I told you that we'd start seeing all kinds of all-time Super Bowl teams during the bye week. The NFL announced the official one, which was voted on by Hall of Fame voters, today. And ESPN finished their countdown of the 50 greatest players in Super Bowl history today, too.
As for my Super Bowl all-time team, I revealed the offense yesterday, and I came pretty close to what the NFL had. The only player I didn't have was Hall of Famer Larry Allen, who I actually had on my original list at guard before cutting him. On defense, though, I don't quite see eye-to-eye with the Hall of Fame voters. My linebackers are almost completely different than the quartet of Hall of Famers they came up with (I'm just going ahead and putting Ray Lewis in the Hall of Fame, even though he isn't eligible yet).
Just like the offense worked out nice and evenly with 25 players including the two return men, it's the same thing with the defense. The defense proper gives us 23, with the kicker and punter getting us to 25.
Defensive End: Charles Haley (49ers-23, 24; Cowboys-27, 28, 30), Harvey Martin (Cowboys-10, 12, 13), Reggie White (Packers-31, 32), L.C. Greenwood (Steelers-9, 10, 13, 14)
Well, this one was really easy. Charles Haley is famously the only player in history with five Super Bowl rings. It's why he has a bust in Canton. And it was his trade to the Cowboys that ended one dynasty and started another. Harvey Martin was the first Super Bowl MVP to pass away, which means, sadly, he'll be one of the two that won't participate in the pregame ceremony (the other is Peyton Manning, who has a good excuse). Another late defensive end is Hall of Famer Reggie White. He sure made the most of his first Super Bowl opportunity, sacking Drew Bledsoe three times. My love of should-be Hall of Famer L.C. Greenwood and his gold shoes is well known. I think he was the most overlooked member of that "Steel Curtain" defense that was the first real dynasty of the Super Bowl era.
Defensive Tackle: Joe Greene (Steelers-9, 10, 13, 14), Randy White (Cowboys-10, 12, 13), Leon Lett (Cowboys-27, 28, 30), Vince Wilfork (Patriots-39, 42, 46, 49)
Is it even possible to come up with any sort of football-related list of all-time greats and not include Mean Joe Greene? White was co-MVP of Super Bowl XII, when the Cowboys forced seven Broncos turnovers (the first of Denver's four losses in orange, hence the white next Sunday). Leon Lett, unfortunately, is best remembered for having the ball knocked out of his hand by Don Beebe at the end of the Cowboys' rout over the Bills in Super Bowl XXVII. What we forget is his role in Dallas' absolute dismantling of Buffalo (both that year and the next). It's a good thing this isn't a real team. Because it would be expensive to feed both Lett and Vince Wilfork, the defensive version of Tom Brady for the Patriots over the last decade.
Linebacker: Chuck Howley (Cowboys-5, 6), Ray Lewis (Ravens-35, 47), Rod Martin (Raiders-15, 18), Bobby Wagner (Seahawks-48, 49), Tedy Bruschi (Patriots-31, 36, 38, 39, 42), Jack Lambert (Steelers-9, 10, 13, 14), Lawrence Taylor (Giants-21, 25)
The first defensive player and only player from a losing team to win MVP honors, Howley had two interceptions and a fumble recovery in Super Bowl V, then had one of each the next year. Ray Lewis and the Ravens' defense beat the Giants down a couple times over in Super Bowl XXXV, when he was named MVP. He then capped his career 12 years later with another title. Rod Martin: three interceptions in Super Bowl XV, a sack and a fumble recovery in Super Bowl XVIII. For the first time in three years, Bobby Wagner isn't playing in the Super Bowl. I guess he can't add to his Super Bowl-record 22 career tackles until next year, then. Tedy Bruschi was the heart-and-soul of the Patriots long before Tom Brady arrived. Speaking of heart and soul, that was Jack Lambert and his toothless grin for the Steelers dynasty. The Giants won two Super Bowls because of their defense. Lawrence Taylor wasn't just the best player on that defense. He was arguably the greatest linebacker in NFL history.
Cornerback: Deion Sanders (49ers-29; Cowboys-30), Larry Brown (Cowboys-27, 28, 30), Darrien Gordon (Chargers-29; Broncos-32, 33), Mel Blount (Steelers-9, 10, 13, 14)
How awesome was Deion Sanders? Wins a title with the 49ers, has an interception in the Super Bowl, then goes to Dallas and wins another the next year. The other Cowboys cornerback in Super Bowl XXX was Larry Brown. All he did was intercept two passes and win MVP. Perhaps the most surprising name on this list is Darrien Gordon. He played in Denver for two years, won two rings, and had two Super Bowl interceptions. His 108 interception return yards against the Falcons set a Super Bowl record. Mel Blount was one of the anchors of the "Steel Curtain.:
Safety: Jake Scott (Dolphins-6, 7, 8), Dwight Smith (Buccaneers-37), Willie Wood (Packers-1,2), Cliff Harris (Cowboys-5, 6, 10, 12, 13)
Why does Dwight Smith make the cut? Easy. He had two pick-sixes during the Bucs' rout of the Raiders in Super Bowl XXXVII, when he should've been named MVP instead of teammate Dexter Jackson. Speaking of interceptions, Miami's "other" No. 13, Jake Scott, was MVP of Super Bowl VII, when his two picks helped clinch the perfect season. He then had two fumble recoveries in Super Bowl VIII, as the Dolphins defended their title. Cliff Harris played in five Super Bowls with the Cowboys' "Doomsday" defense. Hall of Famer Willie Wood broke open Super Bowl I with his interception early in the third quarter of a close game tahat would turn into a Packers blowout. Ronnie Lott is one of the greatest defensive backs in history, but he played both cornerback and safety, and I can't put him on at one over the other.
Kicker: Adam Vinatieri (Patriots-31, 36, 38, 39; Colts-41)
Duh. Probably the easiest position to pick of any, which is why it was the only unanimous one among the Hall of Fame voters. Seriously, who else could it be? There have been just three game-winning last-second field goals in Super Bowl history. Vinatieri has two of them. In a three-year span!
Punter: Ray Guy (Raiders-11, 15, 17, 18)
Seriously, was there any other choice at punter either? Ray Guy is the best punter ever. That's why he's in the Hall of Fame. And if you need convincing that he was actually a "football player" and not just a punter, is this enough proof for you?
So, there it is. My 50-member all-time Super Bowl team, just in time for Super Bowl 50. And, if you're keeping track, here's the team-by-team breakdown. Not surprisingly, there are a lot of Cowboys, Steelers, 49ers and Patriots (if a player appeared in Super Bowls with two different teams, they both count):
Cowboys-12, Steelers-9, 49ers-7, Raiders-6, Patriots-5, Packers-4, Ravens-2, Broncos-2, Dolphins-2, Giants-2, Redskins-2, Colts-1, Chargers-1, Seahawks-1, Buccaneers-1
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Super Bowl 50 All-Time Team (Offense)
With the 50th anniversary Super Bowl matchup set, we're going to have our traditional two weeks of buildup before the Broncos and Panthers finally take the field. Among the things we're going to see, which I think is appropriate considering the game number, is all-time Super Bowl teams.
Most of the all-time teams that will be announced this week will include 50 players (it's only fitting to do 50 players for the 50th Super Bowl, after all). However, the 50 "greatest" players will mainly be quarterbacks, running backs and wide receivers, with some defensive players mixed in. It's highly doubtful that any of these all-time teams will include offensive linemen or specialists (although, I'm sure Adam Vinatieri will be on a few).
I'm not saying that all of the quarterbacks and running backs aren't deserving (most of the Super Bowl MVPs do come from those two positions for a reason). But a team of all offensive skill position guys isn't exactly a "team." So I'm gonna do things a little differently. My all-time Super Bowl team will be 50 players, but I'm building a full team. That means I've got a full complement of offensive and defensive linemen, a kicker, a punter, and return men. I've broken this up into two posts. Today it's the offense, with the defense coming tomorrow. It wasn't done intentionally, but there are 25 players on each side of the ball.
Quarterback: Tom Brady (Patriots-36, 38, 39, 42, 46, 49), Joe Montana (49ers-16, 19, 23, 24), Terry Bradshaw (Steelers-9, 10, 13, 14)
This was the easiest position of them all. They're the only three quarterbacks who've won four Super Bowls, and Brady and Montana are the only three-time MVPs. Brady is also one of only two players to appear in six, and the only one to start six. He's 4-2, of course, while Bradshaw and Montana are both 4-0.
Running Back: Franco Harris (Steelers-9, 10, 13, 14), Roger Craig (49ers-19, 23, 24), Emmitt Smith (Cowboys-27, 28, 30), Larry Csonka (Dolphins-6, 7, 8), John Riggins (Redskins-17, 18)
It was really tough to keep Marcus Allen off, but these five hold the slight edge. Four of them were MVPs, while Craig (who should be in the Hall of Fame) was the first player ever to score three touchdowns in one Super Bowl (XIX) and is third all-time in all-purpose yards.
Wide Receiver: Jerry Rice (49ers-23, 24, 29; Raiders-37), Lynn Swann (Steelers-9, 10, 13, 14), Deion Branch (Patriots-38, 39, 46), Cliff Branch (Raiders-11, 15, 18), Hines Ward (Steelers-40, 43, 45)
Jerry Rice is the greatest wide receiver ever. It's only natural that he holds every Super Bowl receiving record. Most of the records he broke were Lynn Swann's. Deion Branch gets on because he had 24 catches in three games and was MVP of Super Bowl XXXIX. Cliff Branch was on all three Raiders championship teams and Hines Ward won two with the Steelers.
Tight End: Jay Novacek (Cowboys-27, 28, 30), Shannon Sharpe (Broncos-32, 33; Ravens-35)
Tight end was a surprisingly difficult position to come up with two. Jay Novacek gets on because of his importance to the Cowboys' dynasty. Shannon Sharpe is one of the greatest tight ends ever, and he won a ring his first year in Baltimore after winning two in Denver.
Tackle: Rayfield Wright (Cowboys-5, 6, 10, 12, 13), Art Shell (Raiders-11, 15), Joe Jacoby (Redskins-17, 18, 22, 26)
Wright played on all five Cowboys teams that got to the Super Bowl in the '70s. I don't care what position you play, that's an impressive stat. Art Shell and Gene Upshaw were one of the most dominant offensive line duos in NFL history. Joe Jacoby, who, like Roger Craig, isn't in the Hall of Fame but should be, represents all of the "Hogs."
Guard: Nate Newton (Cowboys-27, 28, 30), Gene Upshaw (Raiders-2, 11, 15), Jerry Kramer (Packers-1, 2)
That Cowboys dynasty might've had the Triplets, but they won three Super Bowls in four years because of that offensive line. Gene Upshaw's career was so long that he played in Super Bowl II and was still a starter when the Raiders won 13 years later. And somebody from the Vince Lombardi Packers had to be on there, so why not Jerry Kramer?
Center: Mike Webster (Steelers-9, 10, 13, 14), Bart Oates (Giants-21, 25; 49ers-29)
Just like the Cowboys' offensive line was the most under-appreciated part of their dynasty, the same can be said about the Steelers. And no one on that Pittsburgh line was better than Hall of Famer Mike Webster. Bart Oates played in three Super Bowls and won them all, and let's not forget how much the Giants' running game dominated Super Bowl XXV.
Kick Returner: Desmond Howard (Packers-31)
The easiest call behind quarterback. Howard was named MVP of Super Bowl XXXI, when his 99-yard return broke the game open. He had 244 all-purpose yards in that game (154 kick return, 90 punt return) to set a record.
Punt Returner: John Taylor (49ers-23, 24, 29)
Such a tough call between Taylor and Troy Brown. But it's Taylor that holds the Super Bowl records for punt returns and return yardage, so he gets the nod. Then there's Montana to Taylor, one of the most memorable plays in Super Bowl history.
Most of the all-time teams that will be announced this week will include 50 players (it's only fitting to do 50 players for the 50th Super Bowl, after all). However, the 50 "greatest" players will mainly be quarterbacks, running backs and wide receivers, with some defensive players mixed in. It's highly doubtful that any of these all-time teams will include offensive linemen or specialists (although, I'm sure Adam Vinatieri will be on a few).
I'm not saying that all of the quarterbacks and running backs aren't deserving (most of the Super Bowl MVPs do come from those two positions for a reason). But a team of all offensive skill position guys isn't exactly a "team." So I'm gonna do things a little differently. My all-time Super Bowl team will be 50 players, but I'm building a full team. That means I've got a full complement of offensive and defensive linemen, a kicker, a punter, and return men. I've broken this up into two posts. Today it's the offense, with the defense coming tomorrow. It wasn't done intentionally, but there are 25 players on each side of the ball.
Quarterback: Tom Brady (Patriots-36, 38, 39, 42, 46, 49), Joe Montana (49ers-16, 19, 23, 24), Terry Bradshaw (Steelers-9, 10, 13, 14)
This was the easiest position of them all. They're the only three quarterbacks who've won four Super Bowls, and Brady and Montana are the only three-time MVPs. Brady is also one of only two players to appear in six, and the only one to start six. He's 4-2, of course, while Bradshaw and Montana are both 4-0.
Running Back: Franco Harris (Steelers-9, 10, 13, 14), Roger Craig (49ers-19, 23, 24), Emmitt Smith (Cowboys-27, 28, 30), Larry Csonka (Dolphins-6, 7, 8), John Riggins (Redskins-17, 18)
It was really tough to keep Marcus Allen off, but these five hold the slight edge. Four of them were MVPs, while Craig (who should be in the Hall of Fame) was the first player ever to score three touchdowns in one Super Bowl (XIX) and is third all-time in all-purpose yards.
Wide Receiver: Jerry Rice (49ers-23, 24, 29; Raiders-37), Lynn Swann (Steelers-9, 10, 13, 14), Deion Branch (Patriots-38, 39, 46), Cliff Branch (Raiders-11, 15, 18), Hines Ward (Steelers-40, 43, 45)
Jerry Rice is the greatest wide receiver ever. It's only natural that he holds every Super Bowl receiving record. Most of the records he broke were Lynn Swann's. Deion Branch gets on because he had 24 catches in three games and was MVP of Super Bowl XXXIX. Cliff Branch was on all three Raiders championship teams and Hines Ward won two with the Steelers.
Tight End: Jay Novacek (Cowboys-27, 28, 30), Shannon Sharpe (Broncos-32, 33; Ravens-35)
Tight end was a surprisingly difficult position to come up with two. Jay Novacek gets on because of his importance to the Cowboys' dynasty. Shannon Sharpe is one of the greatest tight ends ever, and he won a ring his first year in Baltimore after winning two in Denver.
Tackle: Rayfield Wright (Cowboys-5, 6, 10, 12, 13), Art Shell (Raiders-11, 15), Joe Jacoby (Redskins-17, 18, 22, 26)
Wright played on all five Cowboys teams that got to the Super Bowl in the '70s. I don't care what position you play, that's an impressive stat. Art Shell and Gene Upshaw were one of the most dominant offensive line duos in NFL history. Joe Jacoby, who, like Roger Craig, isn't in the Hall of Fame but should be, represents all of the "Hogs."
Guard: Nate Newton (Cowboys-27, 28, 30), Gene Upshaw (Raiders-2, 11, 15), Jerry Kramer (Packers-1, 2)
That Cowboys dynasty might've had the Triplets, but they won three Super Bowls in four years because of that offensive line. Gene Upshaw's career was so long that he played in Super Bowl II and was still a starter when the Raiders won 13 years later. And somebody from the Vince Lombardi Packers had to be on there, so why not Jerry Kramer?
Center: Mike Webster (Steelers-9, 10, 13, 14), Bart Oates (Giants-21, 25; 49ers-29)
Just like the Cowboys' offensive line was the most under-appreciated part of their dynasty, the same can be said about the Steelers. And no one on that Pittsburgh line was better than Hall of Famer Mike Webster. Bart Oates played in three Super Bowls and won them all, and let's not forget how much the Giants' running game dominated Super Bowl XXV.
Kick Returner: Desmond Howard (Packers-31)
The easiest call behind quarterback. Howard was named MVP of Super Bowl XXXI, when his 99-yard return broke the game open. He had 244 all-purpose yards in that game (154 kick return, 90 punt return) to set a record.
Punt Returner: John Taylor (49ers-23, 24, 29)
Such a tough call between Taylor and Troy Brown. But it's Taylor that holds the Super Bowl records for punt returns and return yardage, so he gets the nod. Then there's Montana to Taylor, one of the most memorable plays in Super Bowl history.
Sunday, January 24, 2016
2016 Conference Championships Picks
You can't say it all the time, but this year I think it truly is the case that the four best teams in football are the only ones left standing on Conference Championship weekend.
After the craziness of Wild Card Weekend, things returned to normal in the divisional round. All four games were decided by a touchdown, but the home team ended up winning each, setting up a pair of 1 vs. 2 matchups. In Denver, it'll be Brady-Manning XVII, for the fourth time in the AFC Championship Game. Meanwhile in Charlotte, we've got Heisman Trophy winners meeting in a conference title game for the first time ever, which is kind of crazy if you think about it. Speaking of crazy things to think about, the NFC champion will head to San Francisco with a better record, yet the Patriots-Broncos winner will likely be the favorite.
While I'm on the topic of favorites, my Super Bowl pick at the start of the playoffs was Arizona-Denver. Nothing I saw last week gave me any reason to change that pick. I thought going in that the Cardinals were the best team, and I still think that. And I thought that having home field would make the difference for the Broncos, which I also think will be the case.
AFC: Patriots (13-4) at Broncos (13-4): Denver-Why does everyone think this is going to be a New England blowout? The way people are putting money on the Patriots, you'd think the Broncos might as well not even bother showing up. Apparently, this is going to be last year's AFC Championship Game all over again.
Well, I've got news for you. It won't be. For starters, the game is in Denver, and the Patriots are a much different team on the road in the playoffs. And everybody seems to be forgetting that the game is in Denver for a reason. The Broncos beat the Patriots during the regular season...with Brock Osweiler at quarterback...when New England was still undefeated! I don't know if it's because people are just used to seeing the Patriots win that they made the easy pick, but there isn't much of a talent gap between these teams. And you'd have to think that the Patriots won't automatically get all the calls like they do at home, too.
It's also worth noting that the Broncos didn't play that well last week, and they still found a way to win. They won't be able to get away with playing as poorly against the Patriots as they did against the Steelers. They know that. But people haven't been giving that Denver defense enough credit all season. And that Broncos defense is going to be the key to the game. New England's offense is better than the limited Pittsburgh offense Denver faced last week. They'll need to find a way to shut down Frat Boy and keep Brady under pressure. If they can get to Brady and force turnovers, the Broncos will be in business.
Is this Peyton Manning's last best chance? Probably. The Broncos offense knows they were bad last week and got away with it. They also know that can't happen again. And it probably won't. They'll bounce back in a big way.
Obviously the big story heading into the AFC Championship Game is Manning vs. Brady again. Everybody's focusing on Brady's record, but there's another stat that's worth considering. They're 2-2 against each other in the playoffs. Brady won the first two. In New England. Manning has won the last two. Both in AFC Championship Games. One in Indianapolis, and two years ago in Denver. So, in many ways, this is the rubber match. And at the end of the day, we'll see an orange-clad team headed to the Bay Area for the Super Bowl.
NFC: Cardinals (14-3) at Panthers (16-1): Arizona-With two Southern-based teams playing for the NFC title, you wouldn't have thought weather would be a factor. But the blizzard actually went as far down as Charlotte, and the Panthers had to cover the field, which also affected their preparations for the game. How much? We'll see. The Cardinals had no such problem with practice. However, how cold will it be, and will that have any impact on Arizona?
The Cardinals showed people a lot last week. Aaron Rodgers pulled off another one of his Houdini acts, only to have Carson Palmer and Larry Fitzgerald march Arizona right down the field for the game-winning touchdown in overtime. Of course, it was a defensive lapse that put them in that position, but they actually played a pretty good game on both sides of the ball against the Packers. Overall, that was a high-quality football game played by two good teams, where the better team ended up winning.
Carolina, meanwhile, absolutely blitzed Seattle in the first quarter of their Divisional Playoff game. It was a statement made by a Panthers team that went 15-1, yet was the underdog against the two-time defending NFC champions. However, that second half Seahawks comeback has to be a source of concern. For everything the Panthers did right in building that 31-0 lead, they almost gave it all back. If they hadn't been up by as much as they were, it's very possible that they could've choked away their chance.
This game will be all about those two explosive offenses. Rather, it'll be about which underrated defense does a better job at stopping (or at least slowing down) the other offense. We all know what Cam Newton can do with his legs. We also know what Carson Palmer is able to do. I'm curious to see what kind of defensive game plans the two coaching staffs come up with. Because, as good as the offenses are, I think it's people like Dwight Freeney and Patrick Peterson and Luke Kuechly and Josh Norman that are going to determine this game.
We've got a great matchup in store here, and the winner won't deserve to be an underdog in the Super Bowl (even though they will be). For the last month or so, I've been saying that I think Arizona is the best team in football. I'm not changing my mind now. We'll see the Cardinals in San Francisco.
Last Week: 3-1
Playoffs: 6-2
Season: 162-102
After the craziness of Wild Card Weekend, things returned to normal in the divisional round. All four games were decided by a touchdown, but the home team ended up winning each, setting up a pair of 1 vs. 2 matchups. In Denver, it'll be Brady-Manning XVII, for the fourth time in the AFC Championship Game. Meanwhile in Charlotte, we've got Heisman Trophy winners meeting in a conference title game for the first time ever, which is kind of crazy if you think about it. Speaking of crazy things to think about, the NFC champion will head to San Francisco with a better record, yet the Patriots-Broncos winner will likely be the favorite.
While I'm on the topic of favorites, my Super Bowl pick at the start of the playoffs was Arizona-Denver. Nothing I saw last week gave me any reason to change that pick. I thought going in that the Cardinals were the best team, and I still think that. And I thought that having home field would make the difference for the Broncos, which I also think will be the case.
AFC: Patriots (13-4) at Broncos (13-4): Denver-Why does everyone think this is going to be a New England blowout? The way people are putting money on the Patriots, you'd think the Broncos might as well not even bother showing up. Apparently, this is going to be last year's AFC Championship Game all over again.
Well, I've got news for you. It won't be. For starters, the game is in Denver, and the Patriots are a much different team on the road in the playoffs. And everybody seems to be forgetting that the game is in Denver for a reason. The Broncos beat the Patriots during the regular season...with Brock Osweiler at quarterback...when New England was still undefeated! I don't know if it's because people are just used to seeing the Patriots win that they made the easy pick, but there isn't much of a talent gap between these teams. And you'd have to think that the Patriots won't automatically get all the calls like they do at home, too.
It's also worth noting that the Broncos didn't play that well last week, and they still found a way to win. They won't be able to get away with playing as poorly against the Patriots as they did against the Steelers. They know that. But people haven't been giving that Denver defense enough credit all season. And that Broncos defense is going to be the key to the game. New England's offense is better than the limited Pittsburgh offense Denver faced last week. They'll need to find a way to shut down Frat Boy and keep Brady under pressure. If they can get to Brady and force turnovers, the Broncos will be in business.
Is this Peyton Manning's last best chance? Probably. The Broncos offense knows they were bad last week and got away with it. They also know that can't happen again. And it probably won't. They'll bounce back in a big way.
Obviously the big story heading into the AFC Championship Game is Manning vs. Brady again. Everybody's focusing on Brady's record, but there's another stat that's worth considering. They're 2-2 against each other in the playoffs. Brady won the first two. In New England. Manning has won the last two. Both in AFC Championship Games. One in Indianapolis, and two years ago in Denver. So, in many ways, this is the rubber match. And at the end of the day, we'll see an orange-clad team headed to the Bay Area for the Super Bowl.
NFC: Cardinals (14-3) at Panthers (16-1): Arizona-With two Southern-based teams playing for the NFC title, you wouldn't have thought weather would be a factor. But the blizzard actually went as far down as Charlotte, and the Panthers had to cover the field, which also affected their preparations for the game. How much? We'll see. The Cardinals had no such problem with practice. However, how cold will it be, and will that have any impact on Arizona?
The Cardinals showed people a lot last week. Aaron Rodgers pulled off another one of his Houdini acts, only to have Carson Palmer and Larry Fitzgerald march Arizona right down the field for the game-winning touchdown in overtime. Of course, it was a defensive lapse that put them in that position, but they actually played a pretty good game on both sides of the ball against the Packers. Overall, that was a high-quality football game played by two good teams, where the better team ended up winning.
Carolina, meanwhile, absolutely blitzed Seattle in the first quarter of their Divisional Playoff game. It was a statement made by a Panthers team that went 15-1, yet was the underdog against the two-time defending NFC champions. However, that second half Seahawks comeback has to be a source of concern. For everything the Panthers did right in building that 31-0 lead, they almost gave it all back. If they hadn't been up by as much as they were, it's very possible that they could've choked away their chance.
This game will be all about those two explosive offenses. Rather, it'll be about which underrated defense does a better job at stopping (or at least slowing down) the other offense. We all know what Cam Newton can do with his legs. We also know what Carson Palmer is able to do. I'm curious to see what kind of defensive game plans the two coaching staffs come up with. Because, as good as the offenses are, I think it's people like Dwight Freeney and Patrick Peterson and Luke Kuechly and Josh Norman that are going to determine this game.
We've got a great matchup in store here, and the winner won't deserve to be an underdog in the Super Bowl (even though they will be). For the last month or so, I've been saying that I think Arizona is the best team in football. I'm not changing my mind now. We'll see the Cardinals in San Francisco.
Last Week: 3-1
Playoffs: 6-2
Season: 162-102
Saturday, January 23, 2016
DH In the NL?
With Baseball's CBA set to expire after this season and the players and owners having virtually nothing to fight about during negotiations for the new one, the topic of the DH in the National League has come up as a potential talking point. A lot of experts are saying it's inevitable, and Commissioner Manfred has hinted that it could become a reality as early as the 2017 season. After seeing way too many pitchers get hurt either batting or running the bases, National League owners, who've always been resistant to the change, seem to be more receptive to the idea, too.
This has seemed inevitable for a while, and a lot of reasons for it make sense. The National League and one of the leagues in Japan are the only two leagues IN THE WORLD that don't use the DH. The owners, who spend hundreds of millions of dollars on pitching every winter, so it's only natural that they'd want to protect their investment. Likewise, the player's union wouldn't be opposed to 15 extra DH jobs and the high salaries they'll command.
They've used the DH in the All-Star Game no matter which league is the host since 2011, and we're going into the fourth season of year-round interleague play. It took some getting used to during that first season, but we've got either American League pitchers hitting or National League teams using DHs every day of the season. Short of expanding to 32 teams with 16 in each league (which I think is likely at some point), the only way to address that difference while keeping the leagues even would be to adopt the DH across the Majors.
But I hope it doesn't happen. Yes, you read that correctly. I, a staunch DH supporter, hope they don't go to a universal DH in Major League Baseball.
Major League Baseball is unique in that they play by two different sets of rules. No other professional sport can say that. And that's part of what makes Baseball so great. If you go to an NFL or NBA game, it's going to be exactly the same no matter what team you see. Not so in Baseball. The American League is completely different than the National League game. And that's been the case for more than 40 years since the DH was first introduced in 1973.
I think that's why people get so passionate about the DH debate. You're either on one side or the other, and there's no convincing you otherwise. If you're a Cardinals fan, you're a National League guy. You think the DH is an abomination and always will. Likewise, if you're a Red Sox fan, you think the DH is great. You can't envision your team without David Ortiz.
The strategy is completely different, too. National League managers have to think about when to use pinch hitters and when to double switch. They have to consider so many more things when making pitching changes than American League managers do. It's not hard to see why plenty of people prefer the National League game to the AL game, which consists of an endless parade of one-batter relievers that can make the late innings drag on and on.
In some ways, managing in the American League is much easier, though. You don't have to worry about pinch hitting for your starter when he's still throwing well or try to get him through an inning because his spot in the lineup is coming up and you don't want to waste a reliever.
It's because the games are so different that interleague play is such a cool thing. Not only do you get to see teams that you otherwise wouldn't, they have to play a completely different style. That's why home field advantage in the World Series can make such a difference. American League teams have to figure out a lineup without a DH in it. The reverse is also true. A lot of National League teams aren't built to have a DH, and adding one requires a different kind of adjustment.
Call me crazy, but I've always loved that difference. And I don't think I'd be the only one who missed it if they went to a universal set of rules. The DH is a part of baseball. But let the purists have their pitcher hitting, too. Otherwise, what's the point of interleague play? All the games would be the same. And where's the fun in that?
This has seemed inevitable for a while, and a lot of reasons for it make sense. The National League and one of the leagues in Japan are the only two leagues IN THE WORLD that don't use the DH. The owners, who spend hundreds of millions of dollars on pitching every winter, so it's only natural that they'd want to protect their investment. Likewise, the player's union wouldn't be opposed to 15 extra DH jobs and the high salaries they'll command.
They've used the DH in the All-Star Game no matter which league is the host since 2011, and we're going into the fourth season of year-round interleague play. It took some getting used to during that first season, but we've got either American League pitchers hitting or National League teams using DHs every day of the season. Short of expanding to 32 teams with 16 in each league (which I think is likely at some point), the only way to address that difference while keeping the leagues even would be to adopt the DH across the Majors.
But I hope it doesn't happen. Yes, you read that correctly. I, a staunch DH supporter, hope they don't go to a universal DH in Major League Baseball.
Major League Baseball is unique in that they play by two different sets of rules. No other professional sport can say that. And that's part of what makes Baseball so great. If you go to an NFL or NBA game, it's going to be exactly the same no matter what team you see. Not so in Baseball. The American League is completely different than the National League game. And that's been the case for more than 40 years since the DH was first introduced in 1973.
I think that's why people get so passionate about the DH debate. You're either on one side or the other, and there's no convincing you otherwise. If you're a Cardinals fan, you're a National League guy. You think the DH is an abomination and always will. Likewise, if you're a Red Sox fan, you think the DH is great. You can't envision your team without David Ortiz.
The strategy is completely different, too. National League managers have to think about when to use pinch hitters and when to double switch. They have to consider so many more things when making pitching changes than American League managers do. It's not hard to see why plenty of people prefer the National League game to the AL game, which consists of an endless parade of one-batter relievers that can make the late innings drag on and on.
In some ways, managing in the American League is much easier, though. You don't have to worry about pinch hitting for your starter when he's still throwing well or try to get him through an inning because his spot in the lineup is coming up and you don't want to waste a reliever.
It's because the games are so different that interleague play is such a cool thing. Not only do you get to see teams that you otherwise wouldn't, they have to play a completely different style. That's why home field advantage in the World Series can make such a difference. American League teams have to figure out a lineup without a DH in it. The reverse is also true. A lot of National League teams aren't built to have a DH, and adding one requires a different kind of adjustment.
Call me crazy, but I've always loved that difference. And I don't think I'd be the only one who missed it if they went to a universal set of rules. The DH is a part of baseball. But let the purists have their pitcher hitting, too. Otherwise, what's the point of interleague play? All the games would be the same. And where's the fun in that?
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
My Olympic Basketball Teams
USA Basketball has released the list of 30 names that are finalists to be among the 12 that'll be on the Olympic team. There are some no-brainers (LeBron, Steph Curry), but it'll be interesting to see who fills out the roster.
We know Kobe won't be there. He's making his retirement official once the Lakers' season ends. Which he should. I'm glad he's taking it out of Coach K's hands, too. Another Olympic gold would've put a nice bow on his career, but Kobe's not the player he once was. He's certainly not one of the top 12 American players at this point in time. But the sentimentality of it and the potential uproar over not taking him, whether he deserved a place on the team or not (as if Mike Krzyzewski cares about that) would've been ridiculous. I'm glad we won't have to deal with that.
So who will be on the men's Olympic basketball team? Once again, several of the spots seem fairly obvious. Nike might as well ask them what number they want and start selling the jerseys now. The only thing that will keep LeBron, Steph Curry, Blake Griffin and Kevin Durant out of Rio would be injury. You can probably add Carmelo Anthony, Anthony Davis and Chris Paul to that group, and I'd be very surprised if Chris Paul and Dwight Howard weren't on the team.
That's nine roster spots, which leaves us with three. And knowing Mike Krzyzewski and the way he's constructed the last two Olympic teams, those spots will go to the guys who best fit the roles he needs them to fill...not necessarily the best players. With that being said, I like Andre Igoudala to grab one of those three spots. Igoudala was on the team in London, and he's proven to be a very valuable member of that Warriors lineup. He'd be a bench guy in Rio and would probably accept that role with no complaints.
For some reason, I like Rudy Gay, too. He just seems like the perfect guy to be that extra shooting guard/small forward you may need but likely won't need to rely on. Which leaves us with one remaining roster spot. It's a toss up between Kawhi Leonard and Kevin Love. Love was on the gold medal-winning team in 2012, but I think I'd actually prefer Leonard. James Harden seems unlikely to make the Rio team, but you still need that Harden type of player. And I think Leonard fits the bill more than Love does.
With that, here's my men's roster headed to Rio in August:
Carmelo Anthony, Stephen Curry, Anthony Davis, Kevin Durant, Rudy Gay, Blake Griffin, Dwight Howard, Andre Igoudala, LeBron James, Kawhi Leonard, Chris Paul, Russell Westbrook
On the women's side, things seem just as clear cut. It would be easy for Geno to pick a team made up exclusively of former UConn players--and that team would still probably win the gold medal--but you know that won't be the case. At the very least, Brittany Griner and Candace Parker will be there.
You know the women's team will be very UConn heavy, though. And, frankly, it should be. One of the reasons UConn is so dominant is because they have the best players. It would make sense that the UConn players continue to be the best ones at the professional level. Besides, Sue Bird, Diana Taurasi and Maya Moore have become such U.S. National Team stalwarts that it's impossible to envision an Olympic squad that doesn't include them. Especially since this will likely be Bird's Olympic swan song, and probably Taurasi's, as well.
I've only got five UConn Huskies on the final roster. In addition to the Big Three, it's difficult to picture an Olympic team that doesn't include Breanna Stewart. When all is said and done, she may go down as the greatest women's college player ever, and she'll be the No. 1 pick in the WNBA Draft. Stewart might not play that much in Rio (there are so many dominant post players in the U.S. it's ridiculous), but she's going to be an important part of the U.S. National Team for years to come. It's important for her to come see what this is all about. Just like it was important for LeBron and Melo to get that first Olympic experience out of the way during the Athens debacle 12 years ago.
Tina Charles is the fifth UConn player (five and a half if you count Elena Delle Donne). Along with Charles, Sylvia Fowles, Angel McCoughtry and Tamika Catchings have been key members of the U.S. National Team for a long time. Unless something drastic happens, they'll all be in Rio.
All we've got left is the backup point guard. It's been Lindsay Whalen's job for a while, but she'll definitely have some competition. Odyssey Sims is a star in the making, and she was on the team that won gold at the 2014 World Championships. Sims beat out Skylar Diggins for the final spot on that roster. I think the roles will reverse this time. Skylar is motivated by that snub and is determined to make the Olympic team. They'll both be on plenty of U.S National Teams in the future, but it looks like there'll only be room for one in Rio. I'm taking Diggins, but either one would be a fine choice.
Looking to extend that 41-game Olympic winning streak, here are the 12 American women I'm sending to Rio:
Sue Bird, Tamika Catchings, Tina Charles, Elena Delle Donne, Skylar Diggins, Sylvia Fowles, Brittany Griner, Angel McCoughtry, Maya Moore, Candace Parker, Breanna Stewart, Diana Taurasi
We know Kobe won't be there. He's making his retirement official once the Lakers' season ends. Which he should. I'm glad he's taking it out of Coach K's hands, too. Another Olympic gold would've put a nice bow on his career, but Kobe's not the player he once was. He's certainly not one of the top 12 American players at this point in time. But the sentimentality of it and the potential uproar over not taking him, whether he deserved a place on the team or not (as if Mike Krzyzewski cares about that) would've been ridiculous. I'm glad we won't have to deal with that.
So who will be on the men's Olympic basketball team? Once again, several of the spots seem fairly obvious. Nike might as well ask them what number they want and start selling the jerseys now. The only thing that will keep LeBron, Steph Curry, Blake Griffin and Kevin Durant out of Rio would be injury. You can probably add Carmelo Anthony, Anthony Davis and Chris Paul to that group, and I'd be very surprised if Chris Paul and Dwight Howard weren't on the team.
That's nine roster spots, which leaves us with three. And knowing Mike Krzyzewski and the way he's constructed the last two Olympic teams, those spots will go to the guys who best fit the roles he needs them to fill...not necessarily the best players. With that being said, I like Andre Igoudala to grab one of those three spots. Igoudala was on the team in London, and he's proven to be a very valuable member of that Warriors lineup. He'd be a bench guy in Rio and would probably accept that role with no complaints.
For some reason, I like Rudy Gay, too. He just seems like the perfect guy to be that extra shooting guard/small forward you may need but likely won't need to rely on. Which leaves us with one remaining roster spot. It's a toss up between Kawhi Leonard and Kevin Love. Love was on the gold medal-winning team in 2012, but I think I'd actually prefer Leonard. James Harden seems unlikely to make the Rio team, but you still need that Harden type of player. And I think Leonard fits the bill more than Love does.
With that, here's my men's roster headed to Rio in August:
Carmelo Anthony, Stephen Curry, Anthony Davis, Kevin Durant, Rudy Gay, Blake Griffin, Dwight Howard, Andre Igoudala, LeBron James, Kawhi Leonard, Chris Paul, Russell Westbrook
On the women's side, things seem just as clear cut. It would be easy for Geno to pick a team made up exclusively of former UConn players--and that team would still probably win the gold medal--but you know that won't be the case. At the very least, Brittany Griner and Candace Parker will be there.
You know the women's team will be very UConn heavy, though. And, frankly, it should be. One of the reasons UConn is so dominant is because they have the best players. It would make sense that the UConn players continue to be the best ones at the professional level. Besides, Sue Bird, Diana Taurasi and Maya Moore have become such U.S. National Team stalwarts that it's impossible to envision an Olympic squad that doesn't include them. Especially since this will likely be Bird's Olympic swan song, and probably Taurasi's, as well.
I've only got five UConn Huskies on the final roster. In addition to the Big Three, it's difficult to picture an Olympic team that doesn't include Breanna Stewart. When all is said and done, she may go down as the greatest women's college player ever, and she'll be the No. 1 pick in the WNBA Draft. Stewart might not play that much in Rio (there are so many dominant post players in the U.S. it's ridiculous), but she's going to be an important part of the U.S. National Team for years to come. It's important for her to come see what this is all about. Just like it was important for LeBron and Melo to get that first Olympic experience out of the way during the Athens debacle 12 years ago.
Tina Charles is the fifth UConn player (five and a half if you count Elena Delle Donne). Along with Charles, Sylvia Fowles, Angel McCoughtry and Tamika Catchings have been key members of the U.S. National Team for a long time. Unless something drastic happens, they'll all be in Rio.
All we've got left is the backup point guard. It's been Lindsay Whalen's job for a while, but she'll definitely have some competition. Odyssey Sims is a star in the making, and she was on the team that won gold at the 2014 World Championships. Sims beat out Skylar Diggins for the final spot on that roster. I think the roles will reverse this time. Skylar is motivated by that snub and is determined to make the Olympic team. They'll both be on plenty of U.S National Teams in the future, but it looks like there'll only be room for one in Rio. I'm taking Diggins, but either one would be a fine choice.
Looking to extend that 41-game Olympic winning streak, here are the 12 American women I'm sending to Rio:
Sue Bird, Tamika Catchings, Tina Charles, Elena Delle Donne, Skylar Diggins, Sylvia Fowles, Brittany Griner, Angel McCoughtry, Maya Moore, Candace Parker, Breanna Stewart, Diana Taurasi
Monday, January 18, 2016
Grand Slam Season Has Started
There's no question that 2015 was The Year of Serena. She went 51-3 and finished two wins shy of the Grand Slam. What does she have for an encore in 2016? Well, if her first-round match at the Australian Open, her first match period since the US Open, was any indication, it once again looks as if the tennis world is her oyster.
Serena Williams has reached the point where if she's on her game, she's expected to win every tournament she plays. Last year, she wasn't healthy in every tournament, and she still won! I don't think she'll get away with that in 2016, though. The other top women look really good and if Serena has an off day, she could be susceptible to an upset.
It would be a stretch to say Serena isn't the favorite Down Under, though. So has been her dominance. Although, despite having six titles, she's only won here back-to-back once (2009-10). Another player that's won back-to-back Australian Opens is Victoria Azarenka, and it looks like Vika's back in form after missing some time due to injury and seeing her ranking drop as a result. And Vika's on the other side of the draw, so that's the easy matchup to project as the women's final.
However, it's never that easy. Petra Kvitova had no problems in her first-round match and Dominika Cibulkova, who was a finalist two years ago, has a favorable draw. Those two would meet in the third round, and I expect the winner to meet Serena in the semis. In the quarterfinals, we could have a rematch of the 2015 final between Serena and Maria Sharapova. They're the two biggest names in women's tennis, but when they play, the result is always the same.
On the bottom half of the women's draw, you'd be a fool not to like Azarenka to make a deep run. She'll run into plenty of challengers, though. Second-ranked Simona Halep, for example, has been to the quarters in each of the last two years, and she was a semifinalist at the US Open. Third-ranked Garbine Muguruza, the 2015 Wimbledon finalist, is also a player on the rise. Then there are the Germans--Angelique Kerber and Sabine Lisicki. They've both gone deep in Majors before, and I wouldn't be surprised to see either one on the final weekend.
I'm obviously going with Serena to make the semis, where she'll meet Cibulkova. On the other side, I've got Kerber vs. Azarenka and Lisicki vs. Halep in the quarters. Then Kerber beats Halep in the semis before losing to Serena in the final. Williams wins her seventh Australian Open, her fifth Major in the last six, and her 22nd overall, tying her with Steffi Graf for second-most all-time.
While we were all getting swept up in Serena and her quest for the Grand Slam, it was easy to overlook Novak Djokovic's 2015 season. He was just as dominant, if not more so, coming a bad match in the French Open final short of winning the Grand Slam on the men's side. And the Australian Open has always been his best Slam tournament, so you'd have to think it's his tournament to lose.
Djokovic is a five-time champion, and they've all come in the past eight years. In fact, he's won four of the last five, and his only Australian Open loss since 2011 was that memorable quarterfinal against Wawrinka in 2014 that went to 9-7 in the fifth. And it was Stan Wawrinka, of course, that beat Djokovic in the 2015 French Open final. I've got that as the final here with Wawrinka winning, but there are plenty of other scenarios that are completely plausible.
Andy Murray has had more success here over the past decade than anybody. Except he's never won a title. Four trips to the finals (all since 2010), all losses. You know the French is the one Djokovic wants. You'd have to figure Australia's the one Murray wants.
While I'm talking about Andy Murray, what a performance he put on in the 2015 Davis Cup! He won every one of his matches throughout the four rounds of the event to lead Great Britain to its first title since 1936. Now all five of the Big Five have a Davis Cup championship on their resume. And four of the five have an Olympic gold, which is another thing Djokovic can take care of in 2016.
Anyway, back to the Australian Open. Roger Federer had his streak of 11 consecutive years in the semifinals snapped last year, but he recovered to lose to Djokovic in those classic Wimbledon and US Open finals. Are the days of Roger Federer winning Grand Slams over? I don't know. His problem doesn't seem to be Nadal anymore. It seems to be that he keeps having to play Djokovic. Sure enough, that's the case again in Melbourne, as they're seeded to meet in the semis. They'll play that at night, which will prevent the heat from being a factor, but that "rivalry" is becoming very one-sided.
The quarter that includes two of the Big Five includes Wawrinka and Nadal. Nadal's only won this title once and in recent years has become more likely to be upset than make a deep run at every Grand Slam other than the French. The draw didn't help his case this year, either. Since he's ranked fifth, he'll theoretically have to beat three of the other four to win the title. In this case, it'd go Wawrinka, Murray, Djokovic/Federer. I just don't see that happening.
Picking the chalk has become too easy on the men's side, but that's exactly what I'm doing. Nobody in Djokovic's section is going to challenge him before Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the quarters, and I'm not even sure how big of a test that'll be. Federer has his foil Tomas Berdych lurking in his section of the draw, so if that match happens, Roger could be in trouble. Berdych has to get by both Nick Kyrgios and Marin Cilic first, though, so Roger might not have to worry about him after all.
Wawrinka and Nadal should get to each other no problem. As for what will happen when they play in the quarterfinals, I really have no idea. It'll likely depend on the amount of time they've each spent on court and how taxing their first four matches are. Likewise, I don't think Murray has any problems getting to at least the semis, although he does have potentially tough matches with Bernard Tomic and John Isner.
Just like Serena-Vika's the easy final pick on the women's side, it's an easy pick to say Djokovic-Murray on the men's side. I'm saying Djokovic-Wawrinka, though. And you know what happens when Novak Djokovic plays Stan Wawrinka in Grand Slams? Wawrinka wins. He earns his second Aussie Open title in three years and extends the run that these two have been on to six straight.
Also, one final shout out to Lleyton Hewitt. He announced his retirement last year, but wanted to play in one last Australian Open. A two-time Grand Slam champion and former world No. 1, he was the great hope for an Aussie to finally win their home tournament for the first time since 1976. But, alas, whether it was the pressure or the surface or something else, he never did win the Australian Open. He did make the finals once--in 2005--but lost to Marat Safin. He won't win this year, either, but he deserves to go out with a hero's ovation after his final match, which will almost certainly be on Rod Laver Arena at night.
Serena Williams has reached the point where if she's on her game, she's expected to win every tournament she plays. Last year, she wasn't healthy in every tournament, and she still won! I don't think she'll get away with that in 2016, though. The other top women look really good and if Serena has an off day, she could be susceptible to an upset.
It would be a stretch to say Serena isn't the favorite Down Under, though. So has been her dominance. Although, despite having six titles, she's only won here back-to-back once (2009-10). Another player that's won back-to-back Australian Opens is Victoria Azarenka, and it looks like Vika's back in form after missing some time due to injury and seeing her ranking drop as a result. And Vika's on the other side of the draw, so that's the easy matchup to project as the women's final.
However, it's never that easy. Petra Kvitova had no problems in her first-round match and Dominika Cibulkova, who was a finalist two years ago, has a favorable draw. Those two would meet in the third round, and I expect the winner to meet Serena in the semis. In the quarterfinals, we could have a rematch of the 2015 final between Serena and Maria Sharapova. They're the two biggest names in women's tennis, but when they play, the result is always the same.
On the bottom half of the women's draw, you'd be a fool not to like Azarenka to make a deep run. She'll run into plenty of challengers, though. Second-ranked Simona Halep, for example, has been to the quarters in each of the last two years, and she was a semifinalist at the US Open. Third-ranked Garbine Muguruza, the 2015 Wimbledon finalist, is also a player on the rise. Then there are the Germans--Angelique Kerber and Sabine Lisicki. They've both gone deep in Majors before, and I wouldn't be surprised to see either one on the final weekend.
I'm obviously going with Serena to make the semis, where she'll meet Cibulkova. On the other side, I've got Kerber vs. Azarenka and Lisicki vs. Halep in the quarters. Then Kerber beats Halep in the semis before losing to Serena in the final. Williams wins her seventh Australian Open, her fifth Major in the last six, and her 22nd overall, tying her with Steffi Graf for second-most all-time.
While we were all getting swept up in Serena and her quest for the Grand Slam, it was easy to overlook Novak Djokovic's 2015 season. He was just as dominant, if not more so, coming a bad match in the French Open final short of winning the Grand Slam on the men's side. And the Australian Open has always been his best Slam tournament, so you'd have to think it's his tournament to lose.
Djokovic is a five-time champion, and they've all come in the past eight years. In fact, he's won four of the last five, and his only Australian Open loss since 2011 was that memorable quarterfinal against Wawrinka in 2014 that went to 9-7 in the fifth. And it was Stan Wawrinka, of course, that beat Djokovic in the 2015 French Open final. I've got that as the final here with Wawrinka winning, but there are plenty of other scenarios that are completely plausible.
Andy Murray has had more success here over the past decade than anybody. Except he's never won a title. Four trips to the finals (all since 2010), all losses. You know the French is the one Djokovic wants. You'd have to figure Australia's the one Murray wants.
While I'm talking about Andy Murray, what a performance he put on in the 2015 Davis Cup! He won every one of his matches throughout the four rounds of the event to lead Great Britain to its first title since 1936. Now all five of the Big Five have a Davis Cup championship on their resume. And four of the five have an Olympic gold, which is another thing Djokovic can take care of in 2016.
Anyway, back to the Australian Open. Roger Federer had his streak of 11 consecutive years in the semifinals snapped last year, but he recovered to lose to Djokovic in those classic Wimbledon and US Open finals. Are the days of Roger Federer winning Grand Slams over? I don't know. His problem doesn't seem to be Nadal anymore. It seems to be that he keeps having to play Djokovic. Sure enough, that's the case again in Melbourne, as they're seeded to meet in the semis. They'll play that at night, which will prevent the heat from being a factor, but that "rivalry" is becoming very one-sided.
The quarter that includes two of the Big Five includes Wawrinka and Nadal. Nadal's only won this title once and in recent years has become more likely to be upset than make a deep run at every Grand Slam other than the French. The draw didn't help his case this year, either. Since he's ranked fifth, he'll theoretically have to beat three of the other four to win the title. In this case, it'd go Wawrinka, Murray, Djokovic/Federer. I just don't see that happening.
Picking the chalk has become too easy on the men's side, but that's exactly what I'm doing. Nobody in Djokovic's section is going to challenge him before Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the quarters, and I'm not even sure how big of a test that'll be. Federer has his foil Tomas Berdych lurking in his section of the draw, so if that match happens, Roger could be in trouble. Berdych has to get by both Nick Kyrgios and Marin Cilic first, though, so Roger might not have to worry about him after all.
Wawrinka and Nadal should get to each other no problem. As for what will happen when they play in the quarterfinals, I really have no idea. It'll likely depend on the amount of time they've each spent on court and how taxing their first four matches are. Likewise, I don't think Murray has any problems getting to at least the semis, although he does have potentially tough matches with Bernard Tomic and John Isner.
Just like Serena-Vika's the easy final pick on the women's side, it's an easy pick to say Djokovic-Murray on the men's side. I'm saying Djokovic-Wawrinka, though. And you know what happens when Novak Djokovic plays Stan Wawrinka in Grand Slams? Wawrinka wins. He earns his second Aussie Open title in three years and extends the run that these two have been on to six straight.
Also, one final shout out to Lleyton Hewitt. He announced his retirement last year, but wanted to play in one last Australian Open. A two-time Grand Slam champion and former world No. 1, he was the great hope for an Aussie to finally win their home tournament for the first time since 1976. But, alas, whether it was the pressure or the surface or something else, he never did win the Australian Open. He did make the finals once--in 2005--but lost to Marat Safin. He won't win this year, either, but he deserves to go out with a hero's ovation after his final match, which will almost certainly be on Rod Laver Arena at night.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
2015-16 Football Playoffs, Week B
Divisional Playoff weekend is arguably the best week of NFL football all season. The only teams left are the eight best teams in the league. That's not always the case, but I think we can all agree that the four teams left in the NFC are the four best teams. In the AFC, it's three out of four. I'd still argue that the Bengals are a better team than the Steelers.
As I sit here watching this incredible rebroadcast of Super Bowl I, it got me thinking about a cool little coincidence of the eight teams that are left. They've all played each other in the Super Bowl previously.
Of the 16 remaining possible Super Bowl matchups, nine have happened before. The Packers have played all four of the AFC teams in a Super Bowl, and Seattle's only three Super Bowl appearances have come against Pittsburgh, Denver and New England. The Cardinals and Panthers have each only been on one, and the team they played are still alive in the AFC. Arizona played Pittsburgh in their Super Bowl appearance and Carolina played New England in theirs. Of course, a Packers-Chiefs Super Bowl I would be the ultimate dream matchup for Super Bowl 50, though.
And we move into a divisional round after the wild card games made history. All four road teams were favored last week, and they all won. It was the first time in NFL history that the road teams went 4-for-4 in a playoff weekend. I don't see that stat repeating itself in the Divisional Playoffs, however. The four best teams in the league had last week off and are home this week. It's not impossible that they'll all lose, but it's highly unlikely. Especially considering the injuries that some of last week's winners (especially the Steelers) are dealing with.
AFC Divisional Playoff: Chiefs (12-5) at Patriots (12-4): Kansas City-Speaking of teams that are banged up, I don't think there was a team in the league more in need of a bye than the New England Patriots. They also needed it just for a bit of a morale boost after giving away AFC home field by dropping their last two games. It's been a long time since New England has lost three in a row, and they're always tough at home, especially in January. However, I think they're vulnerable here. Their offensive line is being held together with Scotch tape, and that Chiefs defense is going to be relentless.
Kansas City was mighty impressive in that dominant shutout of Houston. During their 11-game winning streak, the Chiefs have really only beaten Denver, but any questions people might've had about how good the Chiefs actually are should've been answered last week. There's a chance that Kansas City might be underestimated here, which would be a dangerous thing to do. I really like this Chiefs team. I think they're capable of pulling the upset. I just have a feeling they'll be able to do what the Ravens couldn't last year.
NFC Divisional Playoff: Packers (11-6) at Cardinals (13-3): Arizona-They met just three weeks ago and it didn't go well for the Packers. They were completely dominated in all aspects of the game as Arizona cruised to a 38-8 win that wasn't even that close. That's the game when Arizona made a lot of people believers. I'm still a believer in the Cardinals, even after that loss to Seattle in Week 17. I think the Cardinals are the best team in the NFL. They're my pick to win it all.
For Green Bay to win, the team that played last week in Washington needs to show up. That team was reminiscent of the Packers squad that was a preseason Super Bowl favorite and promptly started the season 6-0. If the one that traveled to Arizona last month goes there again, this could get ugly. I won't put anything past Aaron Rodgers, but I think the Packers are facing an uphill climb in this one. Of course, the last time Green Bay visited Arizona in the postseason, it was an absolute classic. Hopefully we'll see another on Saturday night. Although, I still expect a Cardinals victory.
NFC Divisional Playoff: Seahawks (11-6) at Panthers (15-1): Carolina-Perhaps the most intriguing matchup of the four this weekend is Seattle at Carolina. A lot of people are saying they wouldn't be surprised at all to see the Seahawks win three straight road games en route to a third straight Super Bowl appearance. There are also those who aren't believers in the Panthers, even though they went 15-1 and were the highest scoring team in the league. Seattle, of course, allowed the fewest points in the league this season, and they held Minnesota without a touchdown last week. But even they'd admit they're lucky to still be playing. If the Vikings don't miss that chip-shot field goal, we're not talking about the Seahawks possibly upsetting the Panthers.
It's going to sound crazy, especially since I'm talking about a 15-1 team here, but the Panthers feel like they have a lot to prove here. There's more than a few people who expect the Seahawks to win this game, even though Carolina won when they met in the regular season. It was that game that really made people start to realize that the Panthers actually are legitimate. It's like when the Saints beat the Patriots on that Monday night during their Super Bowl season. Remember what happened then? It's also worth noting that the Panthers are 0-2 all-time against the Seahawks in the playoffs, including a 31-17 loss last year. Both of those games were in Seattle. This one's in Charlotte. There'll be a game in Charlotte next week, too.
AFC Divisional Playoff: Steelers (11-6) at Broncos (12-4): Denver-Wasn't it nice of the Bengals to
give the Steelers an extra 30 yards to attempt their game-winning field goal last week? It was perhaps Cris Carter who said it best on Sunday NFL Countdown. Some teams know how to win. The Bengals don't. I'd even argue that the Bengals know how to lose.
The win was costly for the Steelers, though. They lost Antonio Brown and Ben Roethlisberger can't throw. Meanwhile, Denver's offense is refreshed after getting a week off, and Peyton Manning's back under center and healthy. This is a much different Broncos team than the one that lost to the Steelers in Pittsburgh four weeks ago. If the Broncos play the way they did in the second half against San Diego, they're goign to be very tough for anyone to beat. Even if they don't, it's going to be very difficult for a banged-up Steelers team to knock them off. Not with the memories of last year's Divisional Playoff loss to Indianapolis still fresh in their heads. The Broncos won't let themselves get upset in this round again.
Last Week: 3-1
Regular Season: 156-100
Overall: 159-101
Friday, January 15, 2016
What to Do With The World Records
WADA has released its report on its investigation to the Russian doping crisis, and the results don't make the IAAF look too good. They determined that former IAAF President Lamine Diack not only knew about the positive tests, but was involved in the cover up, even going so far as to blackmailing athletes into paying bribes so that they'd still be able to compete after failing.
I have no idea how guilty Diack is or how far the corruption goes, but it is pretty clear that the IAAF is in major need of reform. And I'm pretty convinced that new President Sebastian Coe will put those reforms in action. He needs to. Because the entire sport is under a microscope right now.
Some people are so convinced that track & field has been so corrupt for so long that they're calling for the IAAF to wipe out all existing world records, which is a completely asinine suggestion. To say that all world records should be reset implies that every single person who ever set a world record is dirty. Not only is that ridiculous, it's really disrespectful.
To completely expunge all existing world records would be unfair to the clean athletes who legitimately set them. I'm not saying that there aren't world records that were set by athletes on PEDs. But eliminating the world records might make some people feel better, but it wouldn't make those performances suddenly disappear. I also know that there are plenty of world records set by athletes who were clean. How is it fair to them to wipe out their legitimate records?
Yelena Isinbayeva might be Russian, but she's getting the short end of the stick here. She's set the world record in the women's pole vault so many times (and been tested so many times) that she's got a right to be angry here (and a right to be angry that she might have to miss out on the Olympics). Paula Radcliffe, the world record holder in the women's marathon, has gone on record as saying that she doesn't think it would be right to take world records away, and I agree with her. Radcliffe admitted that she's somewhat biased on the topic, but her point remains. Why punish those who did it the right way just because some didn't?
Usain Bolt's a freak of nature. There are some that have their suspicions about him, but he's never failed a test and, as far as we can tell, all of his records are legitimate. He could theoretically set them again if they reset world records in 2016, but Mike Powell can't. That memorable night in 1991 where he and Carl Lewis staged that incredible duel, capped by Powell's world record, can never be duplicated. Mike Powell retired 20 years ago. Michael Johnson would lose his world records, too. Nobody's ever said a word about Michael Johnson and steroids. Jonathan Edwards, who's currently a broadcaster for the BBC, is the only person ever to triple jump over 60 feet. Why would you want to make it look like that never happened?
Kenya has come under suspicion recently, too. Does that mean David Rudisha didn't steal the spotlight away from Bolt when he set that remarkable 800 world record in London? Again, I have no idea if Rudisha's clean. But I have no reason to believe he's not. It might be naive, but I prefer to give athletes the benefit of the doubt.
Besides, this isn't the first time a sport has seen its record book tainted. For years, the world record list in women's swimming was dominated by East Germans, who set those marks while they were a part of the state-run doping system in the 1980s. What did FINA do about that? Nothing. And you know how many of those world records still stand? None! It took a long time for those records to come off the books, but eventually they all did (even if they were broken during the year-and-a-half "Suit Era" when swimmers were literally wearing rubber in the water).
A compromise has been suggested, which is almost as stupid as erasing all existing records. There's a British journalist who wants to change the rules entirely so that every event is new, thus creating a second set of "new" records while not touching the "old" ones. (In most U.S. high schools and colleges, there already are "old" and "new" records reflecting the change from feet to meters in the 70s.)
So what should the IAAF do about track & field's "tainted" record book? Nothing. Because there's nothing to do. Erasing world records isn't the answer. And it wouldn't clean up the sport. Eliminate doping. The world records will take care of themselves.
I have no idea how guilty Diack is or how far the corruption goes, but it is pretty clear that the IAAF is in major need of reform. And I'm pretty convinced that new President Sebastian Coe will put those reforms in action. He needs to. Because the entire sport is under a microscope right now.
Some people are so convinced that track & field has been so corrupt for so long that they're calling for the IAAF to wipe out all existing world records, which is a completely asinine suggestion. To say that all world records should be reset implies that every single person who ever set a world record is dirty. Not only is that ridiculous, it's really disrespectful.
To completely expunge all existing world records would be unfair to the clean athletes who legitimately set them. I'm not saying that there aren't world records that were set by athletes on PEDs. But eliminating the world records might make some people feel better, but it wouldn't make those performances suddenly disappear. I also know that there are plenty of world records set by athletes who were clean. How is it fair to them to wipe out their legitimate records?
Yelena Isinbayeva might be Russian, but she's getting the short end of the stick here. She's set the world record in the women's pole vault so many times (and been tested so many times) that she's got a right to be angry here (and a right to be angry that she might have to miss out on the Olympics). Paula Radcliffe, the world record holder in the women's marathon, has gone on record as saying that she doesn't think it would be right to take world records away, and I agree with her. Radcliffe admitted that she's somewhat biased on the topic, but her point remains. Why punish those who did it the right way just because some didn't?
Usain Bolt's a freak of nature. There are some that have their suspicions about him, but he's never failed a test and, as far as we can tell, all of his records are legitimate. He could theoretically set them again if they reset world records in 2016, but Mike Powell can't. That memorable night in 1991 where he and Carl Lewis staged that incredible duel, capped by Powell's world record, can never be duplicated. Mike Powell retired 20 years ago. Michael Johnson would lose his world records, too. Nobody's ever said a word about Michael Johnson and steroids. Jonathan Edwards, who's currently a broadcaster for the BBC, is the only person ever to triple jump over 60 feet. Why would you want to make it look like that never happened?
Kenya has come under suspicion recently, too. Does that mean David Rudisha didn't steal the spotlight away from Bolt when he set that remarkable 800 world record in London? Again, I have no idea if Rudisha's clean. But I have no reason to believe he's not. It might be naive, but I prefer to give athletes the benefit of the doubt.
Besides, this isn't the first time a sport has seen its record book tainted. For years, the world record list in women's swimming was dominated by East Germans, who set those marks while they were a part of the state-run doping system in the 1980s. What did FINA do about that? Nothing. And you know how many of those world records still stand? None! It took a long time for those records to come off the books, but eventually they all did (even if they were broken during the year-and-a-half "Suit Era" when swimmers were literally wearing rubber in the water).
A compromise has been suggested, which is almost as stupid as erasing all existing records. There's a British journalist who wants to change the rules entirely so that every event is new, thus creating a second set of "new" records while not touching the "old" ones. (In most U.S. high schools and colleges, there already are "old" and "new" records reflecting the change from feet to meters in the 70s.)
So what should the IAAF do about track & field's "tainted" record book? Nothing. Because there's nothing to do. Erasing world records isn't the answer. And it wouldn't clean up the sport. Eliminate doping. The world records will take care of themselves.
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
The LA Rams Are Back
So, as it turns out, you can go home again. After their 20-year sojourn to St. Louis, the Los Angeles Rams have been reborn. The NFL has wanted to get back to LA ever since the Rams and Raiders left in 1995, and now that has happened. And it's only fitting that the team bringing the NFL back to LA is the one that probably never should've left in the first place.
Ironically, all three teams that wanted to move to LA used to play there. The Chargers started off in LA before moving south to San Diego, while everyone knows about the Al Davis vs. the NFL thing in the early 80s when he wanted to move the Raiders to LA, only to move them back to Oakland 15 years later. But it's the Rams who have the history in LA. And, frankly, that's where they belong. It was always weird to have a team that has so much history in a place like LA representing St. Louis, which was a baseball town 20 years ago and is even more of a baseball town now.
They accomplished plenty during their time in St. Louis. They won a Super Bowl. They almost won another two years later. Marshall Faulk and Kurt Warner became Hall of Famers as members of the St. Louis Rams. And who'll ever forget watching the "Greatest Show On Turf," one of the most dynamic offenses we've ever seen?
But when you think of the Rams, you think Los Angeles. Eric Dickerson played in LA. So did Jack Youngblood. And Jackie Slater. And Merlin Olsen. And Deacon Jones. And the rest of the Fearsome Foursome. Jerome Bettis began his Hall of Fame career in LA. Pete Rozelle was their general manager way back when! They were the first NFL team to put a logo on their helmets, and those ram horns have become their trademark. They played in a Super Bowl and, at their height, were in the NFC Championship Game seemingly every year.
Sure, things got bad towards the end, which is how Georgia Frontiere was able to move the team without much of a fight, but the Rams played in LA for 50 years. They were the first Major League professional team in Southern California. When people think of the Rams, they think of Los Angeles. The Dodgers and Lakers are probably the only teams that are more associated with the city than the Rams. Stan Kroenke's wanted to bring them home for a few years. Now he's finally succeeded.
The Rams don't need to build a fan base. There are plenty of Rams fans in St. Louis who are justifiably upset with the team's relocation. But that's the same feeling Rams fans in LA had 20 years ago. Those same LA Rams fans are elated about the news. It was the Rams fans who showed up at the owners meetings wearing their jerseys and carrying their "Los Angeles" Rams signs. These are the same fans that showed up in droves to a practice in the LA area during training camp a few years ago. They wanted their team back. Badly. The owners took note.
It's obviously a dark day for football fans in St. Louis. This is the second time they've lost a team (the Cardinals packed up and moved to Phoenix in 1988). Whether or not they'll ever get another is incredibly doubtful, although you know St. Louis will be used as leverage for any team that's looking for a new stadium.
Fans in San Diego and Oakland are relieved (for now), but they still have to wonder about their teams' futures. The Chargers have the first option to join the Rams in Los Angeles, or they can stay in San Diego. The Raiders, who left LA a few months after the Rams 20 years ago, know that a Hollywood reunion is unlikely (owner Mark Davis called it a "loss" for the Raiders). But that doesn't mean they're staying in Oakland, either. (And there are plenty of LA football fans who would've preferred a Raiders return to a Rams return.)
Ultimately, this it what feels right, though. When the Rams first moved to LA (from Cleveland) in 1946, it was the start of a new era. They became the first Major League pro franchise based on the West Coast. Now, they usher in another one. The NFL is back in the second-largest media market in the country, and the Rams will play in a state-of-the-art stadium that will, inevitably, host a Super Bowl (and likely help the LA 2024 Olympic bid's chances). And if the Chargers or Raiders do exercise their option to move, it'll host two NFL teams.
That stadium won't be ready until the 2019 season, which means the Rams will need to find a temporary home for the next three years. You'd have to figure they'll likely play at the L.A. Coliseum until then, and they've agreed to play one London game each season until then, too. They'll work it out. The bottom line is that the return to LA will be great for the Rams and great for the NFL.
After 20 years, the Rams are coming home. Whether the Chargers or Raiders (or neither) joins them is irrelevant. LA is an NFL city once again.
Ironically, all three teams that wanted to move to LA used to play there. The Chargers started off in LA before moving south to San Diego, while everyone knows about the Al Davis vs. the NFL thing in the early 80s when he wanted to move the Raiders to LA, only to move them back to Oakland 15 years later. But it's the Rams who have the history in LA. And, frankly, that's where they belong. It was always weird to have a team that has so much history in a place like LA representing St. Louis, which was a baseball town 20 years ago and is even more of a baseball town now.
They accomplished plenty during their time in St. Louis. They won a Super Bowl. They almost won another two years later. Marshall Faulk and Kurt Warner became Hall of Famers as members of the St. Louis Rams. And who'll ever forget watching the "Greatest Show On Turf," one of the most dynamic offenses we've ever seen?
But when you think of the Rams, you think Los Angeles. Eric Dickerson played in LA. So did Jack Youngblood. And Jackie Slater. And Merlin Olsen. And Deacon Jones. And the rest of the Fearsome Foursome. Jerome Bettis began his Hall of Fame career in LA. Pete Rozelle was their general manager way back when! They were the first NFL team to put a logo on their helmets, and those ram horns have become their trademark. They played in a Super Bowl and, at their height, were in the NFC Championship Game seemingly every year.
Sure, things got bad towards the end, which is how Georgia Frontiere was able to move the team without much of a fight, but the Rams played in LA for 50 years. They were the first Major League professional team in Southern California. When people think of the Rams, they think of Los Angeles. The Dodgers and Lakers are probably the only teams that are more associated with the city than the Rams. Stan Kroenke's wanted to bring them home for a few years. Now he's finally succeeded.
The Rams don't need to build a fan base. There are plenty of Rams fans in St. Louis who are justifiably upset with the team's relocation. But that's the same feeling Rams fans in LA had 20 years ago. Those same LA Rams fans are elated about the news. It was the Rams fans who showed up at the owners meetings wearing their jerseys and carrying their "Los Angeles" Rams signs. These are the same fans that showed up in droves to a practice in the LA area during training camp a few years ago. They wanted their team back. Badly. The owners took note.
It's obviously a dark day for football fans in St. Louis. This is the second time they've lost a team (the Cardinals packed up and moved to Phoenix in 1988). Whether or not they'll ever get another is incredibly doubtful, although you know St. Louis will be used as leverage for any team that's looking for a new stadium.
Fans in San Diego and Oakland are relieved (for now), but they still have to wonder about their teams' futures. The Chargers have the first option to join the Rams in Los Angeles, or they can stay in San Diego. The Raiders, who left LA a few months after the Rams 20 years ago, know that a Hollywood reunion is unlikely (owner Mark Davis called it a "loss" for the Raiders). But that doesn't mean they're staying in Oakland, either. (And there are plenty of LA football fans who would've preferred a Raiders return to a Rams return.)
Ultimately, this it what feels right, though. When the Rams first moved to LA (from Cleveland) in 1946, it was the start of a new era. They became the first Major League pro franchise based on the West Coast. Now, they usher in another one. The NFL is back in the second-largest media market in the country, and the Rams will play in a state-of-the-art stadium that will, inevitably, host a Super Bowl (and likely help the LA 2024 Olympic bid's chances). And if the Chargers or Raiders do exercise their option to move, it'll host two NFL teams.
That stadium won't be ready until the 2019 season, which means the Rams will need to find a temporary home for the next three years. You'd have to figure they'll likely play at the L.A. Coliseum until then, and they've agreed to play one London game each season until then, too. They'll work it out. The bottom line is that the return to LA will be great for the Rams and great for the NFL.
After 20 years, the Rams are coming home. Whether the Chargers or Raiders (or neither) joins them is irrelevant. LA is an NFL city once again.
Friday, January 8, 2016
2015-16 Football Playoffs, Week A
Just when I thought I had this whole playoff thing figured out, the teams had some other ideas. The Real Peyton Manning showed up and Denver clinched home field, as New England completely pissed away the end of the regular season, completely changing the entire AFC playoff picture in the process. Meanwhile, the Jets blew their golden opportunity and the Steelers, who had very little hope, ended up joining the party. And now that you've got Ben Roethlisberger and a team with all that playoff experience in the mix, I don't think anyone would be surprised to see a deep Steelers run.
Over in the NFC, the Cardinals were getting their butts kicked and saw the Panthers were winning, so they did the smart thing and sat their starters in the second half. We all thought the matchups were pretty much locked in (I thought it was an NFL rule that all Redskins playoff games are against Seattle), then the Vikings decided they'd rather win the division than go to Washington, giving the NFC the two best wild card teams in recent memory.
All four wild card teams are so good that they're all favored this weekend, and nobody would be surprised to see that happen. In fact, I think there are very few people who'd be surprised to see one, or two, of these teams getting all the way to San Francisco. But this is the playoffs. Nothing is guaranteed. Last year, the 7-8-1 Panthers won their wild card game, and the 7-9 Seahawks won a wild card game before them. So, while the road teams might be the "favorites" on paper, it wouldn't be that surprising to see them all lose, either.
One last thought before moving on to the picks...I'm not sure how I feel about this new playoff schedule. We've gotten so used to one game from each conference on both days. I'm not sure how they came up with this AFC doubleheader/NFC doubleheader thing, or if it's a one-year deal. I also have no idea why NBC agreed to have "Sunday Night Football" be at 1:00 in the afternoon. They usually get the Saturday night game during wild card weekend. I wonder if it has something to do with the CBS contract for Thursday nights that guarantees them a primetime playoff game. Anyway, I'm sure the Bengals aren't thrilled about it. We all know about them and night games.
AFC Wild Card
Chiefs (11-5) at Texans (9-7): Kansas City-Kansas City enters the playoffs as the hottest team in football. The Chiefs have won 10 straight since their five-game losing streak. What everyone forgets, though, is that before the five-game losing streak, they actually won their opener in Houston. Now the Chiefs and Texans meet again to open the playoffs. The Texans made everybody's lives easier by beating the Jaguars and clinching the AFC South outright, and Houston enters the postseason on a three-game winning streak.
This is the third time the Texans have been in the playoffs, and they won their wild card game each of the previous times. Kansas City's last playoff win was against Houston. The Houston OILERS! In 1993! So, yeah, it's been a while for the Chiefs. They're overdue for a playoff win. And this team is good. They haven't won 10 straight by accident. Sure, things will get a lot more difficult when they go to New England or Denver next week, but the Chiefs are the best team nobody knows about. They'll show everybody on the postseason stage.
Steelers (10-6) at Bengals (12-4): Cincinnati-What in the name of Bo Jackson does Cincinnati need to do to catch a break? After losing to Denver, the Bengals pretty much knew they were going to be the No. 3 seed. What they didn't know was that they'd have to face their division rival Steelers, the team that just beat them and knocked Andy Dalton out a month ago, for the third time this season. The last time they faced Pittsburgh in the playoffs was 10 years ago, when the sixth-seeded Steelers broke Carson Palmer's ACL in their first of three straight road wins en route to their fifth Lombardi Trophy.
Simply getting to the playoffs is no longer cutting it for the Bengals. They've made it this far five years in a row and six times in the last seven years. But they've lost the wild card game each time. Cincinnati knows it's time for results. Dalton's not ready to go yet, so A.J. McCarron will get the start, which is advantage Pittsburgh. You've also gotta think that Pittsburgh's experience will come into play, and that the playoff struggles will definitely be in the Bengals' heads. Cincinnati also needs to clear the mental hurdle of the primetime game. Despite all that, though, I think the Bengals are the home team most equipped to avoid an "upset" this weekend. Their familiarity with the Steelers will be an asset to them. I can see Cincinnati beating New England next week. I can also see them losing to Pittsburgh. I just have a feeling the Bengals will pull it out, though. The Steelers gave it everything they had to get in. They're either primed for a long run or an early exit. I think it'll be the latter.
NFC Wild Card
Seahawks (10-6) at Vikings (11-5): Seattle-En route to consecutive NFC titles, the Seahawks didn't have to go on the road once. Their last playoff road game was a divisional game they probably should've won in Atlanta three years ago. The Vikings, meanwhile, get one last game they never thought they'd get at TD Bank Stadium, and the first outdoor playoff game in Minnesota since 1982 will be one of the coldest in NFL history. Which means we're going to see even more Marshawn Lynch and Adrian Peterson than we originally expected.
Minnesota apparently put in some sort of request that all of its games be on NBC. The Vikings won the last two Sunday night games of the season to seize the division, and they'll be on NBC again next week in Arizona if they beat the Seahawks. As they said repeatedly on Sunday night, winning that game was a double-edged sword. The Vikings got the home game, but now they have to take on Seattle, probably the most dangerous of the four wild card teams. Minnesota's got some good mojo going, but they played the Seahawks on Dec. 6 and lost 38-7. Being on the road is something new for Seattle, but Minnesota's a good matchup for them. The Vikings will need to rely on Teddy Bridgewater and the Seahawks know that. Russell Wilson, meanwhile, has played like an MVP candidate over the past month. And let's not forget, they've been to the Super Bowl two years in a row. Next week when they have to go to Carolina, things might be different, but I think the Seahawks will get through Minnesota in the wild card game.
Packers (10-6) at Redskins (9-7): Green Bay: By losing their last two games and giving away the NFC North, the Packers went from the cozy confines of Lambeau to a trip to Washington. The Redskins are viewed by many to be the weakest team of the 11 in the playoffs, but I don't necessarily agree. Are they Super Bowl-bound? Probably not. But over the last six weeks, they've been as good as anybody. And they're very tough at home, where they went 6-2 this season.
Green Bay has been two completely different teams this season. The Packers looked like world beaters when they started 6-0, then they turned downright pedestrian during the 1-4 span that followed. Just when we thought they'd turned a corner, they get embarrassed in Arizona and surprise everyone by losing to Minnesota and dropping into a wild card position. Which Packers team will show up? It better be the first one. Otherwise, a year that looked like it could be Super will end with a very disappointing one-and-done playoff showing. Washington's probably just happy not to be playing Seattle. The Redskins' last three playoff games, all losses, were against the Seahawks. The last time they played somebody else, they beat Tampa Bay in a 2005 wild card game. (This is their first playoff game against a team other than the Seahawks or Bucs since 1999.)
So, there you have it. I'm taking three of the four wild card teams, but, for some reason, I do think Cincinnati will beat Pittsburgh. If I'm right, that sets up divisional playoff matchups of Bengals-Patriots and Chiefs-Broncos in the AFC, with Panthers-Seahawks and Cardinals-Packers in the NFC. As for my way-too-early Super Bowl pick, I'm saying Arizona over Denver. I think the Cardinals are the best team.
Last Week: 10-6
Regular Season: 156-100
Over in the NFC, the Cardinals were getting their butts kicked and saw the Panthers were winning, so they did the smart thing and sat their starters in the second half. We all thought the matchups were pretty much locked in (I thought it was an NFL rule that all Redskins playoff games are against Seattle), then the Vikings decided they'd rather win the division than go to Washington, giving the NFC the two best wild card teams in recent memory.
All four wild card teams are so good that they're all favored this weekend, and nobody would be surprised to see that happen. In fact, I think there are very few people who'd be surprised to see one, or two, of these teams getting all the way to San Francisco. But this is the playoffs. Nothing is guaranteed. Last year, the 7-8-1 Panthers won their wild card game, and the 7-9 Seahawks won a wild card game before them. So, while the road teams might be the "favorites" on paper, it wouldn't be that surprising to see them all lose, either.
One last thought before moving on to the picks...I'm not sure how I feel about this new playoff schedule. We've gotten so used to one game from each conference on both days. I'm not sure how they came up with this AFC doubleheader/NFC doubleheader thing, or if it's a one-year deal. I also have no idea why NBC agreed to have "Sunday Night Football" be at 1:00 in the afternoon. They usually get the Saturday night game during wild card weekend. I wonder if it has something to do with the CBS contract for Thursday nights that guarantees them a primetime playoff game. Anyway, I'm sure the Bengals aren't thrilled about it. We all know about them and night games.
AFC Wild Card
Chiefs (11-5) at Texans (9-7): Kansas City-Kansas City enters the playoffs as the hottest team in football. The Chiefs have won 10 straight since their five-game losing streak. What everyone forgets, though, is that before the five-game losing streak, they actually won their opener in Houston. Now the Chiefs and Texans meet again to open the playoffs. The Texans made everybody's lives easier by beating the Jaguars and clinching the AFC South outright, and Houston enters the postseason on a three-game winning streak.
This is the third time the Texans have been in the playoffs, and they won their wild card game each of the previous times. Kansas City's last playoff win was against Houston. The Houston OILERS! In 1993! So, yeah, it's been a while for the Chiefs. They're overdue for a playoff win. And this team is good. They haven't won 10 straight by accident. Sure, things will get a lot more difficult when they go to New England or Denver next week, but the Chiefs are the best team nobody knows about. They'll show everybody on the postseason stage.
Steelers (10-6) at Bengals (12-4): Cincinnati-What in the name of Bo Jackson does Cincinnati need to do to catch a break? After losing to Denver, the Bengals pretty much knew they were going to be the No. 3 seed. What they didn't know was that they'd have to face their division rival Steelers, the team that just beat them and knocked Andy Dalton out a month ago, for the third time this season. The last time they faced Pittsburgh in the playoffs was 10 years ago, when the sixth-seeded Steelers broke Carson Palmer's ACL in their first of three straight road wins en route to their fifth Lombardi Trophy.
Simply getting to the playoffs is no longer cutting it for the Bengals. They've made it this far five years in a row and six times in the last seven years. But they've lost the wild card game each time. Cincinnati knows it's time for results. Dalton's not ready to go yet, so A.J. McCarron will get the start, which is advantage Pittsburgh. You've also gotta think that Pittsburgh's experience will come into play, and that the playoff struggles will definitely be in the Bengals' heads. Cincinnati also needs to clear the mental hurdle of the primetime game. Despite all that, though, I think the Bengals are the home team most equipped to avoid an "upset" this weekend. Their familiarity with the Steelers will be an asset to them. I can see Cincinnati beating New England next week. I can also see them losing to Pittsburgh. I just have a feeling the Bengals will pull it out, though. The Steelers gave it everything they had to get in. They're either primed for a long run or an early exit. I think it'll be the latter.
NFC Wild Card
Seahawks (10-6) at Vikings (11-5): Seattle-En route to consecutive NFC titles, the Seahawks didn't have to go on the road once. Their last playoff road game was a divisional game they probably should've won in Atlanta three years ago. The Vikings, meanwhile, get one last game they never thought they'd get at TD Bank Stadium, and the first outdoor playoff game in Minnesota since 1982 will be one of the coldest in NFL history. Which means we're going to see even more Marshawn Lynch and Adrian Peterson than we originally expected.
Minnesota apparently put in some sort of request that all of its games be on NBC. The Vikings won the last two Sunday night games of the season to seize the division, and they'll be on NBC again next week in Arizona if they beat the Seahawks. As they said repeatedly on Sunday night, winning that game was a double-edged sword. The Vikings got the home game, but now they have to take on Seattle, probably the most dangerous of the four wild card teams. Minnesota's got some good mojo going, but they played the Seahawks on Dec. 6 and lost 38-7. Being on the road is something new for Seattle, but Minnesota's a good matchup for them. The Vikings will need to rely on Teddy Bridgewater and the Seahawks know that. Russell Wilson, meanwhile, has played like an MVP candidate over the past month. And let's not forget, they've been to the Super Bowl two years in a row. Next week when they have to go to Carolina, things might be different, but I think the Seahawks will get through Minnesota in the wild card game.
Packers (10-6) at Redskins (9-7): Green Bay: By losing their last two games and giving away the NFC North, the Packers went from the cozy confines of Lambeau to a trip to Washington. The Redskins are viewed by many to be the weakest team of the 11 in the playoffs, but I don't necessarily agree. Are they Super Bowl-bound? Probably not. But over the last six weeks, they've been as good as anybody. And they're very tough at home, where they went 6-2 this season.
Green Bay has been two completely different teams this season. The Packers looked like world beaters when they started 6-0, then they turned downright pedestrian during the 1-4 span that followed. Just when we thought they'd turned a corner, they get embarrassed in Arizona and surprise everyone by losing to Minnesota and dropping into a wild card position. Which Packers team will show up? It better be the first one. Otherwise, a year that looked like it could be Super will end with a very disappointing one-and-done playoff showing. Washington's probably just happy not to be playing Seattle. The Redskins' last three playoff games, all losses, were against the Seahawks. The last time they played somebody else, they beat Tampa Bay in a 2005 wild card game. (This is their first playoff game against a team other than the Seahawks or Bucs since 1999.)
So, there you have it. I'm taking three of the four wild card teams, but, for some reason, I do think Cincinnati will beat Pittsburgh. If I'm right, that sets up divisional playoff matchups of Bengals-Patriots and Chiefs-Broncos in the AFC, with Panthers-Seahawks and Cardinals-Packers in the NFC. As for my way-too-early Super Bowl pick, I'm saying Arizona over Denver. I think the Cardinals are the best team.
Last Week: 10-6
Regular Season: 156-100
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Junior and the Others
We've reached one of my favorite days of the year. It's Baseball Hall of Fame announcement day! I love reading all of the columns by actual voters in the days leading up to the announcement revealing their ballots and the people who, based on that, try to speculate who's going to get in. This year will be even more of a joy. Because one of the greatest players of his generation will be taking his beautiful swing and backwards hat to Cooperstown in July.
The Hall of Fame was created for players like Ken Griffey, Jr. And I'm not just saying that because he was my favorite player growing up. Griffey in his prime was the best player in the game, and it wasn't even close. There's a reason why he was the only active player named to the All-Century Team in 1999.
One last Griffey story before I reveal my entire 2016 "ballot." It was well known by many that Griffey was my favorite player. When I lived in Connecticut and worked for the West Haven Twilight League, the league president, Vin Dilauro, was a full-season Yankees season ticket holder. He occasionally offered me his tickets. One of the games he had available tickets for was against the White Sox during the Yankees' final homestand of the 2008 season. I knew I wanted to go to a game during the final homestand, since that would be the final time I set foot in the Old Yankee Stadium. And I knew I wanted to see the White Sox because that was during the three months Griffey was on the team, and I had never seen him play live before.
So, my final game at the Old Yankee Stadium was also the only time I ever saw my favorite all-time player live. Oh, and I went with my dad as his 60th birthday present.
With that, I present to you my 2016 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot. Four of my top six selections from last year were elected, and with only Griffey and Trevor Hoffman among first-ballot candidates that I'm marking as a definite "yes," that leaves me with two spots, one of which goes to a first-timer, while the other goes to a long-time finalist who keeps falling just a bit short. Now without further ado...
1. Ken Griffey, Jr., Outfielder (1989-99 Mariners, 2000-08 Reds, 2008 White Sox, 2009-10 Mariners): Duh. Next question please. The plaque is probably already done. There's never been a unanimous Hall of Famer, and I don't expect Junior to be the first. He'll come close to Tom Seaver's record 98.84 percent, though. And he should. Like Michael Jordan, you knew you were watching greatness every time Ken Griffey, Jr., took the field.
2. Barry Bonds, Outfielder (1986-92 Pirates, 1993-2007 Giants): He's not going to get in. I know that. But as long as Barry Bonds appears on the ballot, I'll put my hypothetical check mark next to his name. Ken Griffey, Jr., and Barry Bonds were the two best players in baseball during the 1990s. "Enhanced" or not, he's still an all-time great. And he's still the all-time home run leader.
3. Roger Clemens, Pitcher (1984-96 Red Sox, 1997-98 Blue Jays, 1999-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007 Yankees): Ditto about Roger Clemens. He was an intimidating bad ass on the pitcher's mound. A lot of starting pitchers have been elected recently (five in the last two years). Clemens is right up there with all of them. And, again, my opinion on the Steroid Era hasn't changed. If Baseball was letting them do it, why are they labeled as "cheaters" now?
4. Jeff Bagwell, First Baseman (1991-2005 Astros): Bagwell's partner in crime, Craig Biggio, was finally elected last year, and many believe that since some of the ballot congestion has finally cleared up, this might be Bagwell's time. There are those who feel Bagwell's numbers are suspicious, and have withheld their votes in the past because of those suspicions. But the perception of Bagwell has started to change, and his support may finally grow. Probably not enough for him to get in this year, but maybe enough for that to happen eventually.
5. Mike Piazza, Catcher (1992-98 Dodgers, 1998 Marlins, 1998-2005 Mets, 2006 Padres, 2007 Athletics): If Griffey's going to have company on the stage in Cooperstown, most experts think it'll be Mike Piazza that joins him. While I never liked Piazza while he was playing, frankly, his election is long overdue. He's the greatest hitting catcher in history. Better than Johnny Bench. Better than Gary Carter. With no sure-fire names in front of him other than Griffey, I think this is the year Piazza gets in.
6. Trevor Hoffman, Pitcher (1993 Marlins, 1993-2008 Padres, 2009-10 Brewers): I thought there would be more support from Hoffman than there appears to be. Apparently that closer stigma will haunt him at least until Mariano Rivera's without-a-doubt first-ballot election. I was hoping he wouldn't have to wait for Rivera, but it looks like he will. Even still, the second-best closer in history and his 601 career saves will safely remain on the ballot.
7. Mark McGwire, First Baseman (1986-97 Athletics, 1997-2001 Cardinals): My support for Bonds and Clemens is still stronger than it is for McGwire. But of the other 32 players on the ballot, there aren't 22 that I would rank above him. Thus, I "waste" another hypothetical vote on McGwire. Maybe its a sentimental one for that memorable 1998 season. At least we won't have to debate about McGwire's candidacy anymore. This is his 10th and final year on the ballot.
8. Curt Schilling, Pitcher (1988-90 Orioles, 1991 Astros, 1992-2000 Phillies, 2000-03 Diamondbacks, 2004-07 Red Sox): Schilling or Mike Mussina is always a tough question when you get this far down the ballot and only have a couple spots left. But I went with Schilling last year, and I don't believe in knocking guys off the ballot unless its for a first-year candidate. So I stick with Schilling and his 11-2 postseason record (including a 7-0 mark in elimination games).
9. Tim Raines, Outfielder (1979-90 Expos, 1991-95 White Sox, 1996-98 Yankees, 1999 Athletics, 2001 Expos, 2001 Orioles, 2002 Marlins): Every once in a while, there's that player whose supporters finally wear down the other voters. It happened for Bert Blyleven. It didn't for Jack Morris. It probably won't for Tim Raines, who only has two years left on the ballot. But chalk me up as a Raines convert. His numbers are definitely looked at somewhat unfairly, seeing as he was a contemporary of Rickey Henderson. My appreciation of him is probably not what it should be because I don't remember the Tim Raines that played for the Expos in the 80s. I only saw him later in his career when he was a completely different player. But the wholehearted support he's received from some loyal writers and some room on my ballot finally freed up, I'm happy to include the name "Tim Raines" in this column for the first time.
10. Jim Edmonds, Outfielder (1993-99 Angels, 2000-07 Cardinals, 2008 Padres, 2008 Cubs, 2010 Brewers, 2010 Reds): As much as I love Larry Walker and Edgar Martinez and Jeff Kent (I respect Marty Noble, but a vote for only Griffey and Kent, calling them the only "elite" players on the ballot, is simply ridiculous), my final vote is a strategic one for Jim Edmonds. Edmonds was not a Hall of Fame player. I know that. But he doesn't deserve to be one-and-done on the ballot, either. My hope is that enough actual voters feel the same way and Edmonds stays on the ballot more than just one year. He's not Ken Griffey, Jr. He isn't Randy Winn, either.
Last year, I correctly predicted that all four Hall of Famers (Craig Biggio, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez and John Smoltz) would be elected. This year, the only certainty is Ken Griffey, Jr. I think Mike Piazza will be elected, as well, with Jeff Bagwell falling just short of the necessary 75 percent.
The Hall of Fame was created for players like Ken Griffey, Jr. And I'm not just saying that because he was my favorite player growing up. Griffey in his prime was the best player in the game, and it wasn't even close. There's a reason why he was the only active player named to the All-Century Team in 1999.
One last Griffey story before I reveal my entire 2016 "ballot." It was well known by many that Griffey was my favorite player. When I lived in Connecticut and worked for the West Haven Twilight League, the league president, Vin Dilauro, was a full-season Yankees season ticket holder. He occasionally offered me his tickets. One of the games he had available tickets for was against the White Sox during the Yankees' final homestand of the 2008 season. I knew I wanted to go to a game during the final homestand, since that would be the final time I set foot in the Old Yankee Stadium. And I knew I wanted to see the White Sox because that was during the three months Griffey was on the team, and I had never seen him play live before.
So, my final game at the Old Yankee Stadium was also the only time I ever saw my favorite all-time player live. Oh, and I went with my dad as his 60th birthday present.
With that, I present to you my 2016 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot. Four of my top six selections from last year were elected, and with only Griffey and Trevor Hoffman among first-ballot candidates that I'm marking as a definite "yes," that leaves me with two spots, one of which goes to a first-timer, while the other goes to a long-time finalist who keeps falling just a bit short. Now without further ado...
1. Ken Griffey, Jr., Outfielder (1989-99 Mariners, 2000-08 Reds, 2008 White Sox, 2009-10 Mariners): Duh. Next question please. The plaque is probably already done. There's never been a unanimous Hall of Famer, and I don't expect Junior to be the first. He'll come close to Tom Seaver's record 98.84 percent, though. And he should. Like Michael Jordan, you knew you were watching greatness every time Ken Griffey, Jr., took the field.
2. Barry Bonds, Outfielder (1986-92 Pirates, 1993-2007 Giants): He's not going to get in. I know that. But as long as Barry Bonds appears on the ballot, I'll put my hypothetical check mark next to his name. Ken Griffey, Jr., and Barry Bonds were the two best players in baseball during the 1990s. "Enhanced" or not, he's still an all-time great. And he's still the all-time home run leader.
3. Roger Clemens, Pitcher (1984-96 Red Sox, 1997-98 Blue Jays, 1999-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007 Yankees): Ditto about Roger Clemens. He was an intimidating bad ass on the pitcher's mound. A lot of starting pitchers have been elected recently (five in the last two years). Clemens is right up there with all of them. And, again, my opinion on the Steroid Era hasn't changed. If Baseball was letting them do it, why are they labeled as "cheaters" now?
4. Jeff Bagwell, First Baseman (1991-2005 Astros): Bagwell's partner in crime, Craig Biggio, was finally elected last year, and many believe that since some of the ballot congestion has finally cleared up, this might be Bagwell's time. There are those who feel Bagwell's numbers are suspicious, and have withheld their votes in the past because of those suspicions. But the perception of Bagwell has started to change, and his support may finally grow. Probably not enough for him to get in this year, but maybe enough for that to happen eventually.
5. Mike Piazza, Catcher (1992-98 Dodgers, 1998 Marlins, 1998-2005 Mets, 2006 Padres, 2007 Athletics): If Griffey's going to have company on the stage in Cooperstown, most experts think it'll be Mike Piazza that joins him. While I never liked Piazza while he was playing, frankly, his election is long overdue. He's the greatest hitting catcher in history. Better than Johnny Bench. Better than Gary Carter. With no sure-fire names in front of him other than Griffey, I think this is the year Piazza gets in.
6. Trevor Hoffman, Pitcher (1993 Marlins, 1993-2008 Padres, 2009-10 Brewers): I thought there would be more support from Hoffman than there appears to be. Apparently that closer stigma will haunt him at least until Mariano Rivera's without-a-doubt first-ballot election. I was hoping he wouldn't have to wait for Rivera, but it looks like he will. Even still, the second-best closer in history and his 601 career saves will safely remain on the ballot.
7. Mark McGwire, First Baseman (1986-97 Athletics, 1997-2001 Cardinals): My support for Bonds and Clemens is still stronger than it is for McGwire. But of the other 32 players on the ballot, there aren't 22 that I would rank above him. Thus, I "waste" another hypothetical vote on McGwire. Maybe its a sentimental one for that memorable 1998 season. At least we won't have to debate about McGwire's candidacy anymore. This is his 10th and final year on the ballot.
8. Curt Schilling, Pitcher (1988-90 Orioles, 1991 Astros, 1992-2000 Phillies, 2000-03 Diamondbacks, 2004-07 Red Sox): Schilling or Mike Mussina is always a tough question when you get this far down the ballot and only have a couple spots left. But I went with Schilling last year, and I don't believe in knocking guys off the ballot unless its for a first-year candidate. So I stick with Schilling and his 11-2 postseason record (including a 7-0 mark in elimination games).
9. Tim Raines, Outfielder (1979-90 Expos, 1991-95 White Sox, 1996-98 Yankees, 1999 Athletics, 2001 Expos, 2001 Orioles, 2002 Marlins): Every once in a while, there's that player whose supporters finally wear down the other voters. It happened for Bert Blyleven. It didn't for Jack Morris. It probably won't for Tim Raines, who only has two years left on the ballot. But chalk me up as a Raines convert. His numbers are definitely looked at somewhat unfairly, seeing as he was a contemporary of Rickey Henderson. My appreciation of him is probably not what it should be because I don't remember the Tim Raines that played for the Expos in the 80s. I only saw him later in his career when he was a completely different player. But the wholehearted support he's received from some loyal writers and some room on my ballot finally freed up, I'm happy to include the name "Tim Raines" in this column for the first time.
10. Jim Edmonds, Outfielder (1993-99 Angels, 2000-07 Cardinals, 2008 Padres, 2008 Cubs, 2010 Brewers, 2010 Reds): As much as I love Larry Walker and Edgar Martinez and Jeff Kent (I respect Marty Noble, but a vote for only Griffey and Kent, calling them the only "elite" players on the ballot, is simply ridiculous), my final vote is a strategic one for Jim Edmonds. Edmonds was not a Hall of Fame player. I know that. But he doesn't deserve to be one-and-done on the ballot, either. My hope is that enough actual voters feel the same way and Edmonds stays on the ballot more than just one year. He's not Ken Griffey, Jr. He isn't Randy Winn, either.
Last year, I correctly predicted that all four Hall of Famers (Craig Biggio, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez and John Smoltz) would be elected. This year, the only certainty is Ken Griffey, Jr. I think Mike Piazza will be elected, as well, with Jeff Bagwell falling just short of the necessary 75 percent.
Monday, January 4, 2016
My 2016 NHL All-Stars
Voting for the NHL All-Star Game has always been a hokey thing. Maybe because the number of people that do it is so much smaller than it is in baseball or the NBA, or even for the Pro Bowl, but the fan voting in hockey always leads to some kooky results. Like last year, when the six "starters" voted into the game by the fans were five Blackhawks and Zemgus Girgensons of the Sabres. I guess there's no underestimating that Latvian vote.
PACIFIC
This year, the fans were only responsible for picking FOUR All-Stars. The captain of each of the four teams. Patrick Kane leads the NHL in both points and rape allegations, which clearly didn't his popularity at the ballot box. Kane's a Conn Smythe Trophy winner and one of the biggest stars on the NHL's marquee team. Nobody could possibly question that choice. Same thing about Alex Ovechkin. He's a transcendent star, one of the best players in the game, and his team happens to have the best record in the Eastern Conference. And it also means that he won't be able to campaign to NOT be picked so he can get a car this year.
Jaromir Jagr told the fans not to vote for him, but they didn't listen. But I think it's awesome that the 43-year-old future Hall of Famer is still playing at an All-Star level at this stage in his career. Besides, Jagr, amazingly, hasn't been an All-Star since 2004. How long ago was that? It was before the first lockout.
But John Scott? Really Coyotes fans?! I'm sure there's probably some people out there who think this is hilarious (clearly enough did, seeing as they made a social media campaign out of it), but it's his selection that makes fan voting look like a total joke. It's like when Mike Trout and eight Royals led the first AL voting update for the 2015 MLB All-Star Game. The guy who wrote the ESPN article announcing the captains tried to not be sarcastic when he compared Scott to the other three, but he couldn't help it. Scott has been waived three times this year and played in just 11 games. But he does have an assist!
Now that my rant is out of the way, it's time to think of who else will be in Nashville for the All-Star festivities. And, yes, it might look like I'm biased, but how is anybody going to stop the Metropolitan Division team? I mean, look at those forwards!
ATLANTIC
Goalies: Craig Anderson, Senators; Roberto Luongo, Panthers
Defensemen: P.K. Subban, Canadiens; Erik Karlsson, Senators; Dion Phaneuf, Maple Leafs
Forwards: Patrice Bergeron, Bruins; Ryan O'Reilly, Sabres; Henrik Zetterberg, Red Wings; *Jaromir Jagr, Panthers; Max Pacioretty, Canadiens; Steven Stamkos, Lightning
METROPOLITAN
Goalies: Cory Schneider, Devils; Braden Holtby, Capitals
Defensemen: Justin Faulk, Hurricanes; Ryan McDonagh, Rangers; John Carlson, Capitals
Forwards: Brandon Saad, Blue Jackets; Claue Giroux, Flyers; Evgeni Malkin, Penguins; John Tavares, Islanders; Mats Zuccarello, Rangers; *Alex Ovechkin, Capitals
CENTRAL
Goalies: Corey Crawford, Blackhawks; Antti Niemi, Stars
Defensemen: Ryan Suter, Wild; Roman Josi, Predators; Shea Weber, Predators
Forwards: *Patrick Kane, Blackhawks; Nathan MacKinnon, Avalanche; Jamie Benn, Stars; Tyler Seguin, Stars; Vladimir Tarasenko, Blues; Blake Wheeler, Jets
PACIFIC
Goalies: John Gibson, Ducks; Jonathan Quick, Kings
Defensemen: Oliver Ekman-Larsen, Coyotes; Drew Doughty, Kings; Brent Burns, Sharks
Forwards: *John Scott, Coyotes; Johnny Gaudreau, Flames; Taylor Hall, Oilers; Tyler Toffoli, Kings; Joe Pavelski, Sharks; Daniel Sedin, Canucks
Sunday, January 3, 2016
2015-16 Football Picks, Week 17
This hasn't been my best season with NFL picks. From anticipating upsets that didn't pan out to not expecting the ones that did, what I thought would happen in 2015 certainly did not. Even my AFC Super Bowl pick (the Colts) was way off. Fortunately, 2015 is over. Maybe 2016 will be different.
In Week 17, the final full week of the 2015 season and the first full week of action in 2016, there's still plenty to play for. Only Washington is locked into a playoff position with nothing to play for. The other five NFC spots are clinched, but that's all we know. As for the AFC, we know five of the six teams, but those seeds are a lot more fluid. We also still have one spot up for grabs. It'll go to either the Jets or Steelers, although my money's on the Jets to claim that final place in the postseason. (So, congratulations Steelers.)
Saints (6-9) at Falcons (8-7): Atlanta-Atlanta ended Carolina's chances at a perfect season last week, which is little consolation for the Falcons after that incredible start they had. But they're at least guaranteed no worse than a .500 record in Dan Quinn's first season. Which is more than I can say for the Saints. They've said that Sean Payton isn't going anywhere, but after two disappointing seasons in New Orleans, you'd have to think next year could be his last. I'll take Atlanta to get to 9-7, and wonder what might've been if they didn't have that long losing streak in the middle of the season.
Jets (10-5) at Bills (7-8): Jets-Everything worked out in the Jets' favor last week. They beat the Patriots and Pittsburgh, inexcusably, lost to Baltimore for the second time this season. As a result, the Jets control their fate heading into the finale, and a win locks up a wild card berth. Rex Ryan came out earlier in the week and apologized for his comments guaranteeing a playoff berth for a Bills team that's on 16 years and counting since "Forward Lateral" entered the vocabulary of all Buffalonians. The Bills won the first meeting, and you know Rex would like nothing more than knocking the Jets out of the playoffs. I don't see it happening, though. The Jets are playing too well.
Lions (6-9) at Bears (6-9): Detroit-While the playoff-bound Packers and Vikings play for the division title on Sunday night, the Lions and Bears fight for third/last in the afternoon. How about that turnaround for Detroit after Mrs. Ford's ultimatum when they were 1-7? Remember, Detroit was 0-5 until beating the Bears in overtime in Week 6. Now, if not for the Packers' "Miracle In Motown," they'd be playing for a 7-1 second half and .500 record. Still, after 1-7, a 6-2 finish to be 7-9 isn't bad, either.
Ravens (5-10) at Bengals (11-4): Cincinnati-Baltimore's not going to the playoffs, but they've sure influenced who will be there. If Pittsburgh misses out, the Ravens will be the team that kept them out. Anyway, Baltimore visits division champion Cincinnati to end the season, and the Bengals still have plenty to play for. It's not entirely in their hands (they need a Broncos loss regardless of what they do), but they'll do their part by beating the Ravens, then sit there and watch the late games to see if they get the other AFC bye.
Steelers (9-6) at Browns (3-12): Pittsburgh-Is this Mike Pettine's final game as head coach of the Browns? My guess is "Yes." Whether or not he's fired, he doesn't want to coach that team anymore. They probably need a loss and a Titans win to get the No. 1 pick, though, because the AFC North is stronger than the AFC South. Pittsburgh will need to keep an eye on the scoreboard on what's happening in Buffalo. If the Jets beat the Bills, it doesn't matter what the Steelers do.
Redskins (8-7) at Cowboys (4-11): Washington-Who would've thought, at any point this season, that the Redskins would be the only playoff team resting starters in Week 17? Certainly not anyone that saw them lose at home to the Cowboys on that Monday night a month ago. Turns out, that was the Redskins' only loss in their last five games. Dallas is favored to beat them again, mainly because Washington will be sitting most of its key players, but I'll still take the Redskins.
Titans (3-12) at Colts (7-8): Indianapolis-I'm still not really sure how, but it's still possible the Colts can win the AFC South (by clinching the strength of victory tiebreaker over the Texans). Anyway, it's likely Chuck Pagano's last game as Indy's head coach. The Titans will also have a new head coach next season, and they'll likely have the No. 1 pick, as well.
Patriots (12-3) at Dolphins (5-10): New England-We learned two very important lessons during the Patriots' overtime loss to the Jets: you can't defer in overtime, and you only get to pick one thing (kick/receive or side). Although, Matthew Slater's postgame interview was one of the best I've ever heard. He explained the whole situation very clearly. As a result of Belichick outthinking himself, the Patriots haven't clinched home field yet, and now they have to beat the Dolphins in Week 17 to lock it up. You think they'll even take the chance of waiting on the Denver result?
Eagles (6-9) at Giants (6-9): Giants-Chip Kelly is already out as Eagles coach, and this will likely be Tom Coughlin's final game with the Giants. His resignation/retirement seems inevitable. The only thing I'm left wondering is whether it was his decision, a Mara/Tisch "suggestion," or (most likely) a combination of the two. And, as bad as they've been for most of the season, I don't see the Giants letting themselves lose Coughlin's last game.
Jaguars (5-10) at Texans (8-7): Houston-Even though it seemed like a no-brainer they would, the Jaguars made it official that Head Coach Gus Bradley will be back next season. And he should. Jacksonville is leaps and bounds better than it was at the end of last season. As for the Texans, they've still got business to take care of. The get the win, don't have to worry about the Colts, and get ready for another home game next week against the Chiefs.
Chargers (4-11) at Broncos (11-4): Denver-Peyton's back. Well, sort of. He'll be in uniform as Brock Osweiler's backup for the season finale, which I have a feeling will be the last game ever for the "San Diego" Chargers. Denver's Monday night win over Cincinnati was huge. If they'd lost to the Bengals, they'd be staring at a wild card (at best). Now, they win and they get at least a bye, and maybe even home field. After last week, and with the Chiefs still capable of dropping down to a wild card, you know Denver's gonna come to play against an inferior opponent.
Raiders (7-8) at Chiefs (10-5): Kansas City-Now that the Panthers have lost, the two hottest teams in football are Arizona and Kansas City. The Chiefs will look to extend their winning streak to 10 games heading into the playoffs, and they can still technically win the AFC West, too. They'll be a very difficult out in the playoffs. Oakland, meanwhile, has had a very good first year under Jack Del Rio. They can spoil their rival's fun and wrap up their first non-losing season since 2011 before potentially moving back to LA next season.
Seahawks (9-6) at Cardinals (13-2): Arizona-The marquee game of Week 17 pits the NFC's two scariest teams against each other. Arizona hasn't lost since Week 6 and absolutely spanked the Packers last week. In my opinion, Carson Palmer is the MVP, and that offense is the best in the league by a wide margin. Seattle, meanwhile, was starting to look like the two-time defending NFC champions again before that loss to the Rams last week knocked them into a likely six-seed (unless they win and the Packers win), which means a trip to Green Bay or Minnesota instead of a likely win in Washington.
Rams (7-8) at 49ers (4-11): St. Louis-St. Louis is one of the most fascinating teams in football. They're 4-1 in the division (an NFC West that has two of the best teams in the league), which includes a sweep of the two-time defending NFC champs, but just 3-7 against the rest of the NFL. A win over the 49ers will make it 5-1 in the division and, more importantly, 8-8 overall. A nice way to wrap up their 20 years in St. Louis.
Buccaneers (6-9) at Panthers (14-1): Carolina-As the '72 Dolphins celebrated, the Panthers showed us just how difficult it is to go undefeated in this league. They lost to a Falcons team they crushed 38-0 just two weeks before. But getting the loss out of the way was probably a good thing. I'd rather be the '85 Bears' version of 18-1 than the '07 Patriots' version. Of course, losing last week means they haven't wrapped up home field yet, which also means their starters have to play in the season finale against Tampa Bay, which has set itself up to be a pretty serious contender next year or in 2017.
Vikings (10-5) at Packers (10-5): Green Bay-Playoff-bound Minnesota at playoff-bound Green Bay is the 256th and final game of the 2015-16 NFL regular season. To the winner goes the NFC North title and a home playoff game next week. The loser hits the road. The crazy thing is, if the Packers and Seahawks win, these two will do it again next week, again in Lambeau, in a wild card game. If we were judging them on last week's performances, Minnesota would win in a landslide. But fortunately for the Packers, we're not doing that. This is still Green Bay's division. Even though the loser could potentially have the better matchup (Washington instead of Seattle), you know the Packers want that home playoff game. And if it is Seattle, you know they want another shot at the Seahawks. Especially after last season's NFC Championship Game.
Last Week: 9-7
Season: 146-94
In Week 17, the final full week of the 2015 season and the first full week of action in 2016, there's still plenty to play for. Only Washington is locked into a playoff position with nothing to play for. The other five NFC spots are clinched, but that's all we know. As for the AFC, we know five of the six teams, but those seeds are a lot more fluid. We also still have one spot up for grabs. It'll go to either the Jets or Steelers, although my money's on the Jets to claim that final place in the postseason. (So, congratulations Steelers.)
Saints (6-9) at Falcons (8-7): Atlanta-Atlanta ended Carolina's chances at a perfect season last week, which is little consolation for the Falcons after that incredible start they had. But they're at least guaranteed no worse than a .500 record in Dan Quinn's first season. Which is more than I can say for the Saints. They've said that Sean Payton isn't going anywhere, but after two disappointing seasons in New Orleans, you'd have to think next year could be his last. I'll take Atlanta to get to 9-7, and wonder what might've been if they didn't have that long losing streak in the middle of the season.
Jets (10-5) at Bills (7-8): Jets-Everything worked out in the Jets' favor last week. They beat the Patriots and Pittsburgh, inexcusably, lost to Baltimore for the second time this season. As a result, the Jets control their fate heading into the finale, and a win locks up a wild card berth. Rex Ryan came out earlier in the week and apologized for his comments guaranteeing a playoff berth for a Bills team that's on 16 years and counting since "Forward Lateral" entered the vocabulary of all Buffalonians. The Bills won the first meeting, and you know Rex would like nothing more than knocking the Jets out of the playoffs. I don't see it happening, though. The Jets are playing too well.
Lions (6-9) at Bears (6-9): Detroit-While the playoff-bound Packers and Vikings play for the division title on Sunday night, the Lions and Bears fight for third/last in the afternoon. How about that turnaround for Detroit after Mrs. Ford's ultimatum when they were 1-7? Remember, Detroit was 0-5 until beating the Bears in overtime in Week 6. Now, if not for the Packers' "Miracle In Motown," they'd be playing for a 7-1 second half and .500 record. Still, after 1-7, a 6-2 finish to be 7-9 isn't bad, either.
Ravens (5-10) at Bengals (11-4): Cincinnati-Baltimore's not going to the playoffs, but they've sure influenced who will be there. If Pittsburgh misses out, the Ravens will be the team that kept them out. Anyway, Baltimore visits division champion Cincinnati to end the season, and the Bengals still have plenty to play for. It's not entirely in their hands (they need a Broncos loss regardless of what they do), but they'll do their part by beating the Ravens, then sit there and watch the late games to see if they get the other AFC bye.
Steelers (9-6) at Browns (3-12): Pittsburgh-Is this Mike Pettine's final game as head coach of the Browns? My guess is "Yes." Whether or not he's fired, he doesn't want to coach that team anymore. They probably need a loss and a Titans win to get the No. 1 pick, though, because the AFC North is stronger than the AFC South. Pittsburgh will need to keep an eye on the scoreboard on what's happening in Buffalo. If the Jets beat the Bills, it doesn't matter what the Steelers do.
Redskins (8-7) at Cowboys (4-11): Washington-Who would've thought, at any point this season, that the Redskins would be the only playoff team resting starters in Week 17? Certainly not anyone that saw them lose at home to the Cowboys on that Monday night a month ago. Turns out, that was the Redskins' only loss in their last five games. Dallas is favored to beat them again, mainly because Washington will be sitting most of its key players, but I'll still take the Redskins.
Titans (3-12) at Colts (7-8): Indianapolis-I'm still not really sure how, but it's still possible the Colts can win the AFC South (by clinching the strength of victory tiebreaker over the Texans). Anyway, it's likely Chuck Pagano's last game as Indy's head coach. The Titans will also have a new head coach next season, and they'll likely have the No. 1 pick, as well.
Patriots (12-3) at Dolphins (5-10): New England-We learned two very important lessons during the Patriots' overtime loss to the Jets: you can't defer in overtime, and you only get to pick one thing (kick/receive or side). Although, Matthew Slater's postgame interview was one of the best I've ever heard. He explained the whole situation very clearly. As a result of Belichick outthinking himself, the Patriots haven't clinched home field yet, and now they have to beat the Dolphins in Week 17 to lock it up. You think they'll even take the chance of waiting on the Denver result?
Eagles (6-9) at Giants (6-9): Giants-Chip Kelly is already out as Eagles coach, and this will likely be Tom Coughlin's final game with the Giants. His resignation/retirement seems inevitable. The only thing I'm left wondering is whether it was his decision, a Mara/Tisch "suggestion," or (most likely) a combination of the two. And, as bad as they've been for most of the season, I don't see the Giants letting themselves lose Coughlin's last game.
Jaguars (5-10) at Texans (8-7): Houston-Even though it seemed like a no-brainer they would, the Jaguars made it official that Head Coach Gus Bradley will be back next season. And he should. Jacksonville is leaps and bounds better than it was at the end of last season. As for the Texans, they've still got business to take care of. The get the win, don't have to worry about the Colts, and get ready for another home game next week against the Chiefs.
Chargers (4-11) at Broncos (11-4): Denver-Peyton's back. Well, sort of. He'll be in uniform as Brock Osweiler's backup for the season finale, which I have a feeling will be the last game ever for the "San Diego" Chargers. Denver's Monday night win over Cincinnati was huge. If they'd lost to the Bengals, they'd be staring at a wild card (at best). Now, they win and they get at least a bye, and maybe even home field. After last week, and with the Chiefs still capable of dropping down to a wild card, you know Denver's gonna come to play against an inferior opponent.
Raiders (7-8) at Chiefs (10-5): Kansas City-Now that the Panthers have lost, the two hottest teams in football are Arizona and Kansas City. The Chiefs will look to extend their winning streak to 10 games heading into the playoffs, and they can still technically win the AFC West, too. They'll be a very difficult out in the playoffs. Oakland, meanwhile, has had a very good first year under Jack Del Rio. They can spoil their rival's fun and wrap up their first non-losing season since 2011 before potentially moving back to LA next season.
Seahawks (9-6) at Cardinals (13-2): Arizona-The marquee game of Week 17 pits the NFC's two scariest teams against each other. Arizona hasn't lost since Week 6 and absolutely spanked the Packers last week. In my opinion, Carson Palmer is the MVP, and that offense is the best in the league by a wide margin. Seattle, meanwhile, was starting to look like the two-time defending NFC champions again before that loss to the Rams last week knocked them into a likely six-seed (unless they win and the Packers win), which means a trip to Green Bay or Minnesota instead of a likely win in Washington.
Rams (7-8) at 49ers (4-11): St. Louis-St. Louis is one of the most fascinating teams in football. They're 4-1 in the division (an NFC West that has two of the best teams in the league), which includes a sweep of the two-time defending NFC champs, but just 3-7 against the rest of the NFL. A win over the 49ers will make it 5-1 in the division and, more importantly, 8-8 overall. A nice way to wrap up their 20 years in St. Louis.
Buccaneers (6-9) at Panthers (14-1): Carolina-As the '72 Dolphins celebrated, the Panthers showed us just how difficult it is to go undefeated in this league. They lost to a Falcons team they crushed 38-0 just two weeks before. But getting the loss out of the way was probably a good thing. I'd rather be the '85 Bears' version of 18-1 than the '07 Patriots' version. Of course, losing last week means they haven't wrapped up home field yet, which also means their starters have to play in the season finale against Tampa Bay, which has set itself up to be a pretty serious contender next year or in 2017.
Vikings (10-5) at Packers (10-5): Green Bay-Playoff-bound Minnesota at playoff-bound Green Bay is the 256th and final game of the 2015-16 NFL regular season. To the winner goes the NFC North title and a home playoff game next week. The loser hits the road. The crazy thing is, if the Packers and Seahawks win, these two will do it again next week, again in Lambeau, in a wild card game. If we were judging them on last week's performances, Minnesota would win in a landslide. But fortunately for the Packers, we're not doing that. This is still Green Bay's division. Even though the loser could potentially have the better matchup (Washington instead of Seattle), you know the Packers want that home playoff game. And if it is Seattle, you know they want another shot at the Seahawks. Especially after last season's NFC Championship Game.
Last Week: 9-7
Season: 146-94
Friday, January 1, 2016
16 Other Events to Watch In 2016
At midnight, when the calendar flipped to 2016, we officially entered the Olympic year! We reached the one-year-to-go point back in August, but the level of excitement reaches a whole new level when the year on the calendar and the year in the Olympics are the same. But while the "Road to Rio" will finally come to an end this summer, that doesn't mean it's the only sporting event worth checking out in 2016. With that in mind, here are 16 events to watch in 2016, not counting Rio.
Super Bowl 50: I'm not sure if you've heard, but this season marks the 50th anniversary of the Super Bowl. And the NFL's gonna have some sort of party in store to celebrate. From what I've heard, all living Super Bowl MVPs will be on hand for a pregame ceremony (although, an appearance in the game by the Patriots or Broncos and/or Packers could change those plans, seeing as their quarterbacks could be a little busy). Anyway, it's already one of the hugest sporting events out there. Throw in the anniversary and San Francisco and it'll be a Super Bowl like no other.
Copa America Centenario: This is a special one-off event to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Copa America. Except this time, instead of just including the 10 South American nations, they're making it a Copa Americas, including six CONCACAF teams, as well. The entire tournament will be held in the United States from June 3-26, with the final set for Met Life Stadium.
World Baseball Classic Qualifying Tournaments: The World Baseball Classic doesn't return until 2017, but the qualifying tournaments to determine the final four squads in the 16-team field will take place in 2016. Australia hosts the first one in February, then there will be tournaments in Mexico and Panama in March. Finally, in late September, Brazil, Israel, Pakistan and Great Britain will go for the last spot at Keyspan Park in Brooklyn. The winner of each moves on to the main event in March 2017.
Euro 2016: Soccer's second-biggest international tournament returns with its 15th edition in France from June 10-July 10. And, with expansion to 24 teams, this will be the biggest Euro ever. Spain's the two-time defending champions, but World Cup champion Germany is ranked No. 1 in the world. The winner (or runner-up) joins Germany in the 2017 Confederations Cup in Russia.
NHL All-Star Game: After five years of that stupid pick-your-own-team format, the NHL has completely revamped its All-Star Game this season. And I can't wait! It'll be a three-on-three mini-tournament featuring one team from each of the four divisions. The winners get $1 million to split.
World Cup of Hockey: Twelve years after the last World Cup of Hockey, the event makes its return from September 17-October 1. But instead of taking place all around the world like the first two editions, this one will take place entirely in Toronto. National teams from Canada, the United States, Sweden, Finland, Russia and the Czech Republic will be joined by a European All-Star team and a North American Under-23 team. The tournament's return is part of the NHL's centennial celebration.
IAAF World Indoor Championships: For the first time since 1992, one of the IAAF's major championships will be held on American soil, as the World Indoors come to Portland. Russia won't be there as a punishment for its doping situation, which is a bit of a disappointment. Because this will be the largest track meet ever to take place in the United States and an important early-season warmup for the Olympics, as well as a chance to work out the organizational kinks before Oregon hosts the World Outdoor Championships in Eugene in 2021.
European Championships (Swimming, Track & Field): While the American athletes are busy battling each other at the Olympic Trials, the Europeans will get their pre-Olympic competition out of the way with their biennial continental championships. The swimmers return to London's Olympic pool for their meet from May 9-22, while the track & field athletes will give it a go in Amsterdam from July 6-10.
Winter Youth Olympics: They're still light years away from their senior-level counterparts, but the IOC is heavily invested in the Youth Olympics, so I don't think they're going anywhere. And they have proved to be a valuable place to try out new sports and events in an international setting, with an eye on adding them to the regular Olympics. They do opposite seasons in the Olympic years, so that means a Winter Youth Olympics. They'll take place in Lillehammer, Norway, site of the majestic 1994 Games, from February 12-21.
Baseball & Football Hall of Fame Inductions: Two all-time legends who were also among the most popular players in their sport in the late 90s/early 2000s have been retired five years, which means it's time for Cooperstown and Canton to come call. First up, Seattle will shut down for Ken Griffey, Jr.'s induction on July 24. Two weekends later in Canton, Brett Favre will be making an acceptance speech while wearing a gold jacket the night before (I'm almost certain) the Packers play in the Hall of Fame Game.
Indianapolis 500: Even though the Indianapolis Motor Speedway's Centennial Era ended five years ago, this year's edition is just as significant as the 100th anniversary race in 2011. Because they cancelled the race a few times during World War I and World War II, the 2016 Indy 500 will be the 100th. Just like a football game that's half a century younger, you can bet there'll be quite a celebration planned for Memorial Day weekend in Indianapolis.
US Open: It will be the start of a new era in Flushing Meadows for the 2016 US Open. For the first time, rain delays will no longer be an issue at Arthur Ashe Stadium. The retractable roof will be completed and operational in time for the opening match on August 29. That means there's no chance of the havoc rain has wreaked on the second week of the tournament in recent years happening again. Whether it's raining or not, the women's final will be on September 10 and the men's final on September 11.
NFL Opening Sunday: Speaking of September 11, the first Sunday of the NFL season just happens to be the 15th anniversary of that horrible day none of us will ever forget. The last time September 11 fell on a Sunday, they had the Giants play in Washington and the Jets play at home on Sunday night. They obviously won't make the schedule until April (and if the Redskins win the Super Bowl, they'll play on Thursday night), but you'd have to think we'll once again see games in Washington and New York on the 15th anniversary of the attacks.
Rio Paralympics: Most people will stop paying attention after the main event, but don't forget Rio is also hosting the Paralympics a few weeks later. As usual, the Paralympics will utilize many of the same venues that will be used during the Olympics. And Americans should have a decent opportunity to watch the action if they want. After being heavily criticized for their lack of coverage in London, NBC has vowed to show more of the Paralympics in Rio. The dates are September 7-18.
College Football Playoff National Championship: Ratings for the semifinals were down something like 24 percent from last year (I'm sure the New Year's Eve thing had a lot to do with that). We'll see how comparable they are for the final, which this year involves the top two teams in the final rankings. Alabama and Clemson play on January 11 in Phoenix.
Jazz at Lakers, April 13: Assuming the Lakers don't make the playoffs (which is probably a safe assumption), this will be the final game in Kobe Bryant's 20-year Hall of Fame career. He's indicated a desire to go to Rio, but who knows whether or not he'll be healthy (or good) enough to make the team is a different question. Personally, as much as I'd like to see him ride off into the sunset with a gold medal around his neck, his final game should be in a Lakers uniform.
Super Bowl 50: I'm not sure if you've heard, but this season marks the 50th anniversary of the Super Bowl. And the NFL's gonna have some sort of party in store to celebrate. From what I've heard, all living Super Bowl MVPs will be on hand for a pregame ceremony (although, an appearance in the game by the Patriots or Broncos and/or Packers could change those plans, seeing as their quarterbacks could be a little busy). Anyway, it's already one of the hugest sporting events out there. Throw in the anniversary and San Francisco and it'll be a Super Bowl like no other.
Copa America Centenario: This is a special one-off event to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Copa America. Except this time, instead of just including the 10 South American nations, they're making it a Copa Americas, including six CONCACAF teams, as well. The entire tournament will be held in the United States from June 3-26, with the final set for Met Life Stadium.
World Baseball Classic Qualifying Tournaments: The World Baseball Classic doesn't return until 2017, but the qualifying tournaments to determine the final four squads in the 16-team field will take place in 2016. Australia hosts the first one in February, then there will be tournaments in Mexico and Panama in March. Finally, in late September, Brazil, Israel, Pakistan and Great Britain will go for the last spot at Keyspan Park in Brooklyn. The winner of each moves on to the main event in March 2017.
Euro 2016: Soccer's second-biggest international tournament returns with its 15th edition in France from June 10-July 10. And, with expansion to 24 teams, this will be the biggest Euro ever. Spain's the two-time defending champions, but World Cup champion Germany is ranked No. 1 in the world. The winner (or runner-up) joins Germany in the 2017 Confederations Cup in Russia.
NHL All-Star Game: After five years of that stupid pick-your-own-team format, the NHL has completely revamped its All-Star Game this season. And I can't wait! It'll be a three-on-three mini-tournament featuring one team from each of the four divisions. The winners get $1 million to split.
World Cup of Hockey: Twelve years after the last World Cup of Hockey, the event makes its return from September 17-October 1. But instead of taking place all around the world like the first two editions, this one will take place entirely in Toronto. National teams from Canada, the United States, Sweden, Finland, Russia and the Czech Republic will be joined by a European All-Star team and a North American Under-23 team. The tournament's return is part of the NHL's centennial celebration.
IAAF World Indoor Championships: For the first time since 1992, one of the IAAF's major championships will be held on American soil, as the World Indoors come to Portland. Russia won't be there as a punishment for its doping situation, which is a bit of a disappointment. Because this will be the largest track meet ever to take place in the United States and an important early-season warmup for the Olympics, as well as a chance to work out the organizational kinks before Oregon hosts the World Outdoor Championships in Eugene in 2021.
European Championships (Swimming, Track & Field): While the American athletes are busy battling each other at the Olympic Trials, the Europeans will get their pre-Olympic competition out of the way with their biennial continental championships. The swimmers return to London's Olympic pool for their meet from May 9-22, while the track & field athletes will give it a go in Amsterdam from July 6-10.
Winter Youth Olympics: They're still light years away from their senior-level counterparts, but the IOC is heavily invested in the Youth Olympics, so I don't think they're going anywhere. And they have proved to be a valuable place to try out new sports and events in an international setting, with an eye on adding them to the regular Olympics. They do opposite seasons in the Olympic years, so that means a Winter Youth Olympics. They'll take place in Lillehammer, Norway, site of the majestic 1994 Games, from February 12-21.
Baseball & Football Hall of Fame Inductions: Two all-time legends who were also among the most popular players in their sport in the late 90s/early 2000s have been retired five years, which means it's time for Cooperstown and Canton to come call. First up, Seattle will shut down for Ken Griffey, Jr.'s induction on July 24. Two weekends later in Canton, Brett Favre will be making an acceptance speech while wearing a gold jacket the night before (I'm almost certain) the Packers play in the Hall of Fame Game.
Indianapolis 500: Even though the Indianapolis Motor Speedway's Centennial Era ended five years ago, this year's edition is just as significant as the 100th anniversary race in 2011. Because they cancelled the race a few times during World War I and World War II, the 2016 Indy 500 will be the 100th. Just like a football game that's half a century younger, you can bet there'll be quite a celebration planned for Memorial Day weekend in Indianapolis.
US Open: It will be the start of a new era in Flushing Meadows for the 2016 US Open. For the first time, rain delays will no longer be an issue at Arthur Ashe Stadium. The retractable roof will be completed and operational in time for the opening match on August 29. That means there's no chance of the havoc rain has wreaked on the second week of the tournament in recent years happening again. Whether it's raining or not, the women's final will be on September 10 and the men's final on September 11.
NFL Opening Sunday: Speaking of September 11, the first Sunday of the NFL season just happens to be the 15th anniversary of that horrible day none of us will ever forget. The last time September 11 fell on a Sunday, they had the Giants play in Washington and the Jets play at home on Sunday night. They obviously won't make the schedule until April (and if the Redskins win the Super Bowl, they'll play on Thursday night), but you'd have to think we'll once again see games in Washington and New York on the 15th anniversary of the attacks.
Rio Paralympics: Most people will stop paying attention after the main event, but don't forget Rio is also hosting the Paralympics a few weeks later. As usual, the Paralympics will utilize many of the same venues that will be used during the Olympics. And Americans should have a decent opportunity to watch the action if they want. After being heavily criticized for their lack of coverage in London, NBC has vowed to show more of the Paralympics in Rio. The dates are September 7-18.
College Football Playoff National Championship: Ratings for the semifinals were down something like 24 percent from last year (I'm sure the New Year's Eve thing had a lot to do with that). We'll see how comparable they are for the final, which this year involves the top two teams in the final rankings. Alabama and Clemson play on January 11 in Phoenix.
Jazz at Lakers, April 13: Assuming the Lakers don't make the playoffs (which is probably a safe assumption), this will be the final game in Kobe Bryant's 20-year Hall of Fame career. He's indicated a desire to go to Rio, but who knows whether or not he'll be healthy (or good) enough to make the team is a different question. Personally, as much as I'd like to see him ride off into the sunset with a gold medal around his neck, his final game should be in a Lakers uniform.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)