Subway Series against a Yankees dynasty.  The city's allegiance was understandably split.  This time, the Mets are the toast of the town.  There's even Yankees fans jumping on the bandwagon.  While I'm not one of them, I have no ill will towards the Mets.  And I legitimately feel good for my friends and relatives that are Mets fans (of which there are many) and are rightfully savoring this moment.

However, once the World Series ends, the Mets are going to have some very difficult decisions to make.  More specifically, they need to decide what they're going to do with two of their most important position players.  Yoenis Cespedes and Daniel Murphy are both set to become free agents.  While it's possible they'll keep both, I doubt the Mets will.  But which one do you keep?

Daniel Murphy, of course, has been otherworldly during the postseason.  And this October tear that he's on has earned him an awful lot of money.  Murphy's going to be one of the most sought-after free agents in all of baseball.  And I can think of plenty of teams (like the one across town) that will be in the market for his services in 2016.

Yoenis Cespedes, meanwhile, was originally viewed as a rental.  But after that torrid start to his Mets career, it wasn't hard to picture him staying in Queens for the long haul.  It's safe to say that the Mets wouldn't be in the World Series without Yoenis Cespedes.  His arrival, which signified the team was trying to win now, kick-started their offense and sparked their run to the NL East title and ultimately the National League pennant.

Before this postseason, it seemed like a no-brainer that the Mets would be able to keep both of them.  But now I'm not so sure.  Everybody already knew Cespedes was going to command a pretty penny.  Now with Murphy's postseason for the ages, he's going to, as well.  The Mets aren't a small-market team.  But they're also notorious for not being as free-spending as their cross-town neighbors.  And there's something else that people need to keep in mind that extends well beyond the 2015-16 offseason--they eventually need to pay the pitchers.

This World Series appearance gives the Mets a perfect reason to go against their usual practice and open up their checkbooks for both Murphy and Cespedes.  With de Grom, Syndergaard and Co., all locked in under team control for the next couple years, the Mets have the potential to be good for a while.  But in order to turn into the new version of the Giants, they have to take a page out of San Francisco's book.  One of the reasons the Giants have won three of the last five World Series is because they've kept that core group together.  The Mets could easily do that same thing.

If this was the NFL, there would be salary cap worries and it would be almost impossible to keep two of your own free agents, especially when they're both going to command a whole lot of money.  But if this was the NFL, you'd also see something like David Wright being a good captain and restructuring his contract so that they'd be able to pay both without going over the cap.  This is baseball, though.  There's nothing stopping the Mets from re-signing both Daniel Murphy and Yoenis Cespedes.  They're just gonna have to pay up to do it.

Under his contract that's about to expire, Murphy made an average of $8 million a year.  He's due to at least double that.  Especially considering his age (30), he's looking at probably six years at $15 million per at least.  That's $90 million.  And that might even be lowballing it.

Cespedes is on the fourth team of that initial four-year contract he signed with the A's after coming over from Cuba in 2012.  He's 29 and made $10.5 million this season.  As a legitimate right-handed power threat (don't forget, he's a two-time Home Run Derby winner) that a lot of teams covet, someone's going to overpay for him.  I wouldn't be surprised to see him get a contract similar to the one Robinson Cano got from the Mariners.  It won't be that high, but eight years for $160 million doesn't seem unrealistic at all.

Averaging out those hypothetical figures, that would put the Mets on the hook for $35 million for just Murphy and Cespedes in 2016.  This year, their payroll was just under $100 million, which ranked 20th in the Majors.  Cespedes and Murphy account for $18.5 million of that.  So, assuming everyone else on the roster is retained at their current salary, doubling the salaries of those two players would bring the payroll to $118 million, which would move them up to 12th.

Like I said, it's possible.  But I don't see it happening.  So which do you keep?  That's the tough question.  They've both got incredible value, but in different ways.  Murphy's a career Met who can play anywhere in the infield.  And while he's on a historic power surge, he's better known as a solid get-on-base guy who you can count on to be out there everyday.

As for Cespedes, he's expressed his interest in playing in a large market, indicating he'd like to stay.  And, after being on four teams in two years, who can blame him?  His value cannot be overstated, either.  When the A's traded him to the Red Sox last July, they were in first place in the AL West.  By a wide margin.  Only to collapse, see the Angels pass them, barely hang on to make the playoffs, and lose the Wild Card Game.  And we all know how Oakland's 2015 season went.  Meanwhile, the Tigers were still in contention when they traded Cespedes to the Mets this year at midseason.  Detroit ended up in last place, while Cespedes is one of the main reasons why the Mets are in the World Series.  We all know about the power, but he's got a gun for an arm and is good for at least 150 games.

It's a really tough call.  If I had to pick one, though, I think I'd keep Murphy.  Cespedes is going to be pricey, and he really came down to Earth after that incredible start to his Mets career.  Michael Conforto and Juan Lagares, the Mets have cheaper in-house options to replace him if he leaves.  Murphy, on the other hand, isn't going to break the bank nearly as much as Cespedes will (although the number of teams after him might drive the price up).  He's also not-as-easily replaceable.  If he leaves, who's going to play second?  Or bat after David Wright?

I don't envy Sandy Alderson and the decision he's gonna have to make in a couple weeks.  What we do know, though, is that he doesn't have to worry about it yet.  Murphy and Cespedes will still be teammates next week, as the Mets try to win the World Series for the first time in 29 years.  After that, who knows?  But it's not something anybody is worrying about right now.

The Need for a Permanent National Team Coach

I haven't read/heard everything about the whole Louisville basketball situation yet, so I currently have no opinion on the matter.  I've got plenty of thoughts on the MLB playoffs, but we'll have plenty of time to discuss that between now and the seemingly inevitable Mets-Royals World Series.

Both of those subjects are topics for another day.  Today I want to talk about Mike Krzyzewski's news from a few days ago that he'll "retire" after a decade as head coach of the U.S. men's basketball national team after next summer's Rio Olympics.  U.S. National Team general manager Jerry Colangelo hasn't unveiled his succession plan, but has hinted that whoever it is will come from the pros.

Until the decision to revamp the National Team program after the embarrassing sixth-place finish at the 2002 World Championships (in Indianapolis) and bronze medal at the Athens Olympics, the coach of Team USA at the World Championships and Olympics was always an NBA coach.  The three gold medal-winning coaches at the 1992 (Chuck Daly), 1996 (Lenny Wilkens) and 2000 (Rudy Tomjanovich) Olympics all came from the NBA.

Once it stopped working and they decided to have a semi-permanent National Team coach, they turned to the college ranks and got the most respected coach they could--Mike Krzyzewski.  It was the perfect choice.  Even though he was a college guy, the pros absolutely respected him.  Better yet, they all wanted to play for him.  And the results were more along the lines of what's expected from Team USA.  Bronze at the 2006 World Championships, followed by back-to-back Olympic titles in 2008 and 2012 and two World titles in 2010 and 2014.

After the Rio Olympics, FIBA is changing the structure of world basketball.  For starters the World Championships, which has been renamed the "World Cup," has been moved to the year before the Olympics.  That means there's no major tournaments in 2017-18, followed by the World Cup and Olympics back-to-back in 2019-20.  They're also trying to make international basketball more like international soccer and have different international competition windows throughout the year where teams have actual home games for the first time.  Most professional leagues are going to shutdown during these international windows so that every country can have its best available players.  Every league except for...you guessed it...the NBA!

This new FIBA structure presents an incredible opportunity for USA Basketball to completely change up the system.  Being the head coach of the U.S. National Team isn't an easy job.  And it's a very time-consuming one.  Mike Krzyzewski has spent his summers juggling his full-time job as Duke's head coach with USA coaching duties effortlessly for a decade now.  And making it look easy.  Much easier than it actually is.

College basketball season starts in early November and ends in late March/early April.  Contrast that to the NBA, which starts training camp in October and the regular season ends in mid-April, with a long playoff run adding up to two months, then it starts all over again.  College coaches obviously have offseason workouts and recruiting trips throughout the summer, but that competitive window is significantly smaller than the NBA's, so a college coach would be able to devote more time to the National Team than an NBA coach would.

That's why I think USA Basketball should make the bold move of hiring a full-time National Team coach.  Not somebody who also works for a college or pro team.  Somebody whose job is only to coach the U.S. Men's National Team.  Just like Jurgen Klinsmann and Jill Ellis are the head coaches of the U.S. Men's and Women's National Teams in soccer and nothing else.  They have no club responsibilities.  Their sole job is the development and coaching of the U.S. National Team.  And look at where the soccer U.S. National Teams are compared to the days before they had a full-time, exclusive coach.

It's obviously not a perfect parallel, but it would definitely work.  In fact, with the new FIBA schedule, it might be the only thing that would work.  If, during one of these international windows, Team USA has to play a game in Mexico then another in Puerto Rico a few days later, they don't just need 12 players who are available, they need a coach that's available too.  And, if it's an NBA coach and their NBA team has a game on one of those days or somewhere that would make travel prohibitive, you'll need to find a different Team USA coach for that game(s).  How does that help the development of a cohesive unit if you don't even have the same coach for every game?

If USA Basketball were to hire someone to be strictly the National Team coach, working around NBA/college schedules wouldn't be an issue.  Neither would recruiting players to play for the National Team.  It's gonna be hard enough to get NBA players to commit two summers in a row to playing for Team USA.  Imagine how much harder it'll be to find 12 guys to play during an international window in December (when the NBA guys are busy playing regular season games).  Now imagine trying to do that with some random coach who they don't know.

At least if it's the same coach for all Team USA games, who's on the roster will be less of an issue.  That coach can pick players based on his system and who best fits into specific roles.  It can be the same guys, but it doesn't have to be.  Managing that roster is difficult enough.  That's why Colangelo left his job with the Phoenix Suns to go work for USA Basketball.  And I'm not saying Colangelo should be taken out of the process, either.  I just happen to think the whole system would work better if Colangelo and his head coach could work together year-round.

So who's the right man for the job?  I have no idea.  I don't even know if there's an NBA-caliber coach out there who'd even want to coach the U.S. National Team exclusively.  But I think it would be worthwhile to give it a try.  The rest of the world is catching up.  Team USA needs to do something to remain at the top.  Like hiring a full-time head coach for the National Team (which a lot of countries already have).

2015 Football Picks, Week 6

Here in New York, virtually everyone has gotten swept up in Mets Fever.  So much so that I haven't heard a peep about the first-place Giants, who've won three in a row, or the 3-1 Jets.  But, alas, they're both in action this week.  And unlike last week, one of the two New York teams is playing on Sunday afternoon, albeit on the off network (Jets-Redskins on FOX).

Neither New York team is undefeated, but there are five teams that are.  The week started with six, only to see that number drop by one when the Falcons lost to the Saints on Thursday night.  Regardless, that number is remarkable.  We entered Week 6 with six undefeated teams, and you've got to figure at least one is going to survive until next week.  Last year, the final undefeated teams--Cincinnati and Arizona--both suffered their first loss in Week 4.  I've really got a feeling that we're gonna see a 14-2 or 15-1 this year.  Maybe multiple.

One of the reasons I think that is because this season has been awfully top-heavy.  There are a lot of mediocre/bad teams in the NFL this season, and the handful of good teams are taking advantage of that.  With an exception here or there, the good teams are probably only gonna lose to each other, which is why I think we're also looking at some 2-14s and 3-13s.

As for this week's picks, I suffered my first Thursday night loss of the season with the Falcons.  Will any of the other five join them in the once-defeated club?  Probably.  Cincinnati, Carolina and New England all have tough road games.

Thursday Night: Atlanta (Loss)

Bengals (5-0) at Bills (3-2): Cincinnati-The Bengals got their signature win last week, coming back to beat the Seahawks in overtime and stay undefeated.  Now they have a difficult game on the road against a good Buffalo team.  Rex's guy gutted out a one-point win in Nashville last week to get back over .500, and they've got a long trip to London after this.  The Bills have been consistently inconsistent, though.  Thru their first five games, it's been win, loss, win, loss, win.  Both of those losses came at home to teams currently in first place (Patriots and Giants).  Make it three.  Bengals win and go to 6-0.

Broncos (5-0) at Browns (2-3): Denver-Things haven't been pretty in Denver thus far.  I don't know what's going on with the Broncos' offense.  That defense is outstanding, though, and the Broncos are in a position many expected them to be in at this point in the season: 5-0.  They'll have a tough test this weekend on the road against a Cleveland team that's better than many people give them credit for.  But the teams the Browns have faced this season are nowhere near Denver's caliber.  The Browns will give the Broncos a game, but Denver will once again find a way to pull it out.

Bears (2-3) at Lions (0-5): Detroit-On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have the two teams at the bottom of the NFC North.  The Lions are the only winless team left, but they've had a brutal schedule the last couple of weeks.  The Bears, meanwhile, have won back-to-back games.  By a combined three points.  Against teams in the AFC West.  The Lions will welcome the break and knock off their division rivals to finally put a "1" in the win column.

Dolphins (1-3) at Titans (1-3): Tennessee-Let's see if things get any better for the Dolphins now that Joe Philbin is out (I'm assuming they let him come back to the U.S. and didn't just leave him in London, but I have no way of confirming that).  It's not like they could get much worse, so I'm going to assume there's at least marginal improvement.  Lost in all this is that the Titans haven't won a game since Week 1, either, so something's gotta give here.  I'll say Miami looks a lot better than it did during the final weeks of Philbin, but Ken Whisenhunt's crew gets the victory.

Chiefs (1-4) at Vikings (2-2): Minnesota-Last week, we didn't have any Super Bowl rematches.  This week we've got three, including a look back at the final game in AFL history.  I still say the Chiefs are better than their record suggests, but they had a chance to snap their losing streak last week, only to drop a home game against a Bears team they're better than.  That was KC's fourth straight loss.  I don't see how it doesn't get to five.  The Vikings aren't as good as they think they are, but they've also proven to be very difficult to beat at home.

Redskins (2-3) at Jets (3-1): Jets-I'm still not sure what to make of either one of these teams.  Are the Jets as good as their record indicates?  Maybe not.  But this is another winnable game before they go to New England next week.  The Redskins' first visit to Met Life Stadium this season didn't go so well, but they've had a win and an overtime loss since that loss to the Giants two weeks ago.  I can easily see them pulling the upset here.  I'm not sure it happens, though.

Cardinals (4-1) at Steelers (3-2): Pittsburgh-Another one of this week's Super Bowl rematches is of more recent vintage--the classic between Pittsburgh and Arizona seven years ago.  That was quite a game on Monday night, huh?  I agreed with the call to go for the touchdown, but it could've proved incredibly costly if they'd been able to see on the video if his knee was down or not.  And if it's overturned and the Steelers are 2-3 instead of 3-2, this becomes a must game.  As it is, they still can't afford to lose it and let Cincinnati create even more separation.

Texans (1-4) at Jaguars (1-4): Houston-Remember when everybody in the AFC South was tied for first at 1-2?  Yeah, that's certainly changed, hasn't it?  But they still all play each other twice a year, which means the Texans and Jaguars can't both lose this week.  If J.J. Watt can't play, that changes things.  But overall, the Texans are a better team.

Panthers (4-0) at Seahawks (2-3): Seattle-In my opinion, Carolina is absolutely the most vulnerable undefeated team this week.  They go to Seattle, where the Seahawks are incredibly difficult to beat.  Add to that the sense of urgency Seattle must feel after last week's loss in Cincinnati.  This could really be a long trip for the Panthers.  In more ways than one.

Chargers (2-3) at Packers (5-0): Green Bay-Along with New England, Green Bay is probably the one undefeated team you haven't thought has even come close to losing so far this season.  The Packers won't finish undefeated, but that says something about how good they are.  This week they take on San Diego, which might be the best opponent they've faced since Seattle, but with the game in Lambeau, you can expect to see the same result as every other Packers game so far this season.

Ravens (1-4) at 49ers (1-4): San Francisco-Oh, how these two teams have fallen since the Har-bowl, which was only three years ago.  As it stands, they both need a win--bad--to avoid this becoming a lost season (if it's not already).  Adding to Baltimore's fun is the fact that this is their third game out West already this season, with a Monday night matchup in Arizona in store for them next week.  All of this travel took its toll on the Ravens when they lost on the East Bay, and things won't go much better in Santa Clara against a 49ers team that finally started to figure things out offensively last week.

Patriots (4-0) at Colts (3-2): New England-A lot has happened in the 10 months since these two rivals last met, hasn't it?  All of the stuff that's been put out about this game throughout the week has emphasized the fact that these two franchises legitimately do not like each other.  Which is what makes it so great when they play.  It's also worth keeping in mind that this is New England's fifth game.  If Brady's suspension hadn't been overturned, this would've been his first game of the season.  Against the whistleblowers that got him in trouble in the first place.  We've already seen what happens when you piss Tom Brady off.  I'm not sure if the Patriots can whoop the Colts' butts all over the field as badly as they did in the AFC Championship Game, but they're sure gonna try.  This might not be pretty.

Giants (3-2) at Eagles (2-3): Giants-Remember when the Giants were 0-2 and everyone was freaking out that their season was over?  What a difference a month can make!  They have to keep their momentum, though, because they lost their only other division game and really can't afford to be 0-2 in the division with the second Dallas game coming up next week.  A loss would also mean the Eagles technically take over first.  The Eagles are a team that confuses me.  They beat the Jets, lost to the Redskins, then beat the living crap out of the Saints last week.  You don't know what team you're gonna get from one week to the next.  But if the cycle holds, we'll see the Bad Eagles this week.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 11-3
Season: 53-25

Party Like It's 1985 (Or '84, Or '86)

Don't mess with Michael J. Fox.  Or, shall I say, Nostradamus.  Back to the Future is everywhere this postseason.  The movie famously predicted (prophesized?) that the Cubs were going to win the World Series, but this whole playoff year has a nostalgic mid-80s feel to it.  In 1985, when Back to the Future came out, what was the ALCS?  Royals-Blue Jays.

It all comes back to 1985 in the NL, too.  The 1985 NLCS combatants, the Cardinals and Dodgers lost their Division Series to teams that were in the NLCS the year before (the Cubs) and the year after (the Mets).

So, instead of the traditional powers, we're left with four teams that have been waiting a while for their last World Series title.  The Blue Jays won most recently.  In 1993.  The last season of four divisions.  The Mets and Royals, meanwhile, have been waiting 30 years.  And for the Cubs, well, it's been a lot longer than that.  Their last World Series appearance was the same year the war ended.  World War II.  In 1945.  That was 70 years ago!  As for their last title, as any Cubs fan could tell you, it's been 107 years.

In the National League, it's a refreshing change of pace to see the Giants-Cardinals cycle come to an end.  In fact, this will be the first time since 2007 and just the second time since 2006 that a team other than the Giants, Cardinals or Phillies will represent the NL in the World Series.  And the same four teams (the Phillies, Giants, Cardinals and Dodgers) made 13 of the 14 NLCS appearances between the Rockies-Diamondbacks series in 2007 and this year's Mets-Cubs showdown, with the 2011 Brewers the only outlier.  So, yeah, it's nice to finally see something different.

But who wins?  Well, this is all just a formality, seeing as Back to the Future Part II already told us.  I was tempted to take the Cubs as my initial National League pick, but I stuck with my early September Dodgers prediction, mainly because of Kershaw and Greinke.  Little did I know the best pitcher in that series would turn out to be Jacob de Grom.  And Jake Arrieta proved he's human after all, giving up four runs on a night the wind was blowing out at Wrigley.  But the Cubs hit six home runs themselves and won that game anyway before closing out the Cardinals in Game 4, clinching a playoff series at Wrigley for the first time ever.  (In fairness, it was only their second playoff series win period since 1908.)

I thought the Mets' struggles down the stretch that gave home field to the Dodgers would be a difference in the Division Series, too.  The Mets did win Game 5 at Dodger Stadium, but now they have to fly cross country again to start the NLCS.  So, yes, they have home field for the NLCS, but will that travel take its toll?

Regardless of who won Game 5, I was thinking the Cubs would at least get a split of Games 1 & 2 with Lester and Arrieta.  Had they won, the Dodgers wouldn't have been able to matchup Greinshaw, which would obviously have been a huge advantage to the Cubs.  The Mets don't have that problem.  Matt Harvey and Noah Syndergaard can go in the first two games at Citi Field, with Jacob de Grom lined up for Game 3 at Wrigley.

Pitching will once again be key.  Will the Mets' fireballers be able to shut the Cubs' lineup down?  They couldn't in the regular season.  And the Cubs have an incredibly underrated bullpen that was on full display against the Cardinals.  Plus, they've got that mad genius that is Joe Maddon.

Carlos Beltran is across town.  He won't be staring at any Adam Wainwright curveballs in the ninth inning of Game 7 this time.  But I think the result will be similar.  Bartman and the Billy Goat get a reprieve.  The Cubs are the better team.  They win it in six and finally get that first pennant in 70 years.

As for the American League, pitching will also be key.  More specifically, Royals pitching will be key.  Will their starters be able to keep the Blue Jays' bats at bay long enough to hand a lead over to that outstanding bullpen?  And will John Gibbons continue to make weird moves with his pitching staff?

Toronto didn't play for home field at the end of the season.  Will that decision come back to bite them?  Because the difference between an extra game in Kansas City and an extra game at SkyDome could be huge.  That dome plays much differently with the roof closed, as the Rangers series showed.  But regardless of that, 50,000 delirious Canadians creates an incredible atmosphere that you'd want as often as possible.  And if this series goes the distance and they have that sellout crowd against them instead of an entire nation for them, that might be something the Blue Jays end up regretting for a long time.

We all saw how beneficial that home crowd is for the Royals.  If not for Madison Bumgarner, they win Game 7 of the World Series last year...and they don't win Game 5 against the Astros if it's in Houston.  The Royals are built for that ballpark, and if they can survive the Blue Jays onslaught, that extra home game might prove to be the difference in what should be a pretty evenly-matched series between the two best teams in the American League.  I'm not sure Kansas City can shut down Toronto's offense for an entire seven-game series, though.  Texas did it for two games, then look what happened after the Blue Jays' bats woke up.  And, no offense to Johnny Cueto, but he's no Cole Hamels.

When these two met in 1985, it was the first year that the LCS was a best-of-seven, and the Royals came back from 3-1 down to win the series.  This series will be very different than that one 30 years ago.  Starting with the result.  In 1985, the Royals won Games 6 and 7 in Toronto.  This year, the script will be flipped.  The Blue Jays will clinch the pennant in Kansas City.  They split the first two, Toronto takes two out of three at home, and David Price throws a gem in the Game 6 clincher.

My pre-playoff World Series pick of Blue Jays-Dodgers obviously has to be amended.  But I was thisclose to picking the Cubs right off the bat in the National League.  So, despite the fun that could be had with any of the four potential matchups (the Mets play the Royals on Opening Day next year, a Mets pennant guarantees the first all-expansion World Series, it's possible to have the largest city in the U.S. vs. the largest city in Canada) the adjustment is slight.  Blue Jays vs. Cubs in the 2015 World Series.

Was Landon Donovan Right?

Last week, when Landon Donovan said that if the U.S. lost to Mexico in the CONCACAF Cup, that Jurgen Klinsmann should be fired as head coach, a lot of people (myself included) took it with a grain of salt.  This was the same guy, after all, that Klinsmann basically kicked off the National Team when he wanted to come back after taking some time off prior to the 2013 Gold Cup.  And it wasn't a coincidence that Donovan wasn't on the squad for the 2014 World Cup, or that he retired shortly after.

But if you strip the obvious bias away from his comments and really think about what he said, Donovan had a point.  The U.S. Men's National Team had one objective for this year and didn't achieve it.  And, if you think about it, their results since last summer's World Cup in Brazil haven't been the greatest.  The most obvious person to blame for that is the man who sets the roster for these games and comes up with the strategy during them.  The head coach.

Head coaches get fired all the time, for many different reasons.  Just this week, USC canned football coach Steve Sarkisian for an alcohol relapse.  And you see college coaches relieved of their duties for ethical issues or NCAA violations all the time.  But the most common reason for a coach to turn into a former coach remains performance.  And I think we can all agree that the performance of the U.S. Men's National Team in 2015 was subpar.

With qualifying for the 2018 World Cup not getting underway until next year, there was only one thing the U.S. was thinking about in 2015: qualifying for the 2017 Confederations Cup.  As the winners of the 2013 Gold Cup, there were two avenues for that to happen: win the Gold Cup again or win a playoff with whichever nation did.  Well, the Gold Cup and CONCACAF Cup are both in the past, and it's Mexico that's headed to the Confederations Cup.  One mission for 2015.  Mission failed.

It's not just the fact that the U.S. lost.  It's how.  In the Gold Cup, they were completely uninspired.  If they'd made the final and lost to Mexico or Costa Rica, OK fine.  That's gonna happen sometimes.  But they played like they didn't care.  "We don't need to win, because we can still go to the Confederations Cup even if we don't."  Well, that strategy backfired.  Not only did they lose, they lost twice.  And neither was to Mexico or Costa Rica.  They lost a semifinal to Jamaica, which is inexcusable enough, then they really didn't care anymore and lost the bronze medal game to Panama.  All of this on U.S. soil, where they never lose!

If the U.S. is supposed to be the top team in the region (which is definitely a very debatable point right now), they can't be losing at home to the likes of Panama and Jamaica.  When World Cup qualifying does come around, losses like that will be the difference between a trip to Russia and the unacceptable scenario of not qualifying.  For the record, I think the Gold Cup is more a blip on the radar than anything else and that the U.S. will still easily advance to the 2018 World Cup, but the point remains.  If playing in the 2017 Confederations Cup was so important, they should've played with a little more urgency.

And to think that what happened in the Gold Cup is OK is completely missing the point.  If the U.S. had won, the CONCACAF Cup wouldn't have been necessary.  But since Mexico won the Gold Cup, they had to play a one-off game for the Confederations Cup bid at the Rose Bowl, which is about as close to a neutral site venue as you can get for a USA-Mexico game.  The U.S. typically dominates Mexico on home soil (where do you think the "dos a cero" chants came from?), but El Tri, probably buoyed by their Gold Cup win, were the better team on Saturday night.  And Mexico, for the record, was playing its first game under a new coach after their previous coach was fired for punching TV reporter.

There are probably people out there who don't think it's that big a deal the U.S. won't be playing in the 2017 Confederations Cup.  And they would be wrong.  If qualifying for the Confederations Cup wasn't a big deal, why would Klinsmann say that it was the team's primary goal for 2015?  In 2009, the U.S. played in the Confederations Cup, upset top-ranked Spain in the semifinals and made the finals of a FIFA global tournament for the first time ever.  That was a huge advantage when they returned to South Africa for the 2010 World Cup...and won their group.  The U.S. didn't qualify for the 2013 Confederations Cup, so they didn't get to play in Brazil's World Cup stadiums ahead of time.  Now they won't for Russia either.  That's a big deal.

They also said on Fox Sports 1 on Saturday night that World Cup qualifying in CONCACAF is getting much more difficult.  Most experts don't think the path to Russia 2018 will be the cakewalk many American fans probably expect it to be.  But these are the same fans who only watch soccer during the World Cup.

In this case, the experts clearly know better than the fair-weather fans that magically pop up in World Cup years.  CONCACAF is definitely getting stronger.  Assuming the rest of the Hex is Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Honduras and Jamaica, there's not an easy game in there.  (It's worth mentioning here that the U.S. lost a friendly to Costa Rica at MetroStars Stadium in New Jersey right after the Mexico game, meaning that they've lost at home to four of those five nations in 2015 alone.)  World Cup qualifying is going to be a dogfight.  And the U.S. will need to play a whole lot better in 2016-17 than it did in 2015 if it expects to qualify.

Is Klinsmann the only one to blame for the National Team's lackluster 2015?  Of course not.  A lot of the A-team players took time off at different points and there were some injuries, so he was working new players in and juggling different lineups throughout the year.  But that doesn't explain the lack of effort or the questionable gameday decisions.  And there are already plenty who aren't fans of Klinsmann's player selection.

A year ago, I never thought I'd be composing a blog post agreeing with the notion that Jurgen Klinsmann should be dismissed as head coach of the U.S. Men's National Team.  But it's a suggestion that can't be ignored any longer.  Especially when you compare the men's squad to the World Cup Champion USA women, the results from 2015 are completely unacceptable.  Not for a nation that wants to be considered among soccer's elite and has always been viewed as one of the region's two dominant powers.

Maybe 2015 was just a down year.  Maybe the U.S. will win the Copa America Centenario next year (provided they even have the tournament) and we'll forget all about this.  But if 2016 starts the way 2015 ended, a change needs to come sooner rather than later.  Because for all the good Jurgen Klinsmann has done for USA Soccer, Landon Donovan may indeed be right.  He might need to go in order to right a ship that's gotten very far off course.

2015 Football Picks, Week 5

The NFL season has reached the quarter pole, and we still don't know that much.  There are still six! undefeated teams, and I have no idea which of the three in the AFC is actually the best.  New England has been dominant, but look at who they've played.  Denver hasn't looked good at all, but is still 4-0.  And Cincinnati is the most unheralded undefeated team maybe ever.

Over in the NFC, no one is surprised that the Packers are unbeaten.  But two teams in the NFC South?  Who saw that one coming?  And the Falcons don't play the Panthers until December, so this could go on for a while.  Cincinnati and New England are probably the most vulnerable of the six this week, while we know Carolina definitely isn't going to lose.  The Panthers have their bye this week, along with Minnesota, Miami and the Jets.

Thursday Night: Indianapolis (Win)

Redskins (2-2) at Falcons (4-0): Atlanta-So, it turns out, Atlanta can beat teams outside of the NFC East.  Now, after that one-week detour, the Falcons go for a clean sweep of the division.  It's a good thing for the NFC East teams that none of them have to face Atlanta again for the rest of the season.  Because the Falcons will head to New Orleans for Thursday Night Football with a 5-0 record.

Seahawks (2-2) at Bengals (4-0): Seattle-It's a toss up between this and Patriots-Cowboys for the game of the week.  Seattle has rebounded from that 0-2 start, but both of those wins came at home and the two losses to start the season were on the road.  Those were without Kam Chancellor, though.  For the Bengals to be considered an elite team, this is the type of game that they have to win.  It would definitely be a signature victory in the same way the Cowboys got one by beating the Seahawks in Seattle last year.  I don't think they're gonna get it, though.

Rams (2-2) at Packers (4-0): Green Bay-I officially don't get the St. Louis Rams.  At all.  They beat the Seahawks in Week 1, then turned in a pair of clunkers in losses to Washington and Pittsburgh, only to go into Arizona and knock off the undefeated Cardinals.  Which Rams team will we get this week in Lambeau?  Will it matter?  Probably not.  The Packers are the best team St. Louis has faced.  Sidebar: why is this game on CBS?

Bills (2-2) at Titans (1-2): Buffalo-We don't have a Super Bowl rematch this week, but we do have a rematch of "Home Run Throwback," which is still the most-recent playoff game in Bills history.  Yeah, that game took place in 1999, by the way.  As for the 2015 edition of the Bills, they've looked dominant twice in wins over the Colts and Dolphins and downright mediocre in losses to the Patriots and Giants.  They've alternated their wins and losses, and Tennessee is definitely more similar to Indianapolis and Miami than the Patriots and Giants.  Buffalo should move to 3-2.

Bears (1-3) at Chiefs (1-3): Kansas City-Kansas City might be the best 1-3 team in football.  Consider who the Chiefs have played over the last three weeks: Denver, Green Bay, Cincinnati.  After running that gauntlet, they deserve a break.  It comes in the form of the Bears.  Kansas City snaps its three-game losing streak.

Saints (1-3) at Eagles (1-3): Philadelphia-For two teams that had a lot of expectations coming into this season, this amounts to a virtual must-win game.  Yes, I know it's Week 5, but the Saints especially are already in danger of falling out of the playoff race.  Philly, meanwhile, can still salvage something in the not-that-great NFC East.  It sounds crazy, but I think the Eagles need this game more.  That win over the Cowboys was huge for New Orleans.  Especially because I see the Eagles winning here.

Jaguars (1-3) at Buccaneers (1-3): Tampa Bay-At this time last week, the Jaguars were technically in first place in the AFC South.  Then they go to Indianapolis and almost win before the Colts kicked a field goal in overtime.  Maybe Jacksonville's better than I think.  Tampa Bay sees this as a great opportunity to get a win, though.  The Bucs will be ready, and they'll get Jamies Winston his first home win.

Browns (1-3) at Ravens (1-3): Baltimore-New Orleans ended last week with a much-needed win.  Baltimore started last week with one.  Sure, the Steelers gave them the game, but they'll take it.  A win's a win.  Other than the opener against the Jets, Cleveland has been competitive in every game this year.  That's little consolation when you're 1-3.  I think that script continues this week.  But, again, who cares how competitive you are when you're 1-4?

Cardinals (3-1) at Lions (0-4): Arizona-What happened to that vaunted Arizona offense last week?  You want to know why the Cardinals are no longer undefeated?  Start there.  As for the Lions, controversial ending aside (hey NFL, how about no more Monday night games in Seattle?), they nearly pulled off the upset against the Seahawks.  They won't stay winless for long, but it'll probably last at least another week.

Patriots (3-0) at Cowboys (2-2): New England-Exciting day in Arlington.  Cowboys-Patriots at 4:30, followed almost immediately by Game 3 of Rangers-Blue Jays.  Remember back when the schedule came out and this was one of the most anticipated games of the early season?  Then Brady got suspended and Cowboys-Patriots was supposed to be the last game he'd miss.  Then he was reinstated and it was Brady vs. Romo again.  Then Romo broke his collarbone.  The storylines surrounding this game have sure changed along the way, haven't they?  And I'll add another.  Why isn't this game on Thanksgiving?  It's the Cowboys' year to be on CBS.  This would've seemed like the natural selection.  Anyway, with the current status of each team and its quarterback situation, I think it's pretty obvious who's going to win.  And if New England does get through this one, they could easily make it to 10-0 when they play Denver on Thanksgiving weekend (which is when they should be in Dallas).

Broncos (4-0) at Raiders (2-2): Denver-When will the real Denver Broncos show up?  That's what everyone keeps wondering.  Well, maybe these are the real Denver Broncos.  And whatever they've been doing has been working.  So much attention is being focused on Peyton Manning, that the Broncos' awesome defense has been totally overlooked.  That's why they're 4-0.  Now that defense is reunited with old coordinator Jack Del Rio, who's now the head coach of the division rival Raiders.  Oakland's much improved under Del Rio.  Maybe enough to pull the upset.  Which still doesn't seem that likely.

49ers (1-3) at Giants (2-2): Giants-Well, these teams are headed in opposite directions, aren't they?  The Giants have won two straight and had maybe their best overall game of the season last week in Buffalo.  The 49ers, meanwhile, have lost three straight and have scored a grand total of 10 points in their last two games.  I just don't know where this team is going to get any offense from.  Last time they were on NBC, America was seeing the Giants blow a 10-point fourth quarter lead in Dallas.  Won't happen this time.  The Giants will know going into the game how everyone else in the division did, and they could end it in sole possession of first place at the end of it.

Steelers (2-2) at Chargers (2-2): Pittsburgh-Some poorly-timed missed kicks cost the Steelers' kicker his job, and a poor decision by Mike Tomlin in overtime ultimately cost Pittsburgh the game last Thursday night in Baltimore.  Now, 11 days later, they finally return to action in San Diego.  I absolutely hate that Thursday night-Monday night thing the NFL has already done twice this season.  The Steelers aren't complaining, though.  Pittsburgh is 0-2 in Thursday night games this year, so they're glad they don't have anymore.  On the reverse side, the Steelers are 2-0 in non-Thursday night games.  Make that 3-0.  Even though the Chargers are at home and Roethlisberger's out, I'm still going Pittsburgh.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-4
Season: 43-21

Division Series Prognostications

I bet the Pittsburgh Pirates are getting pretty tired of the NL Wild Card Game.  It's been in existence for four years.  They've hosted it three times (they're actually the only team even to play in more than one Wild Card Game).  The last three years in a row.  And after winning the first time, they got shut out by Madison Bumgarner and then Jake Arrieta.  I'm sure the thrill of being in the playoffs and hosting the Wild Card Game has worn off.  They'll probably want to make sure they finish ahead of the Cardinals and actually see the Division Series next year.

The Pirates and Yankees also continued a pretty remarkable trend.  This was the second time in the four-year existence of the Wild Card Game that both road teams won.  Home teams are just 2-6 all-time in the Wild Card Game.  I'll admit to being lukewarm on the Wild Card Game when it was introduced, but those numbers indicate that it was actually a pretty good idea, even if that is somewhat skewed because of pitching performances like the ones we saw from Keuchel and Arrieta this year and Bumgarner last year.

Although, none of us should be surprised the Cubs won.  Back to the Future: Part II predicted that they'd win the World Series this year, so why are we even bothering?  And it's not a stretch to think they'll be there.  In fact, I think all four National League playoff teams are capable of winning the pennant.  For the first time in a while, I'm actually more excited about the National League playoffs.  Those are going to be two phenomenal series, including one between rivals that have never met in the postseason before.

In the American League, Toronto's the team to beat.  The Blue Jays are just too good.  Yes, they can mash you to death, but their pitching is incredibly underrated.  David Price could easily be this year's Madison Bumgarner.  Is it possible Toronto won't be in the World Series?  Of course.  I just don't see it happening.

Blue Jays vs. Rangers: Since I've already gotten going about Toronto, it would make sense to keep on that point.  I have all kinds of questions about why they decided to start Buehrle on Sunday instead of going for homefield, but that's a topic for another day.  And it may become moot if Houston beats Kansas City.  As for this Blue Jays-Rangers series, it'll be high-scoring.  Both of these teams like to hit home runs.  But Toronto's underrated pitching staff will be the X factor.  The Rangers had to start Cole Hamels on Sunday since they hadn't clinched the division yet.  That means they can't send their ace up against Price in Game 1, which will be the first Division Series contest ever held in Canada (the Blue Jays are the only team to have never played in the Division Series).  Instead, he'll go against Marcus Stroman in Game 2.  These are two of the hottest teams in baseball over the last two months, but one of them is obviously gonna be done.  I just have a feeling it's going to be Texas.  They both can hit, but the Blue Jays' pitching is much better, both the starters and the relievers.  Toronto in three.

Royals vs. Astros: Even though it means Dallas Keuchel and a healthy dose of the Astros' bats, Kansas City is probably happy Houston beat the Yankees.  This is the better matchup for them.  The Royals weren't good down the stretch and it almost cost them, but they recovered nicely over the final week to wrap up homefield throughout the playoffs.  Houston, meanwhile, makes its ALDS debut after putting the Yankees out of their misery.  That win should give the Astros a lot of confidence, but don't forget, the Royals were in the World Series last season.  While I have some questions about Johnny Cueto and Edinson Volquez (especially after Cueto's last couple starts), I still believe in the Kansas City magic.  The feisty Astros will give them all kinds of problems, and Keuchel pitching Game 3 at home, where he's undefeated this year, virtually assures Houston of at least one win, but since he's only pitching once, they'll be hard-pressed to find two more against a really good Kansas City team.  Kansas City in four.

Now over to the National League, where we've got some fun in store.  You've got the three biggest cities and the three (maybe four) biggest fan bases in the NL.  There are also a couple streaks on the line.  We all know about the Cubs, but it's been 27 years since the Dodgers won the World Series and the Cardinals are looking to make their fifth consecutive NLCS appearance.  It is St. Louis' turn to win the pennant, after all.

Cardinals vs. Cubs: Without a doubt, the NL Central was the best division in baseball this season.  It's not even that much of a stretch to say the Cardinals, Pirates and Cubs were the three best teams in the regular season.  Now you have the teams with the best and third-best records in baseball meeting in the Division Series, which is one of the unfortunate things that can happen under this playoff system.  And, in case we needed any more excitement for postseason games at Wrigley, it's the first-ever playoff series between these longtime rivals.  Prior to the Wild Card Game, I said the Cubs had a better shot against the Cardinals than the Pirates did mainly because of their pitching depth.  Arrieta can't go until Game 3, but they've got Jon Lester lined up to pitch twice and will also throw Dan Haren and Jason Hammel out there.  The Cardinals obviously won 100 games for a reason and are in the playoffs every year, so their guys know how to win, but you have to wonder at what point the injuries will finally catch up to St. Louis.  It might be here.  The Cubs are the hottest team in baseball with the hottest pitcher and the genius manager.  And the brilliant president who won two World Series in Boston.  100 wins or not, I don't see how St. Louis stops this Cubs buzz saw.  Cubs in five.

Dodgers vs. Mets: We knew for about a month before it was official that the Dodgers would play the Mets, so we've had plenty of time to dissect this series.  And it's still really tough to separate them.  They're both, obviously, built on ridiculous starting pitching.  The Dodgers have two of the three best pitchers in the game, although Clayton Kershaw's playoff record is less than stellar.  They aren't playing the Cardinals this time, though.  And if Kershaw struggles in Game 1, they've still got Greinke to back him up in Game 2.  If he wants to, Don Mattingly can have his two aces throw four of the five games.  That's why the Mets were so smart to slate Matt Harvey for Game 3, the only one guaranteed to be pitched by somebody else.  You know Citi Field will be rocking with Harvey on the mound for the Mets' first-ever home playoff game at the stadium.  With two pitchers' parks and two dominant rotations, these games are likely to be low-scoring.  The little things are going to make the difference.  The Mets did those little things for most of the past two months.  But it's the Dodgers that have the playoff experience, and it's the Dodgers that know they can't keep losing the Division Series.  I'll give the Mets Game 3 with Harvey, but I don't see how they win two of the four games Greinshaw pitches.  Dodgers in four.

So there you have it, my LCS matchups are Royals-Blue Jays and Dodgers-Cubs.  I've been saying since September started that it was going to be Blue Jays-Dodgers in the World Series, and, as tempted as I am to take the Cubs in the National League, I'm gonna stick with it.  The National League is definitely more up for grabs, but I don't see who in the American League stops Toronto.  I don't know who in the National League stops the Blue Jays either.

Hockey Season (The West)

Over the past few seasons, the NHL's balance of power has definitely shifted westward.  Chicago and Los Angeles have combined to win five of the last six Stanley Cup titles, and in the one year the East did win, Vancouver and Boston went seven.  And the best regular season teams (Anaheim, St. Louis, San Jose) have been from the West, too.

This year I think that changes.  The best teams I can think of all play in the East.  The West still has Anaheim and Chicago, and this is the Kings' year to win the Cup, but I definitely think the Eastern Conference as a whole is better.  With that being said, however, we've still got plenty of competitive hockey in store from our friends out West.

Chicago hasn't won three Stanley Cups in six years by accident.  The Blackhawks have turned into the NHL's model organization, and don't expect that to be any different in 2015-16.  Sure, they couldn't keep everybody and Brandon Saad was a casualty of that reality.  But they still have all of their major players and will make another deep playoff run.  Will it lead to another trip to the Finals?  I'm not sure.  It really might depend on how much of a distraction Patrick Kane's legal situation becomes (and whether or not he has to miss any time because of it).

If anybody's going to challenge the Blackhawks for the Central Division title, it might be Minnesota.  Like Columbus, the Wild will be that team nobody wants to face in the playoffs.  St. Louis, meanwhile, continued its recent trend of a great regular season followed by playoff disappointment last year.  I'm not sure how much longer the Blues can keep that up.  It's not fair to Brian Elliott, who's a better goalie than his record suggests.  They probably won't be as good in the regular season this year, though.  They traded T.J. Oshie to Washington, which is really going to adversely affect their offense.  Regardless, I think the Blues are still strong enough for another playoff disappointment.

Dallas is the most interesting team in the Central.  I don't really know what to expect from the Stars.  They're a terrible matchup for a number of teams.  But are they good enough to win a series?  Probably not.  Regardless, I think the Stars will be fighting with Nashville for fourth place in the division and, most likely, a playoff spot.  The Predators actually won this division last year before collapsing against Minnesota in the playoffs.  Do they have enough to get back?  I'm not sure.

Then there's Colorado.  The Avalanche unexpectedly won the division two years ago, only to miss the playoffs last season.  They're probably better than they showed in 2014-15, but that's still not gonna be good enough for them to return to the postseason.  The Jets have actually been back in Winnipeg for five years, believe it or not.  Last year marked their first trip to the playoffs since the NHL returned to Alberta.  A lot of people think the Central is the best division in hockey, and the Jets are the reason why.  I think they're the seventh-best team in this division, yet they could easily be a playoff team.

In the Pacific, it's all about Anaheim.  The Ducks were the best team in hockey for most of last season, but, like pretty much every team that runs into the Blackhawks in May, lost to Chicago in the Western Conference Finals.  They're still the best team.  The addition of Carl Hagelin made them even better.  If I had to pick a favorite to represent the West in the Stanley Cup Final, it might be Anaheim.  Not many flaws in this team.

Last year, the Kings didn't even get a chance to defend their title.  They failed to make the playoffs.  Well, that should change.  Yes, it's LA's year to win the Cup, but in order to do that, they have to first get back to the postseason.  That shouldn't be a problem.  The Kings should rebound.  San Jose should, too.  Which sets us up for our annual Sharks playoff failure after a year off.

Vancouver and Calgary met in an all-Canadian first round series last year, and I think they're both capable of getting back.  They won't meet again, though.  Because all three California teams are better than them.  And it's really a coin toss between these two.  I'll give the slight edge to the Canucks because of the Sedin brothers.  Although Johnny Gaudreau is so much fun to watch play.

After being so bad for so long and stockpiling all those No. 1 draft picks, you've gotta think the Edmonton Oilers are due for a breakthrough.  It's going to happen soon.  It just may not be this year.  The Oilers will definitely be more competitive, though.  They've got Cam Talbot in goal now, and Connor McDavid gives them a tremendous 1-2 punch with Ryan Nugent-Hopkins.  They're really starting to remind me of the Islanders and the way they built, then just took off.  I'm fairly certain that at the very least, Edmonton won't finish in last place this season.  That honor belongs to the Arizona Coyotes.  Arizona's easily the worst team in the Western Conference.

So, if it looks like business as usual, that's because the top teams in the Western Conference are just that good.  And none of them show any signs of letting up.  From the Central, I've got Chicago, Minnesota and St. Louis clinching the guaranteed playoff spots, with the three California teams claiming the spots out of the Pacific.  As for the wild cards, in a pair of tight races, I'm going with Dallas and Vancouver.

The Western Conference Finals will be a rematch between the Ducks and the Blackhawks.  They're the two best teams.  Except this year, the result will be different.  This time Anaheim beats Chicago and moves on to the Stanley Cup Final.  And, slightly contradicting what I said before, I see the Ducks winning the Cup.  The East might be the stronger conference, but the Ducks are the best team.  And the best team hasn't won the Cup in a while.

Hockey Season (The East)

The first couple weeks of October are underrated.  They don't get nearly enough credit for being among the best in sports, which they should.  Consider: the NFL regular season is just starting to heat up, the baseball playoffs are about to get going, and it's also opening week in the NHL.

Hockey normally gets lost in the mix there, especially considering they handed out the Stanley Cup in mid-June, which was only three-and-a-half months ago (and that short period of time still wasn't enough to keep Patrick Kane out of trouble).  But here we are, ready to embark upon another eight month NHL adventure.  If they follow the cycle, this should be the LA Kings' year to win the Cup (I'd like to take this chance to give the Cardinals an early congratulations on their mandatory odd-year NL pennant), but the Kings didn't even make the playoffs last season and are one of just a handful of good teams in the NHL.

More on the Kings and the rest of the Western Conference tomorrow.  Today we focus on the East, which proves just how deep the NHL is right now.  Take the Metropolitan Division.  The Rangers won the President's Trophy last season and have legitimate Cup aspirations.  So do the Islanders.  And the Penguins.  And the Capitals.  And the Blue Jackets are better.  And so are the Flyers.  At least one of those teams won't even make the playoffs.

That's just the Met.  The Atlantic's got defending conference champion Tampa Bay, a chic Stanley Cup pick.  But that's only if they can get by a Montreal team that should be just as formidable as its been over the past couple years.  And a rejuvenated Boston Bruins team.  And a Red Wings squad that always finds a way into the playoffs.  Buffalo, meanwhile, isn't going to be any good, but plenty of people will be watching the Sabres because of Jack Eichel.

Since I was just talking about the Atlantic, let's start there.  I agree with the experts that Tampa Bay might be the best and deepest team in the East.  Everything went right for the Lightning last year.  Until they ran into the Blackhawks in the Finals.  Well, they're gonna be very tough to beat again.  We've only just seen the tip of the sword when it comes to Ben Bishop in goal.  His health will be key, though.  He was hurt in the playoffs two years ago and they got swept in the first round by Boston.  Regardless, the Lightning should finish among the top three in the division and get into the playoffs, which is really all that matters.  Like the Blackhawks last year, it doesn't matter where they end up getting seeded.  You're not gonna want to face them.

I'm picking Montreal and Boston to grab the other two guaranteed playoff spots out of the division.  The Canadiens have more talent than they know what to do with, and Carey Price is the best goalie on the planet.  It's been 23 years since they last won the Cup, which is the last title by any Canadian team.  If that drought's going to end, it'll be Montreal that does it.  Boston, meanwhile, will rebound after missing the playoffs in 2014-15.  Injuries and poor decisions are what cost the Bruins late last year.  But that afforded their veterans some extra rest that could pay dividends late in this season.

In one of the biggest moves of the offseason, Detroit Head Coach Mike Babcock left for Toronto.  So what did the Red Wings do?  Naturally, they promoted their AHL head coach to the big league team.  That team is like the Patriots in their annoying consistency.  They always find a way.  Will it lead them back to the playoffs?  Most likely, but it'll be a grind.  As for Toronto, hiring Babcock was a step in the right direction.  The Leafs will be significantly better this season.  It might not result in a playoff spot just yet, but give it a year or two.  What I am sure of is that they'll at least be in the playoff conversation, which is more than you've been able to say about Toronto in the last decade or so.

Ottawa is just a tick below the other five teams.  The Senators definitely have a chance to be a spoiler, though.  Florida, meanwhile, is rumored to be a candidate for relocation to Quebec.  This is a far cry from the Panthers team that won the Southeast Division a couple years ago.  I feel bad for Roberto Luongo.  I'm not even sure the Panthers will finish ahead of the Sabres.  And like I said, Buffalo's at least going to be a draw with Eichel.  Build a team around him, and you've got a good-looking future.

Picking a favorite in the Metropolitan Division is a whole different matter.  Other than the Devils and Hurricanes, I can see each of the other six teams in the playoffs...but at least one definitely won't be.  There are Stanley Cup aspirations abounding, and getting out of the Met might be one of the hardest tasks in hockey.  Some might say it's the Central, but I'll go with the Met as the best division in the league.

After reaching the Finals in 2014, the Rangers backed it up by winning the President's Trophy last season.  Unfortunately, they ran into the Lightning, the worst possible matchup for them, in the Eastern Conference Finals, although the loss might've been a good thing considering the injuries the Rangers played through in that series.  All signs point to no letdown for Alain Vigneault's Blueshirts in 2015-16.  It's tough to call in a division where the teams are thisclose, but having the best goalie in Henrik Lundqvist gives the Rangers the slightest of edges.

Meanwhile, the rival Islanders make the move from Nassau Coliseum to Barclays Center and hope they can get Brooklyn to embrace hockey (which doesn't seem likely).  They've got the team to do it.  They're young and they're good.  Last season wasn't a fluke.  It was the start of something.  And getting out of that dump was a good thing.

As for Pittsburgh, Marc-Andre Fleury is starting to become a liability.  For all the Penguins' offensive fireworks, their issues in goal are preventing them from being truly great.  Everybody's on to the Penguins, who are a little overrated.  Crosby and Malkin are good, but not as good as they think they are, and they have no supporting cast.  Pittsburgh's the third-best team in this division at best.  Maybe even fourth.  That really depends on which version of the Capitals show up.  Will it be the incredibly disappointing 2013-14 team or last year's edition that gave the Rangers all they could handle in the playoffs?  They're counting on it being the latter.  They've added some more scorers to complement Alex Ovechkin, who's desperate to actually win something before his career's over.  And they finally have a competent goalie in Braden Holtby.

Deciding between the Blue Jackets and Flyers for fifth place and potentially grabbing that last wild card spot is incredibly tough, but I think Columbus is slightly stronger.  The Blue Jackets added Brandon Saad to an offense that already included Ryan Johansen, Nick Foligno and Brandon Dubinsky.  They also have Sergei Bobrovsky, who was an All-Star last season, anchoring the goal.  This is a good, young team that was derailed by injuries more than anything else last year.  Should they stay healthy, Columbus will be a team you don't want to play.  And could be a real sleeper.

For the Flyers, Claude Giroux and Sean Coutourier are beasts, but the main concern, as usual, is in goal.  They might need to rely on outscoring you.  The Devils are in complete rebuilding mode, while Carolina is simply stuck in the wrong division.  If they weren't in the Met, the Hurricanes would definitely have a chance to challenge for a playoff spot.  I just can't envision them finishing ahead of four of these seven teams, though.

So, my playoff picks out of the Atlantic are Tampa Bay, Montreal and Boston.  From the Metropolitan, it's the Rangers, Islanders and Penguins.  With the wild cards both going to the Met: Washington and Columbus, ending Detroit's 24-year playoff streak.  Out of those eight teams, you really could pick a name out of a hat to choose a Stanley Cup finalist.  They're all that good.  But if you held a gun to my head and made me pick someone, I'll say the Rangers beat the Canadiens in the conference finals.

2015 Football Picks, Week 4

We've hit October, which means we start getting into the fun of bye weeks.  Because there's nothing more the Patriots need after their homecoming game than a week off.  And what's with this only two teams on bye thing?  Four teams a week for eight weeks.  What's so hard about that?

And this week, don't forget, has the special 9:30 a.m. London start time.  That means at least four games for everybody on Sunday.  Football from morning to night.

Thursday Night: Baltimore (Win)

Jets (2-1) vs. Dolphins (1-2): Miami-It's interesting how they added a third London game this year--then stuck one right smack of the Rugby World Cup, which England is currently hosting.  There was an Ireland-Romania Rugby World Cup game at Wembley last Sunday, although that's the only game of the tournament scheduled for the stadium.  As for the American football game, London gets a division matchup for the first time, with the Jets taking on the Dolphins.  Miami has looked awful in its last two games and, despite being the "home" team in this one, only plays one actual home game in the next seven weeks.  Maybe a trip across the pond will fix what ails them.  Otherwise, they might as well not come home.  Because it could be a long year in Miami.

Texans (1-2) at Falcons (3-0): Atlanta-Now we get to see if Atlanta can beat a team from a division other than the NFC East, as they take on the AFC South-"leading" Texans (everybody in the AFC South is 1-2).  After back-to-back road games, the Falcons return home for the first time since their opener.  And like that Monday night game in Week 1, I think they win a close one.

Giants (1-2) at Bills (2-1): Buffalo-This week's Super Bowl rematch is one of the toughest games to call.  The Giants finally looked like the Giants last week, and the NFC East is definitely still winnable for them.  The Bills, meanwhile, rebounded from the Patriots game by going to Miami and absolutely thumping the Dolphins.  The Giants play the Jets in the preseason every year, so they're no strangers to a Rex Ryan defense.  But they haven't faced this Rex Ryan defense.  And they'll be doing it without Victor Cruz.  That's the main reason why I'm picking Buffalo.

Raiders (2-1) at Bears (0-3): Oakland-What's going on here?  Has Hell frozen over?  I'm picking Oakland?  On the road!  Jack Del Rio has certainly changed the culture on the East Bay.  The Raiders once again resemble an NFL football team.  The Bears, on the other hand.  They've got all sorts of problems.  Last week in Seattle: 10 possessions, 10 punts, 0 points.  That's tough to do.  Del Rio and John Fox were together in Denver last year.  This year, the Broncos' old defensive coordinator gets the better of Denver's former head coach.

Chiefs (1-2) at Bengals (3-0): Cincinnati-When are people finally going to acknowledge the fact that Cincinnati is one of the best teams in the NFL?  The Bengals could go two up in the ultra-competitive AFC North if they beat a good Chiefs team.  I expect Kansas City to fall to 1-3 here, but that's an indication more of the quality of their opponents (Denver, at Green Bay, at Cincinnati) than the Chiefs themselves.

Jaguars (1-2) at Colts (1-2): Indianapolis-As it turns out, all the Colts needed was to play a division game.  Indianapolis has won 13 consecutive division games, the third-longest streak in NFL history.  They can tie the 1993-94 Cowboys with their 14th straight on Sunday.  And after beating Jacksonville, Indy will be in sole possession of first place.

Panthers (3-0) at Buccaneers (1-2): Carolina-Carolina is one of the seven remaining undefeated teams in the NFL, and they don't play Atlanta until December.  But in order to keep pace with the Falcons, they need to get a win in Tampa.  They've got their bye next week, then go to Seattle, so, yeah, this is an important game for the Panthers to get.

Eagles (1-2) at Redskins (1-2): Washington-Here we find out which one of these rivals will still be in the NFC East mix.  They actually both played in New York last week, with the Redskins losing to the Giants on Thursday before the Eagles finally got their first win of the year over the Jets.  For some reason, I think the Redskins are gonna win this game.  Don't ask me why.

Browns (1-2) at Chargers (1-2): San Diego-After starting the season with Jets, Titans, Raiders, the Browns actually play a real NFL opponent this week.  San Diego has an identical 1-2 record, but hasn't been home since Week 1.  The Chargers had to play early games at Cincinnati and Minnesota over the last two weeks, and San Diego traditionally struggles in 1:00 games.  Back in the familiar surroundings of Southern California, the Chargers get back on track.  And they need to.  Their next two games are against Pittsburgh and Green Bay.

Vikings (2-1) at Broncos (3-0): Denver-Peyton Manning and Adrian Peterson have combined to win four of the last seven MVP awards or something like that.  Denver hasn't been good all season, yet is 3-0, and Peyton began to find his groove at the end of that Sunday night game in Detroit last week.  The Vikings, meanwhile, are 2-1, but both of their wins were at home.  The only time Minnesota traveled this season, they got blown out in San Francisco on the opening Monday night.  Another trip out west should bring a similar result.

Rams (1-2) at Cardinals (3-0): Arizona-I think we can all agree that the Arizona Cardinals have one of the best offenses in the NFL, if not THE best.  31, 48 and 47 points in their first three games.  Will they have the same type of output against a very good Rams defense?  Probably not.  But they should still score enough to win and move to 4-0 for the second straight year.

Packers (3-0) at 49ers (1-2): Green Bay-Is it just me, or does it seem like Green Bay plays in San Francisco every year?  Thanks to Aaron Rodgers I went from leading comfortably to losing big in my fantasy game last week.  He might be the best player in football, and the Packers are definitely one of the two or three best teams in football.  San Francisco is not.  After winning on opening night, the 49ers went on the road and got rocked by both the Steelers and Cardinals.  At home, it'll be better, but they aren't beating Green Bay.  Fun fact, this is Green Bay's fourth game of the year, and they've already played in four of the five regular timeslots.  Only Thursday night is missing

Cowboys (2-1) at Saints (0-3): New Orleans-When NBC selected this game for Sunday night, I'm fairly certain they were expecting Romo vs. Brees.  Well, it looks like half of that combination will play after Brees didn't play last week.  And New Orleans will certainly love having him back.  Because the Saints are a different team without him.  Branden Weeden almost did enough to answer my questions about the Romo-less Cowboys, but then they went and blew that lead against the Falcons.  With Brees back and New Orleans desperate for a win to stay in contention in the suddenly strong NFC South, I'm making the call.  Dallas' regular season road winning streak comes to an end.

Lions (0-3) at Seahawks (1-2): Seattle-On Monday night, we've got a team that's desperate for a win, but will be very hard-pressed to get one.  That's how important last Sunday night's game was for the Lions.  They knew they were heading to Seattle, one of the hardest places for a visitor to win in the entire NFL.  Kam Chancellor certainly deserves some of the credit, but the Seahawks were a completely different team last week than in Weeks 1 & 2.  Sure, Detroit is better than the Bears, but not by much.  The Seahawks even their record heading into next week's big showdown in Cincinnati.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 12-4
Season: 32-17

Pros and Cons of the 40-Man Roster

With rain cancelling games up and down the East Coast all week and the season set to end on Sunday, we've seen a lot of doubleheaders and the 40-man rosters being taken full advantage of.  Opinions are mixed on the increased roster size in September/October, and I definitely see both sides of that conversation.  But the fact that, with a few exceptions, you have to make up all September/October rainouts with a doubleheader is one of the biggest arguments for roster expansion in the final month of the season.

Take the Baltimore Orioles, who've had to deal with the rain the most.  The Orioles were scheduled to end the season with home series against the Blue Jays and Yankees.  The Toronto series was supposed to start on Tuesday, but that game was postponed and they played a doubleheader on Wednesday...with Thursday's game moved up from a 7:00 start to a 12:00 start, then still having to deal with a three-hour rain delay.  More rain on Friday led to the first game of the Yankees series being postponed and a made up as part of a Saturday doubleheader.  So, that means Baltimore's playing two doubleheaders in a four-day period.

If this was the middle of the season, there's absolutely no way Baltimore would've been asked to play two doubleheaders in a week.  But in September/October, they have the extra personnel, so it's not as big a deal.  They don't need to worry about screwing up their rotation or having to find another starting pitcher for the one game.  They don't need to ask guys in the bullpen to pitch twice in one day, either.  Likewise, there's enough position players on the roster that a starter's not gonna have to play both games, which would be the case with the 25-man roster.

For teams that are headed for the postseason, they can use the expanded roster as an opportunity to rest some of their starters down the stretch.  Did you see the lineups Toronto and Kansas City used in their first game after clinching?  They wouldn't have been afforded that luxury if a postseason spot wasn't already wrapped up.  Of course, the benefits of doing that have been questioned, but I think most managers would take the opportunity to clinch early and rest guys over having to win every game down the stretch just to get in, and requiring all of your regular guys to play everyday as a result.

It also gives playoff-bound managers a chance to set up their pitching rotations for the postseason.  This has become less of an issue in recent years with the Division Series not starting until Thursday or Friday, so starters can go in Game 1 basically on regular rest.  But you still see managers trying to work it out so that the guys they want starting on particular days in the postseason are pitching on as-close-to normal rest as possible.  Or extended rest if the situation calls for it.  The way to do this usually involves pushing back starts and inserting September call-ups where needed.

Likewise, a September call-up can be used as an audition for a place on the postseason roster.  While most playoff teams already have a pretty gauge on what their postseason roster will look like, there are usually one or two spots in the back of the bullpen or off the bench that could go to somebody unexpected simply based on the strength of a good September.  And that audition might not even have taken place if not for the 15 additional places on the roster.

While playoff teams might use September as a chance to rest guys and audition players for a potential role in the postseason, those squads out of contention might take advantage of call-ups to give guys a month of Major League experience.  Whether it's somebody they expect to have an important role the next season or someone being used as a fill-in or somebody they just aren't 100 percent sure about, September's a chance to start looking towards next year in an otherwise lost season.

Teams call up players for all kinds of reasons in September.  Most add a third catcher just in case, and you usually see a reliever or two added to each bullpen.  But the contenders tend to add more players than the other teams.  For example, the Yankees usually call up a young outfielder for the sole purpose of using him as a pinch runner.  Why?  Because his run might be the difference in a close game.

The expanded roster gives you extra depth and the ability to make moves you wouldn't be able to make over the first five months of the season.  This is one of the main criticisms of the expanded rosters in September, and it's a valid one.  I remember a game a few years ago where the Texas Rangers used something like nine relievers in a September game against the Yankees.  And it was something like six different pitchers in the same inning.  They just kept matching up lefty-vs-lefty, then bringing in a righty for the right-handed batter, then another lefty for the left-handed hitter on deck.  Is that in the spirit of the rule?  Probably not.  But it's totally allowed.

I've heard several different "solutions" to this problem, and some of them are intriguing.  Most of them involve calling up as many guys as you want, but declaring which 25 players are eligible for that particular game or series, with the caveat that all three (or four, if that's how long the series is) starting pitchers have to be included.  As a trade off for the Players Union, anybody who gets called up, whether they're on the active roster for a game or not, gets paid and gets credited with service time.

Is that the answer?  I don't know.  Is this an "issue" that needs to be resolved?  I don't know about that either.  All I know is that there really aren't that many people out there who have a problem with the status quo, even if it does seem a little silly that you play under one set of rules for five months and a completely different set of rules for the most important month of the season.  But that argument could also be made for playing interleague games all year, including the final series of the season.  (Houston is fighting for a playoff spot, but doesn't have a DH in its final three games because they're in Arizona.  That could end up making a huge difference.)

Whether you like interleague play or you hate it, it's here to stay.  So are the expanded September rosters (which predate interleague play by quite a few years).  And seeing as it's just as easy to find positives about the expanded rosters as it is to find negatives, keeping things as-is is probably the best way to go.