Something that I missed the other day in the midst of everything else going on was the NHL and NHLPA coming to an agreement on the format for an expansion draft. Keep in mind, the NHL hasn't formally announced any expansion. But if they're devising rules regarding how an expansion draft would go, you'd have to think it's pretty likely. We're probably looking at when rather than if the NHL expands.
Las Vegas and Quebec City have been the two cities linked to possible NHL expansion ever since the topic was broached. And the NHL has done nothing to dispel those rumors. In fact, if anything, the league has added fuel to the fire with the expansion talk.
It's been three years since the NHL completed the Winnipeg realignment and went from six divisions to four. More significantly, the 30 teams were divided into two divisions of eight and two of seven, with both of the seven-team divisions in the Western Conference. The theory goes that the Western Conference was left two teams short intentionally so that it would be easier to simply insert two expansion teams without having to do any additional realignment.
Now, they don't need me to tell them it's not that simple. Las Vegas does nicely fit into the Pacific Division with the California teams and Arizona (as well as the three in Western Canada). But Quebec City would be a 17th team in the Eastern time zone. The 16/14 thing doesn't work, so why would 17/15? And you're not going to put a new team in Quebec City and not have them share a division with Montreal, so somebody from the Atlantic would have to move.
Detroit, of course, would be the logical choice, but you know they'd put up a stink about it. The whole reason the conferences are uneven in the first place is because the Red Wings kept complaining about being in the Western Conference. Well Red Wings, you're the furthest west of all the teams in the Eastern time zone, and your biggest rival is the Chicago Blackhawks, who play in the Central Division (in the Western Conference). Or, worst case, you ship Columbus back to the West.
I say if you want Quebec City, you tell the Red Wings to suck it up and go back to the Central, where they'll play Chicago all the time. But if the NHL doesn't want to do that, I'd suggest finding a city other than Quebec, which I agree would be the best choice of potential markets. They'd need a city in the west to go with Las Vegas. May I suggest either Seattle or Kansas City, then?
Regardless of where the teams are, it sure seems like the NHL will have 32 of them sooner rather than later. Especially with how specific the expansion draft rules are. No team would lose more than two players, and no more than one to each new team. Teams would be able to protect seven forwards, three defenseman and a goalie or eight skaters regardless of position. (If I was an existing NHL team, I'd definitely take the protect 11 option.) They've even put in provisions for players that have no-movement or no-trade clauses.
The NHL has said that there are still "hundreds" of details to go over before expansion becomes a reality. But they also stressed that coming to an agreement with the union about how a draft would be handled was an important first step. They couldn't make a recommendation about expansion before they had one. Now that they do, you can expect those discussions to pick up and that recommendation to come.
While the NHL insists that "no final decision has been made," they've told the owners to be ready to vote on expansion for 2017-18 at the NHL Draft in June. But the writing is certainly on the wall, now more-so than ever. NHL expansion isn't just some passing idea. We're going to see two new hockey teams. If not in 2017-18, in 2018-19.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Stanley Cup Second Round Starts
So...the NHL threw a bit of a wrench into things by having Game 1 of Islanders-Lightning before Game 7 of Ducks-Predators. We're used to seeing this in the NBA, but the NHL never overlaps rounds. In fact, this is the first time they did it since 1983.
This year's playoffs have already broken form from recent seasons. The Kings won't win the Cup. Neither will the Blackhawks. They've alternated championships over the past four years, with Chicago winning in the odds and LA the evens. But neither one even reached the second round this season. We also saw the Giants-Patriots Super Bowl cycle snapped, so, sorry San Francisco Giants fans, it looks like your team won't be getting its even-year World Series win.
We also won't have our traditional Rangers-Capitals playoff series. After playing 17 straight postseason games against the Rangers over the last three years, the Penguins finally beat them in a playoff series and have moved on to the marquee second-round matchup against the Capitals. Those were the two best teams in the NHL at the end of the season, and they were the two best teams in the first round. I think the winner of that series will win the Cup.
Pittsburgh-Washington also exposes the flaws of the current playoff system. The Penguins had the second-most points in the Eastern Conference during the regular season, yet they played the Rangers, the fourth-best team in the East, in the first round, guaranteeing that one of them had to be eliminated. Now they'll play the Capitals, who had the best record in the NHL. So, there's no chance that the two best teams can play in the conference finals. Instead, they'll play in the conference semis, while the winner of the No. 5 New York Islanders vs. No. 6 Tampa Bay will get the other spot.
My solution to this problem is incredibly simple. You go back to the old way. The playoff system that they used prior to the realignment and the wild cards. The division winners get the top two seeds, but the other six teams are seeded based on their point totals, not their finish in the division. (That would've made the matchups: Washington-Detroit, Florida-Philadelphia, Pittsburgh-Tampa Bay, Rangers-Islanders, Dallas-Minnesota, Anaheim-Nashville, St. Louis-San Jose and Chicago-Los Angeles.) That way, Pittsburgh wouldn't have been effectively penalized for finishing second in the strong Met Division (which had five playoff teams) behind the best team in the league. (When the NBA did this I was somewhat critical, but it actually does make a lot of sense.)
Capitals-Penguins: Since I've been talking about Pittsburgh-Washington, it makes sense to start there. Other than Washington's little hiccup after they went up 3-0, these two had relatively easy, dominant wins over the Flyers and Rangers. Things will probably be a little more competitive in round two. These have been the two best teams in the league for about two months now, and they're incredibly evenly-matched. Except there is the one thing that gives Washington the slight edge, and it's the same thing I always point to as an X-factor: goaltending. The Capitals have the likely Vezina Trophy winner Braden Holtby, who tied Martin Brodeur's NHL record for wins this season. Pittsburgh went through two different backup goalies during the Rangers series. Against a beaten-up, overmatched Rangers team, they were able to get away with that. Against Alex Ovechkin and Nicklas Backstrom and all their friends, they won't. Washington has been on a mission ever since blowing that 3-1 lead against the Rangers last season. They won't let that happen again. That home-ice advantage is going to end up paying huge dividends. Because I see this going seven. Capitals in seven.
Lightning-Islanders: It's a good time to be my brother-in-law. He likes both of those orange & blue Long Island teams. The Mets made the World Series, and now the Islanders have won a playoff series for the first time in 23 years. And, I do need to say it, John Tavares is an absolute freakin stud! The back-to-back double overtime games didn't seem to slow the Islanders down at all in Game 1, and the win in Game 6 especially had to leave them feeling good heading into this series. I think Tampa Bay is better than Florida, and the Lightning are the defending Eastern Conference champions. But the Islanders probably don't care. They positioned themselves well and could easily pull off the Florida sweep en route to the Eastern Conference Finals. (As I said prior to the first round, both the Rangers and Islanders preferred the Panther matchup to the Penguin matchup. And most of my friends who are Islanders fans agree that the results would've been the same if the New York teams had swapped opponents. The Rangers would've beaten the Panthers, and the Penguins still would've dominated against the Islanders.) With the way the bracket's set up, I don't blame them for trying to flip divisions for the postseason. It worked against the Panthers, and it could easily work against the Lightning. The way the Islanders are playing, I'm not going to go against them. Islanders in six.
Stars-Blues: Congratulations to the St. Louis Blues. They finally got that massive monkey off their back and finally won a playoff series. In seven. Against the Blackhawks. Especially after letting Chicago back in the series after going up 3-1, I thought the Blues would give us one of their trademarked first-round collapses. But they pulled out the Game 7 win, which was a major hurdle for them to overcome. Now they get a ridiculously good Dallas Stars team. I didn't see them much during the regular season so I didn't realize it, but the Stars are ubertalented. They were just as impressive as anybody in holding off the Wild. This is the hardest series to call. I can really see it going either way. Neither team has really been in this position before, which further complicates matters. Getting off to a good start is going to be key. If St. Louis grabs one of those first two games in Dallas, I really like the Blues. If the Stars hold serve at home, that puts the pressure on St. Louis in Game 3. I said to a friend of mine earlier today, "Watch the West Finals be St. Louis-San Jose. That way one of them will have to find a way NOT to piss away a playoff series...then probably end up like the Canucks and lose in Game 7 of the Cup Final." Anyway, in order to be in that position, St. Louis needs to beat Dallas first. I see lots of one-goal games and lots of overtimes, but I also see the Blues prevailing. They were separated by only two points for a reason. (For all the complaining I did about Capitals-Penguins in the second round, it's the same thing out West, where these two had the two best records.) Blues in six.
Sharks-Predators: Just like the Islanders are spending some quality time with the State of Florida this postseason, the Predators must have a similar affinity for California. Nashville-Anaheim was a very strange series. The Predators won the first two on the road, then lost the next three, only to win Games 6 and 7 (on the road). Three of Nashville's four wins in the series came in Anaheim, so those late start times clearly didn't have much of an effect. And they'll stay out there before Game 1, which means the travel should have no bearing on the first two games. As for the Sharks, they're in such a similar position as the Blues. San Jose's playoff history consists mainly of lost opportunities and disappointment. So, yes, it was big for them to finally beat the Kings. Will this finally be the year the Sharks put it all together in the playoffs? It's really starting to look like that. Except the Predators will have something to say about that. As they said before Game 7 against Anaheim, people HAVE to watch them now. Well, what they saw was another team that's on the verge of something big. If there's a team that can spoil the Sharks' party, it's the Predators. The Sharks will need to be on their game to knock off a hungry Nashville team that has already won the first Game 7 in franchise history. But maybe being viewed as the underdog will be a good thing for them. No expectations=less disappointment. The Predators' second Game 7 could come two weeks after their first. Except I don't see them winning both. The Sharks in the conference finals? Say it ain't so! Sharks in seven.
This year's playoffs have already broken form from recent seasons. The Kings won't win the Cup. Neither will the Blackhawks. They've alternated championships over the past four years, with Chicago winning in the odds and LA the evens. But neither one even reached the second round this season. We also saw the Giants-Patriots Super Bowl cycle snapped, so, sorry San Francisco Giants fans, it looks like your team won't be getting its even-year World Series win.
We also won't have our traditional Rangers-Capitals playoff series. After playing 17 straight postseason games against the Rangers over the last three years, the Penguins finally beat them in a playoff series and have moved on to the marquee second-round matchup against the Capitals. Those were the two best teams in the NHL at the end of the season, and they were the two best teams in the first round. I think the winner of that series will win the Cup.
Pittsburgh-Washington also exposes the flaws of the current playoff system. The Penguins had the second-most points in the Eastern Conference during the regular season, yet they played the Rangers, the fourth-best team in the East, in the first round, guaranteeing that one of them had to be eliminated. Now they'll play the Capitals, who had the best record in the NHL. So, there's no chance that the two best teams can play in the conference finals. Instead, they'll play in the conference semis, while the winner of the No. 5 New York Islanders vs. No. 6 Tampa Bay will get the other spot.
My solution to this problem is incredibly simple. You go back to the old way. The playoff system that they used prior to the realignment and the wild cards. The division winners get the top two seeds, but the other six teams are seeded based on their point totals, not their finish in the division. (That would've made the matchups: Washington-Detroit, Florida-Philadelphia, Pittsburgh-Tampa Bay, Rangers-Islanders, Dallas-Minnesota, Anaheim-Nashville, St. Louis-San Jose and Chicago-Los Angeles.) That way, Pittsburgh wouldn't have been effectively penalized for finishing second in the strong Met Division (which had five playoff teams) behind the best team in the league. (When the NBA did this I was somewhat critical, but it actually does make a lot of sense.)
Capitals-Penguins: Since I've been talking about Pittsburgh-Washington, it makes sense to start there. Other than Washington's little hiccup after they went up 3-0, these two had relatively easy, dominant wins over the Flyers and Rangers. Things will probably be a little more competitive in round two. These have been the two best teams in the league for about two months now, and they're incredibly evenly-matched. Except there is the one thing that gives Washington the slight edge, and it's the same thing I always point to as an X-factor: goaltending. The Capitals have the likely Vezina Trophy winner Braden Holtby, who tied Martin Brodeur's NHL record for wins this season. Pittsburgh went through two different backup goalies during the Rangers series. Against a beaten-up, overmatched Rangers team, they were able to get away with that. Against Alex Ovechkin and Nicklas Backstrom and all their friends, they won't. Washington has been on a mission ever since blowing that 3-1 lead against the Rangers last season. They won't let that happen again. That home-ice advantage is going to end up paying huge dividends. Because I see this going seven. Capitals in seven.
Lightning-Islanders: It's a good time to be my brother-in-law. He likes both of those orange & blue Long Island teams. The Mets made the World Series, and now the Islanders have won a playoff series for the first time in 23 years. And, I do need to say it, John Tavares is an absolute freakin stud! The back-to-back double overtime games didn't seem to slow the Islanders down at all in Game 1, and the win in Game 6 especially had to leave them feeling good heading into this series. I think Tampa Bay is better than Florida, and the Lightning are the defending Eastern Conference champions. But the Islanders probably don't care. They positioned themselves well and could easily pull off the Florida sweep en route to the Eastern Conference Finals. (As I said prior to the first round, both the Rangers and Islanders preferred the Panther matchup to the Penguin matchup. And most of my friends who are Islanders fans agree that the results would've been the same if the New York teams had swapped opponents. The Rangers would've beaten the Panthers, and the Penguins still would've dominated against the Islanders.) With the way the bracket's set up, I don't blame them for trying to flip divisions for the postseason. It worked against the Panthers, and it could easily work against the Lightning. The way the Islanders are playing, I'm not going to go against them. Islanders in six.
Stars-Blues: Congratulations to the St. Louis Blues. They finally got that massive monkey off their back and finally won a playoff series. In seven. Against the Blackhawks. Especially after letting Chicago back in the series after going up 3-1, I thought the Blues would give us one of their trademarked first-round collapses. But they pulled out the Game 7 win, which was a major hurdle for them to overcome. Now they get a ridiculously good Dallas Stars team. I didn't see them much during the regular season so I didn't realize it, but the Stars are ubertalented. They were just as impressive as anybody in holding off the Wild. This is the hardest series to call. I can really see it going either way. Neither team has really been in this position before, which further complicates matters. Getting off to a good start is going to be key. If St. Louis grabs one of those first two games in Dallas, I really like the Blues. If the Stars hold serve at home, that puts the pressure on St. Louis in Game 3. I said to a friend of mine earlier today, "Watch the West Finals be St. Louis-San Jose. That way one of them will have to find a way NOT to piss away a playoff series...then probably end up like the Canucks and lose in Game 7 of the Cup Final." Anyway, in order to be in that position, St. Louis needs to beat Dallas first. I see lots of one-goal games and lots of overtimes, but I also see the Blues prevailing. They were separated by only two points for a reason. (For all the complaining I did about Capitals-Penguins in the second round, it's the same thing out West, where these two had the two best records.) Blues in six.
Sharks-Predators: Just like the Islanders are spending some quality time with the State of Florida this postseason, the Predators must have a similar affinity for California. Nashville-Anaheim was a very strange series. The Predators won the first two on the road, then lost the next three, only to win Games 6 and 7 (on the road). Three of Nashville's four wins in the series came in Anaheim, so those late start times clearly didn't have much of an effect. And they'll stay out there before Game 1, which means the travel should have no bearing on the first two games. As for the Sharks, they're in such a similar position as the Blues. San Jose's playoff history consists mainly of lost opportunities and disappointment. So, yes, it was big for them to finally beat the Kings. Will this finally be the year the Sharks put it all together in the playoffs? It's really starting to look like that. Except the Predators will have something to say about that. As they said before Game 7 against Anaheim, people HAVE to watch them now. Well, what they saw was another team that's on the verge of something big. If there's a team that can spoil the Sharks' party, it's the Predators. The Sharks will need to be on their game to knock off a hungry Nashville team that has already won the first Game 7 in franchise history. But maybe being viewed as the underdog will be a good thing for them. No expectations=less disappointment. The Predators' second Game 7 could come two weeks after their first. Except I don't see them winning both. The Sharks in the conference finals? Say it ain't so! Sharks in seven.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
100 Days Til Rio
Oh man, the Olympics are getting close! The torch has been lit and is on its way to Brazil. Nike has unveiled lots of national team uniforms. Athletes and teams have started qualifying. NBC has announced its Opening Ceremony coverage team. But there's still a lot that will happen between now and the cauldron being lit in the Maracana on August 5. And there still a lot of questions.
In honor of the 100-day countdown, here are some of those questions, as well as some of the things I'm most looking forward to in Rio (I won't go all the way to 100, instead I'll do a quarter of that):
1. Will the Russian track & field team be there? This goes beyond whether or not people think the Russians deserve to be there. Their presence (or lack thereof) affects the medal chances for a lot of countries.
2. Who will light the cauldron? The clubhouse favorite is Pele, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Oscar Schmidt or Joaquim Cruz get the honor.
3. Will all the venues be ready? For all the doomsday scenarios we've heard about construction delays, I'm willing to bet everything's ready in time and the Games go on without a hitch.
4. What about Zika? Obviously, Zika is a big concern, and it's probably going to keep a lot of people away. Their concerns are valid, but I think everything's going to be fine. August is the Brazilian winter, remember.
5. How will the golf tournament go? Golf's return should be a glorious event. Instead, all we're hearing about is PGA players who are dropping out because of scheduling concerns. Hopefully, enough of the top pros decide to play and make it a great event.
6. Will Usain Bolt get a third triple? If he does, he'll take Carl Lewis' place as the greatest track & field Olympian in history.
7. Can Kerri Walsh win her third straight gold? She needs to qualify first. Even if she does, I think it'll be difficult. Women's beach volleyball is one of the golds Brazil wants the most.
8. Will Brazil get that elusive men's soccer gold medal? They're pulling out all the stops to win gold on home soil in the national sport. Neymar will play in the Olympics instead of Copa America. You can tell which event is Brazil's priority.
9. How many medals will Michael Phelps add to his collection? When he "retired" after London, the count was at 22. I bet it easily gets to 25.
10. Who will be the swimming star of these Games? Katie Ledecky seems like a good candidate, but Michael Phelps is Michael Phelps.
11. What about the refugee Olympians? Nice gesture by the IOC to identify potential Olympians from war-torn countries and give them the opportunity to compete in Rio. Will any of them be good enough to end up on the medals stand?
12. What countries will make their Olympic debuts in Rio? Along with the Refugee team, Kosovo and South Sudan have finally gained full IOC recognition, bringing the number of nations marching into the stadium at the Opening Ceremony to a record 207 countries (pending what happens with Kuwait).
13. Will NBC set a ratings record? Almost certainly. They set a record in London, which is five hours ahead of New York. Rio's only one hour ahead of the East Coast, making this the most-live television event in history.
14. How many medals will Brazil win? London was their best-ever showing, 17 medals. With the home field advantage, they look poised to top that.
15. Is rugby sevens here to stay? I'd have to think so. Rugby sevens is awesome, and fans are going to love it. It's only guaranteed for Rio and Tokyo, but this seems like a permanent addition.
16. Will they catch the doping cheats early enough? Doping is at the forefront in the lead-up to these Olympics. From the Russian track & field team to Meldonium to whatever else they come up with between now and then, let's hope they catch the cheaters before having to rewrite the record books and reallocate medals years later.
17. How many medals will the U.S. team win? The U.S. has topped the medal table at four of the last five Olympics and only hasn't hit the 100-mark twice since 1984 (Seoul and Sydney). Should the U.S. reach 101, that'll bring the all-time medal total to 2,500. Also, who will win the 1,000th American gold (which will be the 24th won in Rio)?
18. Can the American gymnasts continue their dominance? They've won the last two Olympic golds and three straight World Championships. There really isn't another country in the same league at the moment, so it would be a shock if they don't win that third consecutive Olympic title.
19. Will anyone come close to challenging the American basketball teams? I doubt it. The women haven't lost since the 1992 semifinals, and the men have rolled to the last two gold medals after that disappointing bronze in Athens. If I had to say one was more of a lock than the other, I'd say it's the women.
20. How about the American women's soccer team? Winning the Olympic gold medal is kind of their thing. This will be the sixth Olympic women's soccer tournament, and they've won four of the previous five, including the last three. Interestingly, though, their only Olympic loss came in 2000, which is the only other time they entered the tournament as World Cup champions.
21. Will Allyson Felix pull off the double? They changed the schedule so that she can attempt to win gold in both the 200 and 400. She'd be the first person in 20 years to pull off the feat (Michael Johnson and Marie-Jose Perec actually both did it in Atlanta).
22. Will Fabiana Murer win the women's pole vault? She's probably Brazil's best chance for gold in track & field. A Murer win would have the same impact as Cathy Freeman's 400-meter gold in Sydney or Great Britain's three-gold night in London.
23. What will be the best venue? In London, the best venue was Horse Guards Parade for beach volleyball. in Rio, there are three candidates: rowing underneath the iconic Christ the Redeemer statue, beach volleyball on the world-famous Copacabana Beach, and soccer at the historic Maracana.
24. Is this actually the last Olympics for two all-time greats? Michael Phelps has already un-retired once. Now he's back for a fourth Olympic run. Usain Bolt has indicated this will be his final Olympics, too. But can they be believed? Will either (or both) show up in Tokyo?
25. Who will be the U.S. flag bearer at the Opening Ceremony? It's still way too early to make that call, especially with a team of 500-plus athletes headed to Rio.
So many more questions that will come up and be answered in the next three months. August 5 can't come close enough. The Rio Olympics are only 100 days away!
In honor of the 100-day countdown, here are some of those questions, as well as some of the things I'm most looking forward to in Rio (I won't go all the way to 100, instead I'll do a quarter of that):
1. Will the Russian track & field team be there? This goes beyond whether or not people think the Russians deserve to be there. Their presence (or lack thereof) affects the medal chances for a lot of countries.
2. Who will light the cauldron? The clubhouse favorite is Pele, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Oscar Schmidt or Joaquim Cruz get the honor.
3. Will all the venues be ready? For all the doomsday scenarios we've heard about construction delays, I'm willing to bet everything's ready in time and the Games go on without a hitch.
4. What about Zika? Obviously, Zika is a big concern, and it's probably going to keep a lot of people away. Their concerns are valid, but I think everything's going to be fine. August is the Brazilian winter, remember.
5. How will the golf tournament go? Golf's return should be a glorious event. Instead, all we're hearing about is PGA players who are dropping out because of scheduling concerns. Hopefully, enough of the top pros decide to play and make it a great event.
6. Will Usain Bolt get a third triple? If he does, he'll take Carl Lewis' place as the greatest track & field Olympian in history.
7. Can Kerri Walsh win her third straight gold? She needs to qualify first. Even if she does, I think it'll be difficult. Women's beach volleyball is one of the golds Brazil wants the most.
8. Will Brazil get that elusive men's soccer gold medal? They're pulling out all the stops to win gold on home soil in the national sport. Neymar will play in the Olympics instead of Copa America. You can tell which event is Brazil's priority.
9. How many medals will Michael Phelps add to his collection? When he "retired" after London, the count was at 22. I bet it easily gets to 25.
10. Who will be the swimming star of these Games? Katie Ledecky seems like a good candidate, but Michael Phelps is Michael Phelps.
11. What about the refugee Olympians? Nice gesture by the IOC to identify potential Olympians from war-torn countries and give them the opportunity to compete in Rio. Will any of them be good enough to end up on the medals stand?
12. What countries will make their Olympic debuts in Rio? Along with the Refugee team, Kosovo and South Sudan have finally gained full IOC recognition, bringing the number of nations marching into the stadium at the Opening Ceremony to a record 207 countries (pending what happens with Kuwait).
13. Will NBC set a ratings record? Almost certainly. They set a record in London, which is five hours ahead of New York. Rio's only one hour ahead of the East Coast, making this the most-live television event in history.
14. How many medals will Brazil win? London was their best-ever showing, 17 medals. With the home field advantage, they look poised to top that.
15. Is rugby sevens here to stay? I'd have to think so. Rugby sevens is awesome, and fans are going to love it. It's only guaranteed for Rio and Tokyo, but this seems like a permanent addition.
16. Will they catch the doping cheats early enough? Doping is at the forefront in the lead-up to these Olympics. From the Russian track & field team to Meldonium to whatever else they come up with between now and then, let's hope they catch the cheaters before having to rewrite the record books and reallocate medals years later.
17. How many medals will the U.S. team win? The U.S. has topped the medal table at four of the last five Olympics and only hasn't hit the 100-mark twice since 1984 (Seoul and Sydney). Should the U.S. reach 101, that'll bring the all-time medal total to 2,500. Also, who will win the 1,000th American gold (which will be the 24th won in Rio)?
18. Can the American gymnasts continue their dominance? They've won the last two Olympic golds and three straight World Championships. There really isn't another country in the same league at the moment, so it would be a shock if they don't win that third consecutive Olympic title.
19. Will anyone come close to challenging the American basketball teams? I doubt it. The women haven't lost since the 1992 semifinals, and the men have rolled to the last two gold medals after that disappointing bronze in Athens. If I had to say one was more of a lock than the other, I'd say it's the women.
20. How about the American women's soccer team? Winning the Olympic gold medal is kind of their thing. This will be the sixth Olympic women's soccer tournament, and they've won four of the previous five, including the last three. Interestingly, though, their only Olympic loss came in 2000, which is the only other time they entered the tournament as World Cup champions.
21. Will Allyson Felix pull off the double? They changed the schedule so that she can attempt to win gold in both the 200 and 400. She'd be the first person in 20 years to pull off the feat (Michael Johnson and Marie-Jose Perec actually both did it in Atlanta).
22. Will Fabiana Murer win the women's pole vault? She's probably Brazil's best chance for gold in track & field. A Murer win would have the same impact as Cathy Freeman's 400-meter gold in Sydney or Great Britain's three-gold night in London.
23. What will be the best venue? In London, the best venue was Horse Guards Parade for beach volleyball. in Rio, there are three candidates: rowing underneath the iconic Christ the Redeemer statue, beach volleyball on the world-famous Copacabana Beach, and soccer at the historic Maracana.
24. Is this actually the last Olympics for two all-time greats? Michael Phelps has already un-retired once. Now he's back for a fourth Olympic run. Usain Bolt has indicated this will be his final Olympics, too. But can they be believed? Will either (or both) show up in Tokyo?
25. Who will be the U.S. flag bearer at the Opening Ceremony? It's still way too early to make that call, especially with a team of 500-plus athletes headed to Rio.
So many more questions that will come up and be answered in the next three months. August 5 can't come close enough. The Rio Olympics are only 100 days away!
Monday, April 25, 2016
Brady Re-Suspended
Deflategate just refuses to die. The stupidest, most drawn-out, biggest waste-of-time "scandal" in NFL history was ratcheted back up this afternoon when the appeals court overturned a previous ruling and reissued Tom Brady's four-game suspension. And Brady, of course, doesn't want to accept the ruling and is "reviewing his legal options," which pretty much ensures we won't move on past Deflategate anytime soon.
Brady, who is growing ever more desperate in his attempts to preserve his previously squeaky clean image, can really only do one of two things. He can go back to the same appellate court that just reinstated his suspension and request a hearing in front of the full panel. Or, the even more absurd and, thus, probably more likely option, he can bring the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court (which I think is still down a judge because, in another high-profile pissing match, Congress refuses to do its job and confirm Justice Alito's replacement). Just imagine this being on the docket for the highest court in the land and how ridiculous that'd be!
There are two other options, neither of which seems likely. The NFLPA, acting on Brady's behalf, and the NFL could come to some sort of settlement. But, after this has gone on this far and both sides have dug in their heels so deeply, that ain't happening. Especially since they both think they're right. Even less likely, Brady could just admit defeat and let the rest of us move on with our lives. Seeing as this is Tom Brady and the Patriots we're talking about, though, that seems even less likely. And, knowing Brady, he'll probably seek a temporary injunction that will allow him to play during his appeal.
Mr. Squeaky Clean continues to try and play the persecuted victim who's being unfairly targeted by The Man. Of course, there isn't a single person who doesn't speak with a Boston accent that thinks Brady is innocent, but that doesn't even seem to be relevant anymore.
I'm not even sure people remember what this is even about anymore, either. This stopped being about deflated footballs a long time ago. Everyone is in agreement that the amount of air in the balls had no impact on the outcome of the game. The Patriots crushed the Colts that day. That wouldn't have changed if the balls were straight out of the box or if they were filled with helium.
What this has turned into is essentially a one-on-one battle between Tom Brady and Roger Baddell. Did Baddell go overboard in issuing a four-game suspension? Probably. Most people agree on this point. He should've been suspended, but the consensus is an area around two games, which would've been appropriate. But Brady definitely deserved some sort of punishment, if not for deliberately being involved in the deflating, then at the very least for hindering the investigation and destroying evidence.
Keep the NFL's state of mind last summer in mind, too. Baddell had just badly screwed up the Ray Rice situation and they were getting crushed in the media about player safety and the concussion lawsuit. Baddell was in a bad place. Now he had to deal with this Brady nonsense. And this was the second time the Patriots thought the rules didn't apply to them. He'd gone light on them after Spygate. Now, here they were doing it again. Did that come into his mindset? Most likely.
But look past all that. None of that is at the heart of the matter anymore. Both appeals, Brady's original one and the NFL's counter, were about the process. And, like it or not, the established process is pretty clear. It's in the CBA. That's why today's decision was a predictable one.
The appeals court wasn't in a position to rule on whether or not they agreed with Baddell's findings or the duration of Brady's suspension. All they were trying to determine was if Baddell acted within his rights or if he overstepped his bounds, as Judge Richard Berman previously did. In their eyes, he didn't. Why? Because Baddell acted within the authority that the NFLPA gave him in the CBA. And it's long been legal precedent that the courts don't reconsider rulings made by an arbitrator or second-guess a collective bargaining process.
Basically, the three judges told the NFLPA that if they don't like the process, they should do something about it the next time they negotiate the CBA. And what they told Tom Brady is that nobody's buying his act. This is getting more and more embarrassing for him, and he'll almost certainly have to sit out the first four games of the 2016 season.
Had Brady just accepted his suspension when it was first issued, this whole ordeal would've been over a long time ago. Hopefully now it finally is. Although, seeing as it's already gone on this long, I highly doubt that. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Brady serve his suspension at the start of the 2017 season. Because it sure looks like that's the way this is going.
This is just the latest chapter in Deflategate, the NFL's never-ending story. Stay tuned. There's bound to be more.
Brady, who is growing ever more desperate in his attempts to preserve his previously squeaky clean image, can really only do one of two things. He can go back to the same appellate court that just reinstated his suspension and request a hearing in front of the full panel. Or, the even more absurd and, thus, probably more likely option, he can bring the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court (which I think is still down a judge because, in another high-profile pissing match, Congress refuses to do its job and confirm Justice Alito's replacement). Just imagine this being on the docket for the highest court in the land and how ridiculous that'd be!
There are two other options, neither of which seems likely. The NFLPA, acting on Brady's behalf, and the NFL could come to some sort of settlement. But, after this has gone on this far and both sides have dug in their heels so deeply, that ain't happening. Especially since they both think they're right. Even less likely, Brady could just admit defeat and let the rest of us move on with our lives. Seeing as this is Tom Brady and the Patriots we're talking about, though, that seems even less likely. And, knowing Brady, he'll probably seek a temporary injunction that will allow him to play during his appeal.
Mr. Squeaky Clean continues to try and play the persecuted victim who's being unfairly targeted by The Man. Of course, there isn't a single person who doesn't speak with a Boston accent that thinks Brady is innocent, but that doesn't even seem to be relevant anymore.
I'm not even sure people remember what this is even about anymore, either. This stopped being about deflated footballs a long time ago. Everyone is in agreement that the amount of air in the balls had no impact on the outcome of the game. The Patriots crushed the Colts that day. That wouldn't have changed if the balls were straight out of the box or if they were filled with helium.
What this has turned into is essentially a one-on-one battle between Tom Brady and Roger Baddell. Did Baddell go overboard in issuing a four-game suspension? Probably. Most people agree on this point. He should've been suspended, but the consensus is an area around two games, which would've been appropriate. But Brady definitely deserved some sort of punishment, if not for deliberately being involved in the deflating, then at the very least for hindering the investigation and destroying evidence.
Keep the NFL's state of mind last summer in mind, too. Baddell had just badly screwed up the Ray Rice situation and they were getting crushed in the media about player safety and the concussion lawsuit. Baddell was in a bad place. Now he had to deal with this Brady nonsense. And this was the second time the Patriots thought the rules didn't apply to them. He'd gone light on them after Spygate. Now, here they were doing it again. Did that come into his mindset? Most likely.
But look past all that. None of that is at the heart of the matter anymore. Both appeals, Brady's original one and the NFL's counter, were about the process. And, like it or not, the established process is pretty clear. It's in the CBA. That's why today's decision was a predictable one.
The appeals court wasn't in a position to rule on whether or not they agreed with Baddell's findings or the duration of Brady's suspension. All they were trying to determine was if Baddell acted within his rights or if he overstepped his bounds, as Judge Richard Berman previously did. In their eyes, he didn't. Why? Because Baddell acted within the authority that the NFLPA gave him in the CBA. And it's long been legal precedent that the courts don't reconsider rulings made by an arbitrator or second-guess a collective bargaining process.
Basically, the three judges told the NFLPA that if they don't like the process, they should do something about it the next time they negotiate the CBA. And what they told Tom Brady is that nobody's buying his act. This is getting more and more embarrassing for him, and he'll almost certainly have to sit out the first four games of the 2016 season.
Had Brady just accepted his suspension when it was first issued, this whole ordeal would've been over a long time ago. Hopefully now it finally is. Although, seeing as it's already gone on this long, I highly doubt that. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Brady serve his suspension at the start of the 2017 season. Because it sure looks like that's the way this is going.
This is just the latest chapter in Deflategate, the NFL's never-ending story. Stay tuned. There's bound to be more.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Olympic Golf Needs Golfers
On the day the Rio Olympic flame was lit in Olympia, Louis Oosthuizen became the second major champion in as many days to announce he won't participate in the first Olympic golf tournament in 112 years. Adam Scott, who's long been opposed to the whole idea of Olympic golf, will apparently be "too busy" to represent his country, while Vijay Singh, who was presumably going to be Fiji's flag bearer, won't participate in the Olympics, either. I'm sure there will be others. Which is incredibly sad. Because these guys simply don't get it.
One of the reasons golf was voted back into the Olympics seven years ago is because of its worldwide appeal. Every week on the PGA Tour, you see the flags of different nations all over the leaderboard. Golf is played everywhere, and not just in the traditional Olympic powers (the current Olympic qualifying list includes players from Malaysia, Thailand, Paraguay, Singapore and India--to name just a few).
That's what made it really a no-brainer to be added. Well, that, and the star power. Pro golfers are some of the most marketable athletes on the planet. Many of them are household names in their home countries, and usually beyond. Sure, you'll have your Usain Bolts and Michael Phelpses, and your NBA stars on the U.S. basketball team, but, for the most part, the most well-known athletes in Rio are going to be the golfers and tennis players.
I'm sure we're going to see a lot of tennis players opt out of the Olympics, too. Unlike four years ago, when the Olympic tournament was at Wimbledon and everybody wanted to play, there's really nothing appealing about playing in Rio two weeks before the start of the US Open. John Isner, the top American man, has already announced that he won't be playing in the Olympics, citing the travel as one of his reasons (although Rio is only one hour ahead of the East Coast and doesn't require flying across an ocean, so the travel actually wouldn't be that bad).
However, we also know that some of the biggest names in tennis WILL play in Rio. Neither Novak Djokovic nor Roger Federer has ever won the Olympic singles gold medal. They both want the one thing they're missing (Federer was even talking about playing mixed doubles with Martina Hingis). And Russian officials are still optimistic Maria Sharapova will be able to play, despite the fact that she's currently suspended for failing a drug test (she's probably not one of the ones who'll get a free pass from WADA for using meldonium, since she admitted taking it after it was banned).
The tennis players know that they don't have to play in the Olympics. They don't get any prize money and they get minimal rankings points. It would be easy to skip and get ready for the US Open. But they don't. Whatever the reason, be it national pride or the prestige or the ability to call yourself an Olympic gold medalist, the tennis players show up anyway. And the IOC is incredibly grateful for that. Because they draw in the eyeballs. Without the big-name pros, no one would watch or care about the Olympic tennis tournament.
Just like the IOC needs the ATP and WTA stars to make the tennis tournaments worthwhile, the same holds true for the stars of the PGA and LPGA. There's one big difference, though. Tennis has established its place on the Olympic program. It's not going anywhere. You can't say the same about golf. While I think it's likely the additions of golf and rugby will be made permanent, they aren't yet. So far, it's just for 2016 and 2020 that they know they're on the Olympic program.
For the sport to ensure its long-term Olympic success, the best golfers in the world need to be there. I don't understand why guys like Adam Scott aren't jumping at the opportunity to be the first Olympic golf champion since 1904. In their eyes, the Olympics will never be as important as winning a Major. It's just another tournament in a year that already features the Ryder Cup. While that may be true (it's also true in tennis, by the way), that doesn't change the fact that golf in the Olympics is a big deal that should be embraced.
How important is the Olympic tournament? It's so important that the PGA Championship, one of the Majors!, was moved up a month (to just two weeks after the British Open) so that the dates wouldn't conflict with the Olympics. So, yes, the PGA thinks the Olympics are significant. They want and need the top players there and did what they had to do to make sure it can happen.
Fortunately, it looks like there are enough golfers who do understand the opportunity before them this year. Rory McIlroy was torn about whether he should represent Ireland or Great Britain, and the competition to make the U.S, team (where only the top four will qualify) is intense. I've read some quotes that qualifying for the Olympics is the No. 1 goal of some players for 2016. So, it looks like the Adam Scotts of the golf world are in the minority here.
Being in the Olympics is a wonderful thing for golf. Just like having golfers in the Olympics is a wonderful thing for the IOC. But it's only going to work if the players embrace it. And right now, it doesn't seem like everybody's completely on board. Which is a shame. Because you'll be remembered a lot more for winning an Olympic gold medal in Rio than winning the John Deere Classic in Silvis, Ill., which is that weekend's PGA Tour event.
One of the reasons golf was voted back into the Olympics seven years ago is because of its worldwide appeal. Every week on the PGA Tour, you see the flags of different nations all over the leaderboard. Golf is played everywhere, and not just in the traditional Olympic powers (the current Olympic qualifying list includes players from Malaysia, Thailand, Paraguay, Singapore and India--to name just a few).
That's what made it really a no-brainer to be added. Well, that, and the star power. Pro golfers are some of the most marketable athletes on the planet. Many of them are household names in their home countries, and usually beyond. Sure, you'll have your Usain Bolts and Michael Phelpses, and your NBA stars on the U.S. basketball team, but, for the most part, the most well-known athletes in Rio are going to be the golfers and tennis players.
I'm sure we're going to see a lot of tennis players opt out of the Olympics, too. Unlike four years ago, when the Olympic tournament was at Wimbledon and everybody wanted to play, there's really nothing appealing about playing in Rio two weeks before the start of the US Open. John Isner, the top American man, has already announced that he won't be playing in the Olympics, citing the travel as one of his reasons (although Rio is only one hour ahead of the East Coast and doesn't require flying across an ocean, so the travel actually wouldn't be that bad).
However, we also know that some of the biggest names in tennis WILL play in Rio. Neither Novak Djokovic nor Roger Federer has ever won the Olympic singles gold medal. They both want the one thing they're missing (Federer was even talking about playing mixed doubles with Martina Hingis). And Russian officials are still optimistic Maria Sharapova will be able to play, despite the fact that she's currently suspended for failing a drug test (she's probably not one of the ones who'll get a free pass from WADA for using meldonium, since she admitted taking it after it was banned).
The tennis players know that they don't have to play in the Olympics. They don't get any prize money and they get minimal rankings points. It would be easy to skip and get ready for the US Open. But they don't. Whatever the reason, be it national pride or the prestige or the ability to call yourself an Olympic gold medalist, the tennis players show up anyway. And the IOC is incredibly grateful for that. Because they draw in the eyeballs. Without the big-name pros, no one would watch or care about the Olympic tennis tournament.
Just like the IOC needs the ATP and WTA stars to make the tennis tournaments worthwhile, the same holds true for the stars of the PGA and LPGA. There's one big difference, though. Tennis has established its place on the Olympic program. It's not going anywhere. You can't say the same about golf. While I think it's likely the additions of golf and rugby will be made permanent, they aren't yet. So far, it's just for 2016 and 2020 that they know they're on the Olympic program.
For the sport to ensure its long-term Olympic success, the best golfers in the world need to be there. I don't understand why guys like Adam Scott aren't jumping at the opportunity to be the first Olympic golf champion since 1904. In their eyes, the Olympics will never be as important as winning a Major. It's just another tournament in a year that already features the Ryder Cup. While that may be true (it's also true in tennis, by the way), that doesn't change the fact that golf in the Olympics is a big deal that should be embraced.
How important is the Olympic tournament? It's so important that the PGA Championship, one of the Majors!, was moved up a month (to just two weeks after the British Open) so that the dates wouldn't conflict with the Olympics. So, yes, the PGA thinks the Olympics are significant. They want and need the top players there and did what they had to do to make sure it can happen.
Fortunately, it looks like there are enough golfers who do understand the opportunity before them this year. Rory McIlroy was torn about whether he should represent Ireland or Great Britain, and the competition to make the U.S, team (where only the top four will qualify) is intense. I've read some quotes that qualifying for the Olympics is the No. 1 goal of some players for 2016. So, it looks like the Adam Scotts of the golf world are in the minority here.
Being in the Olympics is a wonderful thing for golf. Just like having golfers in the Olympics is a wonderful thing for the IOC. But it's only going to work if the players embrace it. And right now, it doesn't seem like everybody's completely on board. Which is a shame. Because you'll be remembered a lot more for winning an Olympic gold medal in Rio than winning the John Deere Classic in Silvis, Ill., which is that weekend's PGA Tour event.
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Live With Kelly and...
Michael Strahan sure dropped a bomb today when he announced he's leaving Live With Kelly and Michael for a full-time gig at Good Morning America. They sure hit the jackpot four years ago when they tabbed Strahan to replace Regis Philbin, and now they have to go through the process all over again.
I'm sure they'll have plenty of candidates (and they probably already have some people in mind), but they could do worse than tapping into the sports well again. With that in mind, here are some suggestions for Kelly's new co-host...
...Jeff: Jeff Gordon has co-hosted with her before and done a great job. And he's proven to be a natural in the broadcast booth during his brief tenure as a race analyst for FOX.
...Derek: Eventually Derek Jeter's going to do something (besides marry Hannah Davis). He wants to be an owner, but you know he'd be good at this job if he wanted it.
...Peyton: Peyton needs a job. While I think he'll make a tremendous coach someday, you know he'll likely end up in broadcasting at some point. And he did have one of the funniest athlete-hosted episodes of Saturday Night Live.
...Grant: Grant Hill went to Duke, so you know he's a smart guy. They worked it out so that Michael do both the show and FOX's NFL pregame. I hope CBS/Turner would do the same so that he can keep working with Jim and Raft at the Final Four.
...Apolo: If you've seen any of Apolo Ohno's feature work for NBC during the Olympics, you can tell he was as born to do this as he was to be a speed skater. NBC's got a keeper on their hands, and he's done some entertainment coverage, too, so there wouldn't be that much of a transition.
...Andy: Not her buddy Andy Cohen. Andy Roddick. He's on the panel for that Fox Sports 1 show nobody watches and has shown some quick wit and humor.
...Kobe: How cool does Live With Kelly and Kobe sound? Like Peyton Manning, he just retired and needs a job. Like Peyton Manning, he'd probably be good at this one. At the very least, he'd be better than the last recently-retired Laker who tried to have his own talk show. (The Magic Johnson Show sure was horrible, wasn't it?)
...Tara & Johnny: Tara & Johnny don't need Kelly. They could handle a talk show all on their own, and it would be highly entertaining. In fact, I'm surprised they don't have one already.
...Ronda: You have the feeling that Ronda Rousey is going to go into TV once her MMA career is over. She's already guest hosted SportsCenter and killed it, so why would a morning talk show be any different? This, of course, will never happen, since they'll almost certainly replace Michael with another man.
...Erin: They'll never have two pretty, blonde women co-hosting the show at the same time, so you know Erin Andrews won't actually get the job. But she wouldn't be a bad one to consider if Kelly ever decided to leave. She's co-hosted with Michael several times and always does a great job. Just like she does on Dancing With the Stars or the NFL or whatever else she's covering.
I'm sure they'll have plenty of candidates (and they probably already have some people in mind), but they could do worse than tapping into the sports well again. With that in mind, here are some suggestions for Kelly's new co-host...
Monday, April 18, 2016
An Era Is Over, and Rio Will Be Weird
The Romanian women's gymnastics team will not win gold in Rio. They won't win silver or bronze either. In fact, they won't even be there. They didn't qualify. Take a second to let that sink in. Romania, the nation synonymous with Olympic women's gymnastics, didn't qualify for the Olympics! That's like the USA not qualifying in basketball or Canada not qualifying in hockey!
Romania has earned a team medal in women's gymnastics at every Olympics since 1976, when Nadia Comaneci burst onto the scene in Montreal. That streak will not reach 40 years. Instead, they'll be sitting on the sidelines when the gymnastics competition gets underway in Rio, which doesn't seem right for so many reasons.
So how did this happen? Well, it all started at last year's World Championships in Glasgow. Romania finished fourth at Worlds in 2014, but fell all the way to 13th in 2015 (with a team that included Larisa Iordache, the silver medalist in the all-around in 2014). The top eight teams qualified for the Olympics. With that first opportunity out the window, Romania went to the last-chance qualifier this past weekend in Rio needing to finish in the top four to gain one of the four remaining spots. They finished seventh.
Even though Romania's women's team has slipped in recent years, this is still a shocking development. The Romanian women were the ones you could always count on seeing if you're a gymnastics fan (and even if you aren't). They defied the Soviet boycott in 1984 and won their first gold. They won the team title, then swept the individual medals in Sydney (Andreea Raducan's gold was later taken away due to a controversial failed drug test). Four years later in Athens, they captured the team gold medal again.
Since then, the fall has been precipitous. In Rio, Romania will enter one female gymnast, the same number as those gymnastics hotbeds of Argentina, Guatemala, Iceland, India and Jamaica (to name just a few). There will be more Romanian men (2) competing in Rio than women. And it's just as bad that the men's team, which isn't quite as accomplished as the women but still has a pretty nice Olympic legacy, didn't qualify. It's the first time since 1968 that Romania won't participate in either Olympic gymnastic team event. (Marian Dragulescu, a four-time Olympic medalist, will at least be a medal threat in the men's all-around.)
One of the reasons for Romania's continued success is the system that they've put in place. Gymnastics, it could be argued, is Romania's national sport. Representing the national team in the Olympics should be every little Romanian girl's dream. Where did the system break down? Is there simply a lack of talent in this generation of athletes or is it something more? Are the coaches leaving Romania because they can make more money in Russia or the United States or somewhere else? If that's the case, the Romanian federation needs to step up immediately.
This has to be a national embarrassment for not just the gymnastics team, but the entire Romanian Olympic Committee. I'm sure they were expecting a handful of gymnastics medals. Romania won nine medals in London. Three of them came in gymnastics. In Beijing, it was two out of eight. Going back to Athens, when Romanian gymnastics was still at the top of its game, gymnastics accounted for 10 of the country's 19 total medals, including four of the eight golds.
It probably helps the United States more than anybody else that Romania won't be in Rio. The Americans have won the last two Olympic gold medals and the last three World Championships, so they were going to be big favorites anyway, but a Romanian team, no matter how down, would've had to be considered a major threat. Now with Romania not in the field, the United States becomes an even bigger favorite.
I'm sure this is just a temporary setback. The Romanian women's gymnastics team will be back. Just like when the American men's basketball team lost three times and settled for bronze in Athens, only to completely retool the system, Romania will probably come back even stronger. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them on the podium at the 2017 World Championships in Montreal, which is where it all started.
But Romania's women's gymnastics team won't be in Rio. It'll take all four months until the Games just to get used to the idea. And it'll still seem weird as the competition goes on without them.
Maybe this is exactly what it'll take for Romanian gymnastics to get back to its former greatness. Because Rio's going to be painful for a once proud gymnastics nation. One that has no shot at Olympic glory in 2016.
Romania has earned a team medal in women's gymnastics at every Olympics since 1976, when Nadia Comaneci burst onto the scene in Montreal. That streak will not reach 40 years. Instead, they'll be sitting on the sidelines when the gymnastics competition gets underway in Rio, which doesn't seem right for so many reasons.
So how did this happen? Well, it all started at last year's World Championships in Glasgow. Romania finished fourth at Worlds in 2014, but fell all the way to 13th in 2015 (with a team that included Larisa Iordache, the silver medalist in the all-around in 2014). The top eight teams qualified for the Olympics. With that first opportunity out the window, Romania went to the last-chance qualifier this past weekend in Rio needing to finish in the top four to gain one of the four remaining spots. They finished seventh.
Even though Romania's women's team has slipped in recent years, this is still a shocking development. The Romanian women were the ones you could always count on seeing if you're a gymnastics fan (and even if you aren't). They defied the Soviet boycott in 1984 and won their first gold. They won the team title, then swept the individual medals in Sydney (Andreea Raducan's gold was later taken away due to a controversial failed drug test). Four years later in Athens, they captured the team gold medal again.
Since then, the fall has been precipitous. In Rio, Romania will enter one female gymnast, the same number as those gymnastics hotbeds of Argentina, Guatemala, Iceland, India and Jamaica (to name just a few). There will be more Romanian men (2) competing in Rio than women. And it's just as bad that the men's team, which isn't quite as accomplished as the women but still has a pretty nice Olympic legacy, didn't qualify. It's the first time since 1968 that Romania won't participate in either Olympic gymnastic team event. (Marian Dragulescu, a four-time Olympic medalist, will at least be a medal threat in the men's all-around.)
One of the reasons for Romania's continued success is the system that they've put in place. Gymnastics, it could be argued, is Romania's national sport. Representing the national team in the Olympics should be every little Romanian girl's dream. Where did the system break down? Is there simply a lack of talent in this generation of athletes or is it something more? Are the coaches leaving Romania because they can make more money in Russia or the United States or somewhere else? If that's the case, the Romanian federation needs to step up immediately.
This has to be a national embarrassment for not just the gymnastics team, but the entire Romanian Olympic Committee. I'm sure they were expecting a handful of gymnastics medals. Romania won nine medals in London. Three of them came in gymnastics. In Beijing, it was two out of eight. Going back to Athens, when Romanian gymnastics was still at the top of its game, gymnastics accounted for 10 of the country's 19 total medals, including four of the eight golds.
It probably helps the United States more than anybody else that Romania won't be in Rio. The Americans have won the last two Olympic gold medals and the last three World Championships, so they were going to be big favorites anyway, but a Romanian team, no matter how down, would've had to be considered a major threat. Now with Romania not in the field, the United States becomes an even bigger favorite.
I'm sure this is just a temporary setback. The Romanian women's gymnastics team will be back. Just like when the American men's basketball team lost three times and settled for bronze in Athens, only to completely retool the system, Romania will probably come back even stronger. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them on the podium at the 2017 World Championships in Montreal, which is where it all started.
But Romania's women's gymnastics team won't be in Rio. It'll take all four months until the Games just to get used to the idea. And it'll still seem weird as the competition goes on without them.
Maybe this is exactly what it'll take for Romanian gymnastics to get back to its former greatness. Because Rio's going to be painful for a once proud gymnastics nation. One that has no shot at Olympic glory in 2016.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Best Goodbyes
My disdain for the NBA is well known. But I will admit that I watched the end of the Lakers game on Wednesday night, mainly because I wanted to see what Kobe Bryant would do for his final act. And it was awesome! 60 points! Are you kidding me? That has to rank up there among the top farewells any athlete has ever had.
The craziest thing about Kobe's 60-point goodbye is that it was the second ridiculous goodbye for a future Hall of Famer this year. Just like Kobe, Peyton Manning wasn't even close to the Peyton Manning of old this season. He wasn't even good in the Super Bowl. But he was good enough. The Broncos won and Peyton went out a champion. Just like his boss, John Elway did 17 years earlier. Although, Elway's finish trumps Peyton's because Elway was the MVP of Super Bowl XXXIII.
There are plenty of football players who won the Super Bowl in their last game. Hall of Famers Jerome Bettis and Michael Strahan immediately come to mind, as does sure-fire future Hall of Famer Ray Lewis. For a football player, that really is the ultimate way to say goodbye. I'm sure Peyton Manning won't be the last player whose last stop on the way to Canton is the Super Bowl.
In hockey, there's one great example of hoisting the Stanley Cup in the final game of a legendary career. After 21 years in Boston, Ray Bourque was traded to the Avalanche in 2000. One year later, Colorado won the Cup in seven games, giving Bourque his only title.
David Robinson also went out a champion. He announced prior to the 2002-03 season that it would be his last. Then he went on to post a 13-point, 17-rebound double-double in Game 6 of the NBA Finals, as the Spurs beat the Nets for the second (and last) title of the Robinson-Duncan Era. They were Sports Illustrated's Sportsmen of the Year for 2003.
Pete Sampras had a similar ending. He won the US Open in 2002, then called it a career. Sampras didn't officially retire after the US Open, but the final was his last career match. He officially retired just before the start of the 2003 US Open.
Plenty of Olympians have gone out on top, too. The most notable that I can think of is Dan Jansen. Heading into the 1994 Olympics, his career was known mostly for heartbreak. From his fall in 1988 hours after finding out about his sister's death to his 26th place finish in 1992. But in Lillehammer, Jansen finally had his Olympic moment. After finishing eighth in the 500 meters, his best event, he won the gold and set a world record in the 1000, then skated off into the sunset.
Michael Johnson also won gold in his final Olympic race, defending his title in the 400 meters at the 2000 Games in Sydney. Four years earlier in Atlanta, Johnson won double gold in both the 200 and 400 (a feat Allyson Felix will try to match in Rio). But the most memorable track & field moment of those Games was Carl Lewis winning his fourth straight gold medal in the long jump. Lewis didn't officially retire until 1997, but that was his last time he ever competed in a significant meet.
Another recent one is Abby Wambach. The all-time leading goal scorer in international soccer, she'd won three Olympic gold medals, but there was still something missing. She'd never won a World Cup. No longer the star, she played a supporting role last summer, as the U.S. won the World Cup and filled in that missing piece. Other members of the team (Lauren Holliday, Shannon Boxx) retired after that game, too, but none was as significant as Wambach. Everyone knew it would be her last World Cup, and they wanted to win it for her.
I didn't forget about baseball. There are three baseball players who come to mind who wrote the perfect ending. The first is Derek Jeter. It's as if his biggest moments were scripted, and his final game at Yankee Stadium is case-in-point. Why wouldn't David Robertson blow a save for only like the third time all year so that a bottom of the ninth would be required? Why wouldn't Jeter come up with the winning run on third? Why wouldn't he hit a walk-off single to the same place he always did with that trademark Jeter swing?
Jeter's fellow Core Four member Andy Pettitte had a pretty spectacular ending, too. The 2013 season was all about Mariano Rivera's farewell. Pettitte just kind of sneaked his retirement in there as an "Oh, by the way." His final start was on the second-to-last day of the season. In Houston. His hometown, where he spent the only three years of his career he wasn't a Yankee. So how did his final game go? He threw a complete game, his first in seven years, and got the win.
But if you're looking for a finale similar to Kobe's, I give you Ted Williams. In the final at-bat of his career, on September 28, 1960, he hit the last of his 521 career home runs. If that wasn't enough, he managed to top it in what was really his last public appearance at the 1999 All-Star Game, when he was the last player introduced as part of MLB's All-Century Team. Who can forget him riding a golf cart to the pitcher's mound, where he was greeted by both teams, then tipping his cap to the Fenway Faithful, something he had never done as a player.
Kobe's finale was pretty spectacular. But it's just the latest in a long line of memorable farewells for some of sports' most legendary figures. It's incredible how often the biggest stars rise to the occasion on the biggest stage. I guess that's especially true when they know it's the last time.
The craziest thing about Kobe's 60-point goodbye is that it was the second ridiculous goodbye for a future Hall of Famer this year. Just like Kobe, Peyton Manning wasn't even close to the Peyton Manning of old this season. He wasn't even good in the Super Bowl. But he was good enough. The Broncos won and Peyton went out a champion. Just like his boss, John Elway did 17 years earlier. Although, Elway's finish trumps Peyton's because Elway was the MVP of Super Bowl XXXIII.
There are plenty of football players who won the Super Bowl in their last game. Hall of Famers Jerome Bettis and Michael Strahan immediately come to mind, as does sure-fire future Hall of Famer Ray Lewis. For a football player, that really is the ultimate way to say goodbye. I'm sure Peyton Manning won't be the last player whose last stop on the way to Canton is the Super Bowl.
In hockey, there's one great example of hoisting the Stanley Cup in the final game of a legendary career. After 21 years in Boston, Ray Bourque was traded to the Avalanche in 2000. One year later, Colorado won the Cup in seven games, giving Bourque his only title.
David Robinson also went out a champion. He announced prior to the 2002-03 season that it would be his last. Then he went on to post a 13-point, 17-rebound double-double in Game 6 of the NBA Finals, as the Spurs beat the Nets for the second (and last) title of the Robinson-Duncan Era. They were Sports Illustrated's Sportsmen of the Year for 2003.
Pete Sampras had a similar ending. He won the US Open in 2002, then called it a career. Sampras didn't officially retire after the US Open, but the final was his last career match. He officially retired just before the start of the 2003 US Open.
Plenty of Olympians have gone out on top, too. The most notable that I can think of is Dan Jansen. Heading into the 1994 Olympics, his career was known mostly for heartbreak. From his fall in 1988 hours after finding out about his sister's death to his 26th place finish in 1992. But in Lillehammer, Jansen finally had his Olympic moment. After finishing eighth in the 500 meters, his best event, he won the gold and set a world record in the 1000, then skated off into the sunset.
Michael Johnson also won gold in his final Olympic race, defending his title in the 400 meters at the 2000 Games in Sydney. Four years earlier in Atlanta, Johnson won double gold in both the 200 and 400 (a feat Allyson Felix will try to match in Rio). But the most memorable track & field moment of those Games was Carl Lewis winning his fourth straight gold medal in the long jump. Lewis didn't officially retire until 1997, but that was his last time he ever competed in a significant meet.
Another recent one is Abby Wambach. The all-time leading goal scorer in international soccer, she'd won three Olympic gold medals, but there was still something missing. She'd never won a World Cup. No longer the star, she played a supporting role last summer, as the U.S. won the World Cup and filled in that missing piece. Other members of the team (Lauren Holliday, Shannon Boxx) retired after that game, too, but none was as significant as Wambach. Everyone knew it would be her last World Cup, and they wanted to win it for her.
I didn't forget about baseball. There are three baseball players who come to mind who wrote the perfect ending. The first is Derek Jeter. It's as if his biggest moments were scripted, and his final game at Yankee Stadium is case-in-point. Why wouldn't David Robertson blow a save for only like the third time all year so that a bottom of the ninth would be required? Why wouldn't Jeter come up with the winning run on third? Why wouldn't he hit a walk-off single to the same place he always did with that trademark Jeter swing?
Jeter's fellow Core Four member Andy Pettitte had a pretty spectacular ending, too. The 2013 season was all about Mariano Rivera's farewell. Pettitte just kind of sneaked his retirement in there as an "Oh, by the way." His final start was on the second-to-last day of the season. In Houston. His hometown, where he spent the only three years of his career he wasn't a Yankee. So how did his final game go? He threw a complete game, his first in seven years, and got the win.
But if you're looking for a finale similar to Kobe's, I give you Ted Williams. In the final at-bat of his career, on September 28, 1960, he hit the last of his 521 career home runs. If that wasn't enough, he managed to top it in what was really his last public appearance at the 1999 All-Star Game, when he was the last player introduced as part of MLB's All-Century Team. Who can forget him riding a golf cart to the pitcher's mound, where he was greeted by both teams, then tipping his cap to the Fenway Faithful, something he had never done as a player.
Kobe's finale was pretty spectacular. But it's just the latest in a long line of memorable farewells for some of sports' most legendary figures. It's incredible how often the biggest stars rise to the occasion on the biggest stage. I guess that's especially true when they know it's the last time.
Friday, April 15, 2016
First Impressions of the Football Schedule
There were a couple surprises when the NFL schedule was released last night. I was also curious how they would handle the new Thursday night schedule where CBS and NBC are sharing games with NFL Network. And they certainly got creative with that (the Giants-Rams London game on NFL Network, for example). One thing that didn't surprise me, though, was the Super Bowl rematch in Week 1. The NFL rarely gets that opportunity, and they would've been stupid not to take it.
Week 1: What did surprise me about Week 1 was no national game in New York on the 15th anniversary of 9/11. The Giants are playing the Cowboys, but it's in Dallas at 4:30. That's the one I figured would be the Sunday night game. Rams-49ers is also in the wrong city. The LA Rams' first game back on the West Coast should be against San Francisco. But that Monday night game should be the NFL's triumphant return to LA.
Week 2: Thursday Night Football returns with Jets-Bills, and so does the Color Rush. Why they're trying that again, I have no idea. I thought the Vikings' first game at their new stadium would be the first part of the Week 1 Monday night doubleheader, but I'm OK with them waiting until Week 2 and a Sunday night matchup with the Packers for the opening. Meanwhile, the Rams' first home game is against Seattle, a team they owned during their final seasons in St. Louis. Broncos-Colts is less relevant now that it's not Manning vs. Luck.
Week 3: For some reason, Bears-Cowboys and Falcons-Saints are the two primetime games. I'm not sure why. All four teams sucked last year, and this is before you can flex out Sunday night games. It's also curious timing for that Patriots-Texans Thursday night game. If Brady's suspension is reissued, he won't be playing in that one. I like the idea of that one on a Thursday night, I'm just worried it's too early in the season.
Week 4: Our first London game is Colts-Jaguars. There's once again talk of Jacksonville moving to London permanently...and I can't begin to list the reasons why that's a bad idea. Anyway, back on this side of the Pond, we've got the Seahawks making the cross-country trek to visit the Jets for their first game at MetLife Stadium since their Super Bowl win. The Jets can be on FOX since the Giants are in Minnesota on Monday night. The Sunday night game should be a good one between the Chiefs and Steelers. Oddly, CBS takes a week off from Thursday night, as Dolphins-Bengals is only on NFL Network.
Week 5: Week 5 has some good matchups. Cardinals-49ers on Thursday night, Giants-Packers on Sunday night, Jets-Steelers, Bengals-Cowboys. And a Bucs-Panthers Monday night game. Carolina went 15-1 last season, yet didn't have a single primetime game all year. They'll get two in the first five weeks this season. FOX only has four games on the initial schedule, so I'm sensing some of the NFL's new favorite thing, cross-flexing.
Week 6: They're not making a big deal about it like they did last season, but we've got a Giants-Ravens Super Bowl rematch in Week 6. Denver plays on Thursday night for the second time when they visit San Diego, while the Colts and Texans play in a Sunday night game that should be much later in the year just in case. And I don't know why they have the Jets flying cross country for a Monday night game in Arizona. The best game of the week is Cowboys-Packers.
Week 7: CBS wraps up its Thursday night slate with Bears-Packers, while the Giants-Rams game will be the first-ever NFL game at Twickenham Stadium in London. They agreed to play in London when they were still based in St. Louis, but that eight-hour time difference from London to LA is going to be crazy tough on the Rams' bodies (and I'm sure their fans aren't thrilled about the 6:30 am start time either). Patriots-Steelers is the national late game (which is exclusive), Seahawks-Cardinals on Sunday Night Football, and Texans-Broncos in the Monday night game for Brock Osweiler's return to Denver.
Week 8: Jacksonville at Tennessee in the first Thursday night game of the NFL Network-only portion. That's become a staple of Thursday Night Football. Division games in the other two primetime slots: Eagles-Cowboys and Vikings-Bears. Smart to put Dallas opposite Game 5 of the World Series. It's also surprising. They usually have a super-marquee game in that slot (last year it was Packers-Broncos, for example). It might be a lot easier for fans to choose this year, as FOX will try that whole-day thing once again, as they start with their London game between the Redskins and Bengals.
Week 9: The thing that immediately jumped out at me about Week 9 was the Sunday night game in Oakland. It's been a long time since the Raiders even played on Sunday night, let alone had a Sunday night home game. Of course, it can be flexed out. But I don't think it will be. Although, we do have Eagles-Giants and Steelers-Ravens. Colts-Packers will probably be protected by CBS as its national late game.
Week 10: Seattle at New England. All I have to say. The first meeting between the two since Super Bowl XLIX. Cowboys-Steelers should also be fun. The Giants and Jets both have home interconference games for the first time in quite a while, and I don't remember the last time the Giants played a home Monday night game. The current Browns vs. the old Browns on Thursday night means we'll get our fill of the AFC North in Week 10.
Week 11: NBC takes over the Thursday night simulcasting with Saints-Panthers. They also have a Packers-Redskins playoff rematch on Sunday night. But the game of the week is the Monday nighter between the Raiders and Texans, the first NFL game in Mexico City since 2005. Cross-flexing alert! Eagles-Seahawks is on CBS and Bills-Bengals is on FOX. I still have no idea why they do this.
Week 12: With the selection of AFC teams visiting Detroit very limited (Jacksonville and Tennessee were the choices), it seemed inevitable the Lions would play a conference team on Thanksgiving. They've actually got a division game against the Vikings, making this the third straight year the two day games on Thanksgiving are all-NFC affairs. The AFC is allowed to play on Thanksgiving this year, though. Steelers-Colts is the night game. Meanwhile, Chiefs-Broncos is the Sunday late game, Patriots-Jets is the Sunday night game, and Packers-Eagles is the Monday night game. As usual, a good slate on Thanksgiving weekend.
Week 13: As December starts, the quality games get ratcheted up. Cowboys-Vikings on Thursday night, Giants-Steelers in the national late game, and Panthers-Seahawks on Sunday night. I'm a little worried about the Colts-Jets Monday night matchup, though. I can easily see both of those teams being out of it by this point just as much as I can see them contending for division titles.
Week 14: Well, I finally get my Cowboys at Giants Sunday night game. It's just much later in the season than I originally thought. NBC's other game on Thursday night is the Raiders again, Oakland's third primetime game of the season. This time, they're in Kansas City. The Seahawks play the Packers in the FOX late game and the Ravens play the Patriots on Monday night.
Week 15: Since they had to figure out a way to have eight games on NFL Network that aren't simulcast on either CBS or NBC, they had to double-up some weeks. Week 15 is one of those, as we've got a Rams-Seahawks simulcast on Thursday and a Dolphins-Jets Saturday night game. Amazingly, Patriots-Broncos is not in primetime (at least, not right now). Brady vs. Sanchez I is at 4;30. Pittsburgh at Cincinnati is the Sunday night game instead, while Carolina-Washington is on Monday night.
Week 16: Some usual Week 16 games, and some things that are different. Broncos-Bengals ISN'T the final Monday night game for the first time in three years. It's Lions-Cowboys instead. We do have the traditional Week 16 Jets-Patriots game, though. Giants-Eagles is the final Thursday night game, as it's mostly division matchups. Since Christmas is a Sunday, most of the games are on Christmas Eve, as is usually the case when that happens. Except there's still a Sunday night game on Christmas between the Broncos and Chiefs. What surprised me, though, was that second Christmas afternoon game. The Ravens are playing the Steelers, and apparently, they both volunteered to play on Christmas as long as they could play each other (Pittsburgh even wanted to host). I guess they just wanted to see their old friends on Christmas that badly. Shrewd move to go directly against the marquee basketball game on what's traditionally been the NBA's holiday.
Week 17: Who needs bowls when you can have the final week of the NFL season on New Year's Day? My early candidates for the game getting flexed into primetime are Ravens-Bengals, Cowboys-Eagles and Raiders-Broncos, with Bills-Jets and Giants-Redskins both holding an outside chance. Although, no one would've figured Vikings-Packers would end up being the 256th game of last season, so it could just as easily be Jacksonville at Indianapolis for all I know.
Week 1: What did surprise me about Week 1 was no national game in New York on the 15th anniversary of 9/11. The Giants are playing the Cowboys, but it's in Dallas at 4:30. That's the one I figured would be the Sunday night game. Rams-49ers is also in the wrong city. The LA Rams' first game back on the West Coast should be against San Francisco. But that Monday night game should be the NFL's triumphant return to LA.
Week 2: Thursday Night Football returns with Jets-Bills, and so does the Color Rush. Why they're trying that again, I have no idea. I thought the Vikings' first game at their new stadium would be the first part of the Week 1 Monday night doubleheader, but I'm OK with them waiting until Week 2 and a Sunday night matchup with the Packers for the opening. Meanwhile, the Rams' first home game is against Seattle, a team they owned during their final seasons in St. Louis. Broncos-Colts is less relevant now that it's not Manning vs. Luck.
Week 3: For some reason, Bears-Cowboys and Falcons-Saints are the two primetime games. I'm not sure why. All four teams sucked last year, and this is before you can flex out Sunday night games. It's also curious timing for that Patriots-Texans Thursday night game. If Brady's suspension is reissued, he won't be playing in that one. I like the idea of that one on a Thursday night, I'm just worried it's too early in the season.
Week 4: Our first London game is Colts-Jaguars. There's once again talk of Jacksonville moving to London permanently...and I can't begin to list the reasons why that's a bad idea. Anyway, back on this side of the Pond, we've got the Seahawks making the cross-country trek to visit the Jets for their first game at MetLife Stadium since their Super Bowl win. The Jets can be on FOX since the Giants are in Minnesota on Monday night. The Sunday night game should be a good one between the Chiefs and Steelers. Oddly, CBS takes a week off from Thursday night, as Dolphins-Bengals is only on NFL Network.
Week 5: Week 5 has some good matchups. Cardinals-49ers on Thursday night, Giants-Packers on Sunday night, Jets-Steelers, Bengals-Cowboys. And a Bucs-Panthers Monday night game. Carolina went 15-1 last season, yet didn't have a single primetime game all year. They'll get two in the first five weeks this season. FOX only has four games on the initial schedule, so I'm sensing some of the NFL's new favorite thing, cross-flexing.
Week 6: They're not making a big deal about it like they did last season, but we've got a Giants-Ravens Super Bowl rematch in Week 6. Denver plays on Thursday night for the second time when they visit San Diego, while the Colts and Texans play in a Sunday night game that should be much later in the year just in case. And I don't know why they have the Jets flying cross country for a Monday night game in Arizona. The best game of the week is Cowboys-Packers.
Week 7: CBS wraps up its Thursday night slate with Bears-Packers, while the Giants-Rams game will be the first-ever NFL game at Twickenham Stadium in London. They agreed to play in London when they were still based in St. Louis, but that eight-hour time difference from London to LA is going to be crazy tough on the Rams' bodies (and I'm sure their fans aren't thrilled about the 6:30 am start time either). Patriots-Steelers is the national late game (which is exclusive), Seahawks-Cardinals on Sunday Night Football, and Texans-Broncos in the Monday night game for Brock Osweiler's return to Denver.
Week 8: Jacksonville at Tennessee in the first Thursday night game of the NFL Network-only portion. That's become a staple of Thursday Night Football. Division games in the other two primetime slots: Eagles-Cowboys and Vikings-Bears. Smart to put Dallas opposite Game 5 of the World Series. It's also surprising. They usually have a super-marquee game in that slot (last year it was Packers-Broncos, for example). It might be a lot easier for fans to choose this year, as FOX will try that whole-day thing once again, as they start with their London game between the Redskins and Bengals.
Week 9: The thing that immediately jumped out at me about Week 9 was the Sunday night game in Oakland. It's been a long time since the Raiders even played on Sunday night, let alone had a Sunday night home game. Of course, it can be flexed out. But I don't think it will be. Although, we do have Eagles-Giants and Steelers-Ravens. Colts-Packers will probably be protected by CBS as its national late game.
Week 10: Seattle at New England. All I have to say. The first meeting between the two since Super Bowl XLIX. Cowboys-Steelers should also be fun. The Giants and Jets both have home interconference games for the first time in quite a while, and I don't remember the last time the Giants played a home Monday night game. The current Browns vs. the old Browns on Thursday night means we'll get our fill of the AFC North in Week 10.
Week 11: NBC takes over the Thursday night simulcasting with Saints-Panthers. They also have a Packers-Redskins playoff rematch on Sunday night. But the game of the week is the Monday nighter between the Raiders and Texans, the first NFL game in Mexico City since 2005. Cross-flexing alert! Eagles-Seahawks is on CBS and Bills-Bengals is on FOX. I still have no idea why they do this.
Week 12: With the selection of AFC teams visiting Detroit very limited (Jacksonville and Tennessee were the choices), it seemed inevitable the Lions would play a conference team on Thanksgiving. They've actually got a division game against the Vikings, making this the third straight year the two day games on Thanksgiving are all-NFC affairs. The AFC is allowed to play on Thanksgiving this year, though. Steelers-Colts is the night game. Meanwhile, Chiefs-Broncos is the Sunday late game, Patriots-Jets is the Sunday night game, and Packers-Eagles is the Monday night game. As usual, a good slate on Thanksgiving weekend.
Week 13: As December starts, the quality games get ratcheted up. Cowboys-Vikings on Thursday night, Giants-Steelers in the national late game, and Panthers-Seahawks on Sunday night. I'm a little worried about the Colts-Jets Monday night matchup, though. I can easily see both of those teams being out of it by this point just as much as I can see them contending for division titles.
Week 14: Well, I finally get my Cowboys at Giants Sunday night game. It's just much later in the season than I originally thought. NBC's other game on Thursday night is the Raiders again, Oakland's third primetime game of the season. This time, they're in Kansas City. The Seahawks play the Packers in the FOX late game and the Ravens play the Patriots on Monday night.
Week 15: Since they had to figure out a way to have eight games on NFL Network that aren't simulcast on either CBS or NBC, they had to double-up some weeks. Week 15 is one of those, as we've got a Rams-Seahawks simulcast on Thursday and a Dolphins-Jets Saturday night game. Amazingly, Patriots-Broncos is not in primetime (at least, not right now). Brady vs. Sanchez I is at 4;30. Pittsburgh at Cincinnati is the Sunday night game instead, while Carolina-Washington is on Monday night.
Week 16: Some usual Week 16 games, and some things that are different. Broncos-Bengals ISN'T the final Monday night game for the first time in three years. It's Lions-Cowboys instead. We do have the traditional Week 16 Jets-Patriots game, though. Giants-Eagles is the final Thursday night game, as it's mostly division matchups. Since Christmas is a Sunday, most of the games are on Christmas Eve, as is usually the case when that happens. Except there's still a Sunday night game on Christmas between the Broncos and Chiefs. What surprised me, though, was that second Christmas afternoon game. The Ravens are playing the Steelers, and apparently, they both volunteered to play on Christmas as long as they could play each other (Pittsburgh even wanted to host). I guess they just wanted to see their old friends on Christmas that badly. Shrewd move to go directly against the marquee basketball game on what's traditionally been the NBA's holiday.
Week 17: Who needs bowls when you can have the final week of the NFL season on New Year's Day? My early candidates for the game getting flexed into primetime are Ravens-Bengals, Cowboys-Eagles and Raiders-Broncos, with Bills-Jets and Giants-Redskins both holding an outside chance. Although, no one would've figured Vikings-Packers would end up being the 256th game of last season, so it could just as easily be Jacksonville at Indianapolis for all I know.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
2016 Stanley Cup Playoffs, Round 1
It's time for the best postseason in all of sports to get underway. Without question, the Stanley Cup is the hardest of the four major trophies to win. You've got to be on your game for two months and hope you don't run into a hot goalie in the process. As Capitals coach Barry Trotz said, "Everybody's 0-0 now." Washington's spectacular 120-point regular season doesn't matter. Neither does the fact that the Blackhawks are the defending champions or that this is the Red Wings' 25th consecutive playoff appearance or anything else about the 16 teams left standing, none of which plays in Canada (unless you count Detroit).
There seems to be an overabundance of major injuries heading into the playoffs, too, which further complicates things. Pittsburgh's without its best player--Evgeni Malkin, while Tampa Bay is missing Steven Stamkos. Islanders goalie Jaroslav Halak is out, and so is Rangers defenseman Ryan McDonagh. This could end up being a battle of attrition. The last team with 20 players standing will likely be the last team standing.
The Capitals had a ridiculous regular season before looking downright regular down the stretch. Although, that could've been because they were bored and resting guys after clinching everything they could possibly clinch with like two weeks left. The Penguins were the hottest team in hockey until their goalie went down. Now it looks like that might be the Flyers, who grabbed the East's second wild card.
Meanwhile, in the West, it's LA's turn to hoist the Cup in the Kings-Blackhawks rotation. After not making the playoffs last year, the Kings looked incredibly hungry all season, and they might be the best team in the playoffs outside of Washington. But Chicago is still the champs until they lose four games in one series. The Blackhawks have proven that while home ice is nice, it's not the be-all, end-all in determining who wins a playoff series. In fact, both conference finals went seven last year, and the road team won Game 7 in each.
Panthers vs. Islanders: Both the Rangers and Islanders were trying to position themselves to finish fourth and flip over to the Atlantic so that they could play the Panthers instead of the Penguins in the first round. This could be a case of careful what you wish for, though. On paper, yes, Florida, then Tampa Bay/Detroit is an easier road to the conference final than Pittsburgh and Washington. But the Panthers won the Atlantic for a reason. Their two best players might be a combined 130 years old, but that also means they've got a wealth of playoff experience. And let's not forget Luongo played in a Stanley Cup Final Game 7 with Vancouver. Of course, he was also driven out of town because Canucks fans got frustrated with the number of soft goals he let in, especially in the playoffs. But Luongo is still an elite goalie, and he's still the best goalie in this series. The Islanders are much more talented offensively, but Luongo's got something to prove in what might be his last playoff opportunity. So do the Panthers. Taking Florida lightly isn't a good idea. Panthers in six.
Lightning vs. Red Wings: This is a rematch of their great seven-game first round series a year ago. And just like last year, Tampa Bay is a better team than Detroit. If the Lightning put all the pieces together, a return trip to the Final isn't out of the question. They'll miss Stamkos, and that rash of injuries could be what holds them back. But Ben Bishop's healthy, and he's the most important guy. I love some of Detroit's young talent, but the Red Wings have gotten so obsessed with that streak that it seems like just getting into the playoffs is enough for them. Lightning in six.
Capitals vs. Flyers: Philadelphia was one of the few teams that seemed to handle Washington pretty well this season. And the Flyers come into the playoffs hot. Except this is actually a pretty good matchup for the Capitals. They know that their regular season is meaningless. The Capitals only care about recent postseason history. Washington is notorious for its spectacular playoff flame outs. Alex Ovechkin has never even been to a conference final, and they blew a 3-1 lead in the East semis against the Rangers last year. They're desperate to change that and give the best player in franchise history a chance to play for the Cup. This is the best team they've had around him, and they're on a mission. As hot as the Flyers are, they're not beating the Capitals four times. Capitals in five.
Penguins vs. Rangers: A prime example of the flaws in the NHL's current playoff format. The teams with the second- and fourth-most points in the Eastern Conference will meet in the first round, with one guaranteed to eliminate the other (and a potential 1 vs. 2 semifinal series). Last year, the Rangers beat the Penguins in five, with all four of their victories coming by a 2-1 score. This season has been much different, though, and Pittsburgh has beaten the Rangers three times in the last month. Problem is the Penguins are down to their third-string goalie (and starter Marc-Andre Fleury doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation as a postseason winner). The Rangers have been to at least the conference final in three of the last four years for a reason. Once the calendar flips to April, they flip a switch. I'm somewhat concerned about all their injuries, but Rangers-Penguins and Rangers-Capitals are both Stanley Cup Playoff rules. The only way to get Rangers-Capitals is if the Rangers beat the Penguins, which I think they will. Rangers in seven.
Stars vs. Wild: Dallas had an incredible year, earning home ice in the West. They'll start their playoff journey against the Wild, and, subplot, Game 3 will be their first postseason game in Minnesota since 1992. However, this is the first real postseason test for this Stars team. Dallas missed the playoffs in six of the last seven years, with only a six-game first round loss to Anaheim two years ago mixed in. The Wild, on the other hand, are making their fourth straight playoff appearance and won their first round series before losing to Chicago in each of the last two years. Talent-wise, the Stars are the superior team. But they haven't been in this position in quite some time. The Wild are playoff regulars, so this is going to be interesting. This is the toughest of all eight series to handicap. For some reason, I've got a feeling Minnesota's going to pull the upset, which they've done as the lower seed two years in a row. Make it three. Wild in six.
Blues vs. Blackhawks: Washington isn't the only team with a reputation for choking in the playoffs. The Blues are pretty good at that themselves. The Blackhawks, on the other hand, have a reputation for doing exactly the opposite in the postseason. Three Cups in the last six years, and they've been to the five of the last seven Western Conference Finals. They know how to win in the postseason. It doesn't even matter where they're seeded. This is the third straight year in which they've finished third in the Central. They won in six in the first round in each of the last two seasons. No reason to think this time it'll be any different. Blackhawks in six.
Ducks vs. Predators: While the Rangers and Islanders were maneuvering themselves for a trip to South Beach, the Predators have known for a while that they were headed to SoCal in the first round. They just didn't know if they were playing the Kings or the Ducks (of course, it didn't really matter, since they'll have to go back-and-forth to California again if they win the series). The Ducks and Predators have actually met in the playoffs once before, in 2011, and it was Nashville's first-ever postseason series win. And I do like their chances in this series. They were the best fourth-place team in hockey. Anaheim has won the Pacific Division four straight times now. And they have nothing to show for it. They've lost a Game 7 at home in each of the last three years. The window has to be closing on this Ryan Getlzaf-Corey Perry-Ryan Kesler era. Anaheim is in danger of falling into Sharks/Blues territory if they lose another Game 7 at home. They'd better hope they wrap the series up before then. Because they haven't won a Game 7 since 2006. Predators in seven.
Kings vs. Sharks: Amazingly, the Kings and Sharks both missed the playoffs last season. Now they're back, and facing each other in the first round once again. This is actually San Jose's third straight playoff series against the Kings. They lost the previous two in seven. Two years ago, it was made even more special when they blew a 3-0 series lead, then allowed five unanswered goals in a home Game 7 loss. Sense a theme here? It's LA's turn to win the Cup, so why are we even bothering with the early rounds? All joking aside, though, the Kings look well-equipped to make their biannual Stanley Cup run. I think they might have the best cahnce to knock off Washington. As for the Sharks, you know the script. A good regular season followed by yet another postseason disappointment. They have to be tired of hearing about it. But we'll keep talking about it until they make us stop. And the only way to do that is finally Kings in seven.
As for my preliminary Final pick (BTW, I was one of the few people who nailed it last year with Blackhawks-Lightning), I've got to go with Capitals vs. Kings. And, since this is an even-numbered year, that means it's LA's turn to hoist the Cup.
There seems to be an overabundance of major injuries heading into the playoffs, too, which further complicates things. Pittsburgh's without its best player--Evgeni Malkin, while Tampa Bay is missing Steven Stamkos. Islanders goalie Jaroslav Halak is out, and so is Rangers defenseman Ryan McDonagh. This could end up being a battle of attrition. The last team with 20 players standing will likely be the last team standing.
The Capitals had a ridiculous regular season before looking downright regular down the stretch. Although, that could've been because they were bored and resting guys after clinching everything they could possibly clinch with like two weeks left. The Penguins were the hottest team in hockey until their goalie went down. Now it looks like that might be the Flyers, who grabbed the East's second wild card.
Meanwhile, in the West, it's LA's turn to hoist the Cup in the Kings-Blackhawks rotation. After not making the playoffs last year, the Kings looked incredibly hungry all season, and they might be the best team in the playoffs outside of Washington. But Chicago is still the champs until they lose four games in one series. The Blackhawks have proven that while home ice is nice, it's not the be-all, end-all in determining who wins a playoff series. In fact, both conference finals went seven last year, and the road team won Game 7 in each.
Panthers vs. Islanders: Both the Rangers and Islanders were trying to position themselves to finish fourth and flip over to the Atlantic so that they could play the Panthers instead of the Penguins in the first round. This could be a case of careful what you wish for, though. On paper, yes, Florida, then Tampa Bay/Detroit is an easier road to the conference final than Pittsburgh and Washington. But the Panthers won the Atlantic for a reason. Their two best players might be a combined 130 years old, but that also means they've got a wealth of playoff experience. And let's not forget Luongo played in a Stanley Cup Final Game 7 with Vancouver. Of course, he was also driven out of town because Canucks fans got frustrated with the number of soft goals he let in, especially in the playoffs. But Luongo is still an elite goalie, and he's still the best goalie in this series. The Islanders are much more talented offensively, but Luongo's got something to prove in what might be his last playoff opportunity. So do the Panthers. Taking Florida lightly isn't a good idea. Panthers in six.
Lightning vs. Red Wings: This is a rematch of their great seven-game first round series a year ago. And just like last year, Tampa Bay is a better team than Detroit. If the Lightning put all the pieces together, a return trip to the Final isn't out of the question. They'll miss Stamkos, and that rash of injuries could be what holds them back. But Ben Bishop's healthy, and he's the most important guy. I love some of Detroit's young talent, but the Red Wings have gotten so obsessed with that streak that it seems like just getting into the playoffs is enough for them. Lightning in six.
Capitals vs. Flyers: Philadelphia was one of the few teams that seemed to handle Washington pretty well this season. And the Flyers come into the playoffs hot. Except this is actually a pretty good matchup for the Capitals. They know that their regular season is meaningless. The Capitals only care about recent postseason history. Washington is notorious for its spectacular playoff flame outs. Alex Ovechkin has never even been to a conference final, and they blew a 3-1 lead in the East semis against the Rangers last year. They're desperate to change that and give the best player in franchise history a chance to play for the Cup. This is the best team they've had around him, and they're on a mission. As hot as the Flyers are, they're not beating the Capitals four times. Capitals in five.
Penguins vs. Rangers: A prime example of the flaws in the NHL's current playoff format. The teams with the second- and fourth-most points in the Eastern Conference will meet in the first round, with one guaranteed to eliminate the other (and a potential 1 vs. 2 semifinal series). Last year, the Rangers beat the Penguins in five, with all four of their victories coming by a 2-1 score. This season has been much different, though, and Pittsburgh has beaten the Rangers three times in the last month. Problem is the Penguins are down to their third-string goalie (and starter Marc-Andre Fleury doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation as a postseason winner). The Rangers have been to at least the conference final in three of the last four years for a reason. Once the calendar flips to April, they flip a switch. I'm somewhat concerned about all their injuries, but Rangers-Penguins and Rangers-Capitals are both Stanley Cup Playoff rules. The only way to get Rangers-Capitals is if the Rangers beat the Penguins, which I think they will. Rangers in seven.
Stars vs. Wild: Dallas had an incredible year, earning home ice in the West. They'll start their playoff journey against the Wild, and, subplot, Game 3 will be their first postseason game in Minnesota since 1992. However, this is the first real postseason test for this Stars team. Dallas missed the playoffs in six of the last seven years, with only a six-game first round loss to Anaheim two years ago mixed in. The Wild, on the other hand, are making their fourth straight playoff appearance and won their first round series before losing to Chicago in each of the last two years. Talent-wise, the Stars are the superior team. But they haven't been in this position in quite some time. The Wild are playoff regulars, so this is going to be interesting. This is the toughest of all eight series to handicap. For some reason, I've got a feeling Minnesota's going to pull the upset, which they've done as the lower seed two years in a row. Make it three. Wild in six.
Blues vs. Blackhawks: Washington isn't the only team with a reputation for choking in the playoffs. The Blues are pretty good at that themselves. The Blackhawks, on the other hand, have a reputation for doing exactly the opposite in the postseason. Three Cups in the last six years, and they've been to the five of the last seven Western Conference Finals. They know how to win in the postseason. It doesn't even matter where they're seeded. This is the third straight year in which they've finished third in the Central. They won in six in the first round in each of the last two seasons. No reason to think this time it'll be any different. Blackhawks in six.
Ducks vs. Predators: While the Rangers and Islanders were maneuvering themselves for a trip to South Beach, the Predators have known for a while that they were headed to SoCal in the first round. They just didn't know if they were playing the Kings or the Ducks (of course, it didn't really matter, since they'll have to go back-and-forth to California again if they win the series). The Ducks and Predators have actually met in the playoffs once before, in 2011, and it was Nashville's first-ever postseason series win. And I do like their chances in this series. They were the best fourth-place team in hockey. Anaheim has won the Pacific Division four straight times now. And they have nothing to show for it. They've lost a Game 7 at home in each of the last three years. The window has to be closing on this Ryan Getlzaf-Corey Perry-Ryan Kesler era. Anaheim is in danger of falling into Sharks/Blues territory if they lose another Game 7 at home. They'd better hope they wrap the series up before then. Because they haven't won a Game 7 since 2006. Predators in seven.
Kings vs. Sharks: Amazingly, the Kings and Sharks both missed the playoffs last season. Now they're back, and facing each other in the first round once again. This is actually San Jose's third straight playoff series against the Kings. They lost the previous two in seven. Two years ago, it was made even more special when they blew a 3-0 series lead, then allowed five unanswered goals in a home Game 7 loss. Sense a theme here? It's LA's turn to win the Cup, so why are we even bothering with the early rounds? All joking aside, though, the Kings look well-equipped to make their biannual Stanley Cup run. I think they might have the best cahnce to knock off Washington. As for the Sharks, you know the script. A good regular season followed by yet another postseason disappointment. They have to be tired of hearing about it. But we'll keep talking about it until they make us stop. And the only way to do that is finally Kings in seven.
As for my preliminary Final pick (BTW, I was one of the few people who nailed it last year with Blackhawks-Lightning), I've got to go with Capitals vs. Kings. And, since this is an even-numbered year, that means it's LA's turn to hoist the Cup.
Monday, April 11, 2016
The Soccer Disparity
When the members of the U.S. women's soccer team announced that they were taking legal action over their wages, especially compared to the members of the men's team, I didn't quite know what to make of it at first. The legal matters of the USWNT have been in the news a lot lately, from the lawsuit over the use of turf at last summer's Women's World Cup to the termination of the CBA in February to this. Then some more details emerged and they were staggering. On this one, they've got a point.
The team, of course, was a source of great national pride when they won the World Cup last year. They're also the defending Olympic champions, which is why it's significant that Becky Sauerbrunn suggested they might boycott the Olympics in protest. It's that serious. And it should be taken that way.
This isn't something that USA Soccer can hope just goes away and try to sweep under the rug. Because the players aren't going to let that happen. And these aren't some random, no-name players, either. The five players that filed the suit are Carli Lloyd, Alex Morgan, Hope Solo, Becky Sauerbrunn and Megan Rapinoe, perhaps the five most influential (and definitely the five most famous) members of the team. In fact, outside of Tim Howard, Clint Dempsey and maybe Michael Bradley, there are no bigger names among active players in all of U.S. soccer.
Even if you factor in endorsement dollars, the women make just a fraction of what the men get, despite the fact that the women are the reigning World Cup champions and the men's squad, while one of the top teams in the region, is nowhere near the best in the world. Yet, if you looked at their national team salaries, you'd never know it. The women make between $3500 and $5000 a game. The men get anywhere from $6250 to upwards of $17,000 per game. This despite the fact that the women, due mainly to their World Cup championship, generated more than $16 million in revenue for U.S. Soccer in 2015. The men's team, meanwhile, lost $2 million.
If you factor in the salaries from their club teams, the disparity is even greater. There's obviously much more money to be made in men's professional soccer. Tim Howard and Clint Dempsey have both played in the Premier League, the richest league on the planet, and most of the other top American men's players have lucrative contracts in Europe. That's why they don't play in MLS. Yet the ones that do play in MLS (which now also includes Howard and Bradley) make significantly more than the women do playing in the WPS, which is funded by U.S. Soccer and is the third attempt at a women's pro league in the U.S.
It's obvious why there's more money in the men's game than the women's game. NBCSN paid an awful lot of money to broadcast Premier League games. The Premier League is based in England, yet has enough of an American fan base to warrant those rights fees, not to mention the domestic and continental rights, as well as any other nations that show Premier League games.
Likewise, FIFA collects a fortune in rights fees for the men's World Cup, with coverage of the Women's World Cup included as part of the package. Some of that money goes back to the national federations, who decide on their own how it's going to be allocated. Since most of the money comes from the men's World Cup, most of that money obviously goes to men's teams (some countries still don't have a women's national team). Right or wrong, that's somewhat understandable from a business perspective. Although, if more countries spent more on their women's programs, the game would probably grow much more quickly.
However, the disparity between the men's and women's national teams in the United States is far too great. That I think is the entire basis of this lawsuit. If the men made slightly more than the women did, you could justify it because of the difference in TV revenue. But it's not even close. And, as they noted in the suit, the women are the World Cup Champions. They should be paid as such.
Female athletes have been dealing with this wage issue for a long time. At the Grand Slams in tennis, the men's winner always used to take home more than the women's winner. The US Open became the first one to offer equal prize money about 10 years ago, and the other three have all followed suit. There are many other examples in other sports, but, for the most part, those disparities have been evened out.
I don't know how much USA Basketball pays the members of the national teams, but the men's team is usually filled with NBA stars, so I wouldn't be surprised if they get more than the women do. After all, we all know how little the players in the WNBA make in relation to their NBA counterparts. It's so little, in fact, that many of them play overseas during the WNBA offseason...and make more money! Diana Taurasi makes so little in the WNBA that her Russian team paid her to sit out the 2015 WNBA season, and she still made more than she would've playing for the Mercury.
Will the women's soccer team actually boycott the Olympics? I doubt it. They know that it's one of only two marquee events they have, and they wouldn't exactly prove their point by depriving themselves of that opportunity. But right now, it's the only leverage they've got, so the threat was a smart move to force U.S. Soccer to take action.
At the very least, they've brought attention to a problem that needs to be addressed. There's absolutely no reason for the base salary to be different for the men's and women's teams. If you're on the senior national team, you're on the senior national team. Why should your gender matter? And you can't say they're paid based on performance, either. Because if that was the case, the women would make more, not less, than the men.
One of the reasons why the U.S. has one of the best national women's teams in the world is because the U.S. was one of the first to put money into its women's program. But it's clearly not as much as is being put into the men's program. That needs to change. It shouldn't have taken this long, or required this action, for people to realize that.
The team, of course, was a source of great national pride when they won the World Cup last year. They're also the defending Olympic champions, which is why it's significant that Becky Sauerbrunn suggested they might boycott the Olympics in protest. It's that serious. And it should be taken that way.
This isn't something that USA Soccer can hope just goes away and try to sweep under the rug. Because the players aren't going to let that happen. And these aren't some random, no-name players, either. The five players that filed the suit are Carli Lloyd, Alex Morgan, Hope Solo, Becky Sauerbrunn and Megan Rapinoe, perhaps the five most influential (and definitely the five most famous) members of the team. In fact, outside of Tim Howard, Clint Dempsey and maybe Michael Bradley, there are no bigger names among active players in all of U.S. soccer.
Even if you factor in endorsement dollars, the women make just a fraction of what the men get, despite the fact that the women are the reigning World Cup champions and the men's squad, while one of the top teams in the region, is nowhere near the best in the world. Yet, if you looked at their national team salaries, you'd never know it. The women make between $3500 and $5000 a game. The men get anywhere from $6250 to upwards of $17,000 per game. This despite the fact that the women, due mainly to their World Cup championship, generated more than $16 million in revenue for U.S. Soccer in 2015. The men's team, meanwhile, lost $2 million.
If you factor in the salaries from their club teams, the disparity is even greater. There's obviously much more money to be made in men's professional soccer. Tim Howard and Clint Dempsey have both played in the Premier League, the richest league on the planet, and most of the other top American men's players have lucrative contracts in Europe. That's why they don't play in MLS. Yet the ones that do play in MLS (which now also includes Howard and Bradley) make significantly more than the women do playing in the WPS, which is funded by U.S. Soccer and is the third attempt at a women's pro league in the U.S.
It's obvious why there's more money in the men's game than the women's game. NBCSN paid an awful lot of money to broadcast Premier League games. The Premier League is based in England, yet has enough of an American fan base to warrant those rights fees, not to mention the domestic and continental rights, as well as any other nations that show Premier League games.
Likewise, FIFA collects a fortune in rights fees for the men's World Cup, with coverage of the Women's World Cup included as part of the package. Some of that money goes back to the national federations, who decide on their own how it's going to be allocated. Since most of the money comes from the men's World Cup, most of that money obviously goes to men's teams (some countries still don't have a women's national team). Right or wrong, that's somewhat understandable from a business perspective. Although, if more countries spent more on their women's programs, the game would probably grow much more quickly.
However, the disparity between the men's and women's national teams in the United States is far too great. That I think is the entire basis of this lawsuit. If the men made slightly more than the women did, you could justify it because of the difference in TV revenue. But it's not even close. And, as they noted in the suit, the women are the World Cup Champions. They should be paid as such.
Female athletes have been dealing with this wage issue for a long time. At the Grand Slams in tennis, the men's winner always used to take home more than the women's winner. The US Open became the first one to offer equal prize money about 10 years ago, and the other three have all followed suit. There are many other examples in other sports, but, for the most part, those disparities have been evened out.
I don't know how much USA Basketball pays the members of the national teams, but the men's team is usually filled with NBA stars, so I wouldn't be surprised if they get more than the women do. After all, we all know how little the players in the WNBA make in relation to their NBA counterparts. It's so little, in fact, that many of them play overseas during the WNBA offseason...and make more money! Diana Taurasi makes so little in the WNBA that her Russian team paid her to sit out the 2015 WNBA season, and she still made more than she would've playing for the Mercury.
Will the women's soccer team actually boycott the Olympics? I doubt it. They know that it's one of only two marquee events they have, and they wouldn't exactly prove their point by depriving themselves of that opportunity. But right now, it's the only leverage they've got, so the threat was a smart move to force U.S. Soccer to take action.
At the very least, they've brought attention to a problem that needs to be addressed. There's absolutely no reason for the base salary to be different for the men's and women's teams. If you're on the senior national team, you're on the senior national team. Why should your gender matter? And you can't say they're paid based on performance, either. Because if that was the case, the women would make more, not less, than the men.
One of the reasons why the U.S. has one of the best national women's teams in the world is because the U.S. was one of the first to put money into its women's program. But it's clearly not as much as is being put into the men's program. That needs to change. It shouldn't have taken this long, or required this action, for people to realize that.
Friday, April 8, 2016
Fans Don't Pay to See Stars Sit
ESPN has been making a big deal all day that the Spurs were going to play their regular lineup for tonight's game against the Warriors. This after Spurs Coach Gregg Popovich made it a point to say that he cared more about his starters getting rest for the playoffs than getting the No. 1 seed in the playoffs, which the Warriors are probably going to get anyway. Am I the only one wondering why it's news that a team is planning on playing its regular starters for a game?
Unless they're injured or suspended or missing the game for some other reason, shouldn't the regular starters start every game? Yet, in the NBA, we see way more often than we should "DNP-Rest" for the stars. It may be the "Rest" part that bothers me the most, but, as a fan, I find that entire idea extremely irritating. Personally, I think it would be better if they didn't say anything at all, at least not until after the game.
What benefit is there in advertising that your top players won't be in the lineup? You're giving the other team a strategic advantage by knowing that they don't have to game plan for your best player. And you're sparing the fans from wasting their time by going to a game where they know the only guys they've ever actually heard of aren't going to play. Which kills the attendance.
Imagine for a second that kid whose favorite player is, to just pick somebody at random, Kevin Durant. He lives in Boston, so he only gets a chance to see Durant live once a year. He's all excited for the Celtics-Thunder game. Then he finds out Durant isn't going to play. Not because he's hurt, but because he needs "rest." Is that fair to that kid?
Joe DiMaggio once famously said that he gave his all every time out because some kid might be seeing him for the first time. That quote says a lot. It was a different time, but DiMaggio never took any games off because he needed to "rest."
There are plenty of people who don't have a problem with this. They'll point to football and baseball, and even hockey, and say that starters sit for "rest" in those sports, too. But there's a big difference between "resting" in those sports and basketball's version of "resting." In baseball, it might mean a guy doesn't start (or DH's) the day game after a night game. But that doesn't mean he's unavailable entirely. Yes, baseball teams do sit starters in September to prepare for the playoffs, which usually means they're lining up their pitching rotation. In baseball, you play virtually every day for six months, though. And guys will still need to get their at-bats, so you won't have a Spring Training game completely break out (unless it's a game like Phillies-Reds that completely doesn't matter).
Same thing in hockey. Rarely do goalies start both games of a back-to-back. But if a skater sits out, there's probably some sort of injury-related reason. The Montreal Canadiens just announced that goalie Carey Price and defenseman P.K. Subban won't play again for the rest of the season. They've both been dealing with injuries for a while and Montreal's out of the playoffs, so I don't see the problem with that.
And in football, the only time you'll ever find a team purposely not playing its starters would possibly be in Week 17 when their playoff seeding is already clinched. Do you know how many teams that actually applies to a season? This year, it was about three. And that includes the Arizona Cardinals, who took their starters out at halftime when they were getting crushed by the Seahawks.
The argument that those who have no problem with the Spurs sitting their starters make is that they're doing the same thing football teams do in advance of the playoffs. But a football team consists of 53 guys. On a basketball team, there's only 12. Sitting even two starters has a much bigger impact. That's 40 percent of your lineup! And, if he's really not going to play at all, that leaves you with just five guys on the bench. You're basically flat out saying that you don't care whether or not you win that game, compromising its integrity.
Really, I think my problem with it in the NBA is that it seems to be every star player. On every team. All season. If it was just the Spurs, you could write it off as Popovich. Or if it was just at the end of the season, you could say "OK, they're getting ready for the playoffs." But it's not. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it...other than that guys need "rest."
For some people, there's a simple solution to this problem. If you get rid of the back-to-backs (or the back-to-back-to-backs), then guys wouldn't need to take games off. I have no doubt that the NBA season can be a grind, and players do get banged up, so sometimes they do need to sit out because of legitimate injuries. But you're telling me, that for the millions of dollars these guys are making, they can't play three times in four days without needing a break? Please. (The rest they get in the playoffs, where it's like three days between games, is ridiculous, too.)
Don't chalk this up as another "Joe hates the NBA" rant. Because it goes beyond that. There's just something about seeing "DNP-Rest" in a box score that rubs me the wrong way. If a guy's not going to play in a particular game, that's his, the coach's and the team's prerogative.
But think about the fans who might want to see him play, potentially for the first (or last) time. Think about him. Does he want to see LeBron play or LeBron sit on the bench and "rest?" That's what I thought.
Unless they're injured or suspended or missing the game for some other reason, shouldn't the regular starters start every game? Yet, in the NBA, we see way more often than we should "DNP-Rest" for the stars. It may be the "Rest" part that bothers me the most, but, as a fan, I find that entire idea extremely irritating. Personally, I think it would be better if they didn't say anything at all, at least not until after the game.
What benefit is there in advertising that your top players won't be in the lineup? You're giving the other team a strategic advantage by knowing that they don't have to game plan for your best player. And you're sparing the fans from wasting their time by going to a game where they know the only guys they've ever actually heard of aren't going to play. Which kills the attendance.
Imagine for a second that kid whose favorite player is, to just pick somebody at random, Kevin Durant. He lives in Boston, so he only gets a chance to see Durant live once a year. He's all excited for the Celtics-Thunder game. Then he finds out Durant isn't going to play. Not because he's hurt, but because he needs "rest." Is that fair to that kid?
Joe DiMaggio once famously said that he gave his all every time out because some kid might be seeing him for the first time. That quote says a lot. It was a different time, but DiMaggio never took any games off because he needed to "rest."
There are plenty of people who don't have a problem with this. They'll point to football and baseball, and even hockey, and say that starters sit for "rest" in those sports, too. But there's a big difference between "resting" in those sports and basketball's version of "resting." In baseball, it might mean a guy doesn't start (or DH's) the day game after a night game. But that doesn't mean he's unavailable entirely. Yes, baseball teams do sit starters in September to prepare for the playoffs, which usually means they're lining up their pitching rotation. In baseball, you play virtually every day for six months, though. And guys will still need to get their at-bats, so you won't have a Spring Training game completely break out (unless it's a game like Phillies-Reds that completely doesn't matter).
Same thing in hockey. Rarely do goalies start both games of a back-to-back. But if a skater sits out, there's probably some sort of injury-related reason. The Montreal Canadiens just announced that goalie Carey Price and defenseman P.K. Subban won't play again for the rest of the season. They've both been dealing with injuries for a while and Montreal's out of the playoffs, so I don't see the problem with that.
And in football, the only time you'll ever find a team purposely not playing its starters would possibly be in Week 17 when their playoff seeding is already clinched. Do you know how many teams that actually applies to a season? This year, it was about three. And that includes the Arizona Cardinals, who took their starters out at halftime when they were getting crushed by the Seahawks.
The argument that those who have no problem with the Spurs sitting their starters make is that they're doing the same thing football teams do in advance of the playoffs. But a football team consists of 53 guys. On a basketball team, there's only 12. Sitting even two starters has a much bigger impact. That's 40 percent of your lineup! And, if he's really not going to play at all, that leaves you with just five guys on the bench. You're basically flat out saying that you don't care whether or not you win that game, compromising its integrity.
Really, I think my problem with it in the NBA is that it seems to be every star player. On every team. All season. If it was just the Spurs, you could write it off as Popovich. Or if it was just at the end of the season, you could say "OK, they're getting ready for the playoffs." But it's not. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it...other than that guys need "rest."
For some people, there's a simple solution to this problem. If you get rid of the back-to-backs (or the back-to-back-to-backs), then guys wouldn't need to take games off. I have no doubt that the NBA season can be a grind, and players do get banged up, so sometimes they do need to sit out because of legitimate injuries. But you're telling me, that for the millions of dollars these guys are making, they can't play three times in four days without needing a break? Please. (The rest they get in the playoffs, where it's like three days between games, is ridiculous, too.)
Don't chalk this up as another "Joe hates the NBA" rant. Because it goes beyond that. There's just something about seeing "DNP-Rest" in a box score that rubs me the wrong way. If a guy's not going to play in a particular game, that's his, the coach's and the team's prerogative.
But think about the fans who might want to see him play, potentially for the first (or last) time. Think about him. Does he want to see LeBron play or LeBron sit on the bench and "rest?" That's what I thought.
Monday, April 4, 2016
All-time All-UConn Team
Assuming UConn finishes the deal and wins its 11th National Championship tomorrow night, Breanna Stewart will complete the greatest career in college basketball history. Sure, you can argue that Bill Walton or Kareem was the greatest college basketball player ever, but freshmen weren't eligible during the UCLA dynasty years. So, Stewart and Moriah Jefferson would be the first basketball players in NCAA history (men or women) to win four National Championships in four years.
The crazy thing about Stewart, though, is that while her career will go down as the best in history, she's not the best player in program history. She's in my all-time UConn starting five, but I've only got her ranked third on my list of greatest Huskies ever, behind Maya Moore and Diana Taurasi.
But who else would be on an all-time All-UConn team? Well, who doesn't make it speaks to the absolute top-notch caliber of the players Geno Auriemma has brought to Storrs. As much as I wanted to include them, Renee Montgomery, Shea Ralph, Kerry Bascom and Kara Wolters don't even make the top 10. It's that loaded. In fact, you know what, throw in Tamika Williams and that's your All-Time All-UConn Third Team.
Moving on to the second team, we've got...
As for the greatest UConn team of all-time, I have to agree with Doris Burke. It's gotta be that 2001-02 squad that featured four players picked among the top six in the WNBA Draft. The Maya Moore-Tina Charles-Renee Montgomery teams that had the 90-game winning streak rank second, followed by the first undefeated championship squad in 1994-95, then the 40-0 team from two years ago that had Stefanie Dolson and Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis, as well as Stewart and Jefferson. The current team hasn't lost in two years, so they've got to rank pretty highly up there, too, but it's crazy to think that it's only the fifth-best undefeated group in school history.
The crazy thing about Stewart, though, is that while her career will go down as the best in history, she's not the best player in program history. She's in my all-time UConn starting five, but I've only got her ranked third on my list of greatest Huskies ever, behind Maya Moore and Diana Taurasi.
But who else would be on an all-time All-UConn team? Well, who doesn't make it speaks to the absolute top-notch caliber of the players Geno Auriemma has brought to Storrs. As much as I wanted to include them, Renee Montgomery, Shea Ralph, Kerry Bascom and Kara Wolters don't even make the top 10. It's that loaded. In fact, you know what, throw in Tamika Williams and that's your All-Time All-UConn Third Team.
Moving on to the second team, we've got...
- Nykesha Sales, 1994-98: She was a freshman on the first title team in 1994-95 and a First Team All-American as a senior. Her 2,178 career points were a UConn record when she graduated.
- Swin Cash, 1998-2002: Cash was only the third-best player on that outstanding 2001-02 team, but she's the one who was named Most Outstanding Performer at the Final Four before being taken second in the WNBA Draft. Two Olympic gold medals later, she's still chugging in the WNBA.
- Asjha Jones, 1998-2002: Asjha Jones, the fourth-best player on the 2001-02 team was Big East Tournament MVP that season. Oh, and she was picked fourth in the 2002 WNBA Draft.
- Rebecca Lobo, 1991-95: Someone had to be there at the beginning, and that woman was Rebecca Lobo. She was the National Player of the Year during that first championship season in 1994-95. Then, after winning gold with the 1996 Olympic team, she was one of the trailblazers during the WNBA's inaugural season, as well. Now, of course, she's one of ESPN's studio analysts during the women's tournament.
- Jennifer Rizzotti, 1992-96: After Lobo graduated, it was Rizzotti's turn to be National Player of the Year. The point guard on that 1994-95 team, she set school records (since broken) for assists and steals. Rizzotti may be UConn's coach-in-waiting once Geno decides to retire (whenever that is). She's been head coach at Hartford since 1999-2000 and led the Hawks to six NCAA Tournaments.
Now for the creme de la creme. The best of the best. The five greatest players in UConn history...
- Maya Moore, 2007-11: There's nobody who comes close to Maya Moore. UConn lost to Stanford in the Final Four during her freshman year. They didn't lose again until Maya was a senior, going a ridiculous 150-4 during her career. Along the way, she won three National Player of the Year awards and was a four-time All-American. UConn's all-time scoring leader (3036 points, fourth in NCAA history), she's the only women's player in history with 2500 points, 1000 rebounds, 500 assists, 250 steals and 150 blocks. Oh yeah, she was also a three-time First Team Academic All-American. And did I mention she's arguably the best player in the WNBA right now?
- Diana Taurasi, 2000-04: When everybody graduated after the 2001-02 season, Diana Taurasi was still there. And all she did was win two Naismith Trophies and lead the Huskies to two more National Championships. Prior to her last game, Geno described UConn's chances of winning as "We have Diana and you don't." That pretty much sums it up. All she's done since leaving UConn is win three WNBA titles, been named First Team All-WNBA nine times and be a stalwart on Team USA. She'll be going for her fourth straight Olympic gold in Rio.
- Breanna Stewart, 2012-16: Back when she was a wee freshman, I worked the regional in Bridgeport, where she was named MVP. That's when I knew we had the next UConn star on our hands. Baylor was supposed to win the title in Brittany Griner's senior year, but they got upset by Louisville and it was UConn that cut down the nets, with the freshman being named Final Four MVP. She's done that twice more and been National Player of the Year three times in the last three seasons. One more win and she'll be the first basketball player ever to graduate as a four-time National Champion. Oh, yeah, and UConn is 115-1 over the last three years.
- Sue Bird, 1998-2002: Sue Bird, without question, is the greatest point guard UConn has ever produced. They created the Nancy Lieberman Award for the best point guard in 2000, and she won the first three. She was also National Player of the Year during that 2001-02 season, when she had a ridiculous 231 assists! Like her backcourt mate Taurasi, Bird was the No. 1 pick in the WNBA Draft (Breanna Stewart will be her teammate in Seattle this season), as well as a three-time Olympic gold medalist.
- Tina Charles, 2006-10: Choosing the fifth player for the All-UConn First Team wasn't actually all that difficult. It's probably because she was a teammate of Maya Moore, but it's taken for granted how good Tina Charles actually was. She actually won one of the Player of the Year awards as a senior, preventing Maya from winning three in a row. She's the Huskies' all-time leading rebounder and is third in scoring (behind Moore and Stewart) and was the most dominant post player in the nation before Brittany Griner came along. Charles has since been a WNBA Rookie of the Year and MVP, and she'll likely be on her second Olympic team this summer.
Sunday, April 3, 2016
2016 Baseball Preview, Part 6
It's here! Baseball season is finally upon us! This year, instead of just our Sunday night teaser before Opening Day on Monday, we've got a whole slate of Sunday games, highlighted by the World Series rematch between the Mets and Royals.
But before all that, we've got to finish the season preview. As usual, Part 6 is the NL West, which once again boasts a pair of World Series contenders in the rival Giants and Dodgers. You've also got a Diamondbacks team that was more active than anybody during the offseason. Will it make Arizona a contender in the National League? They're the one team I have a question about. The Padres and Rockies...not so much.
In my opinion, the NL West title will once again come down to the Giants and Dodgers. Although, unlike recent seasons, the Dodgers probably don't come in as a clear favorite. They lost their second-best pitcher (to a division rival, no less), while San Francisco got better. This could be as tight a race as I'm expecting Mets-Nationals to be in the East.
1. San Francisco Giants: This is an even-numbered year, so there's really no need to even have a season. Just fast forward to October and the Giants' victory parade. And I'm not just saying that because of superstition. I'm saying that because the Giants are really, really good. For all the talk about the Mets and the NL Central teams, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see San Francisco's rite of even year October continue. Why? Because they might have the best pitching staff in the National League this side of the Mets. Madison Bumgarner is obviously a stud. Then they went out and added Johnny Cueto fresh off his World Series win in Kansas City, and Jeff Samardzija after that one-year stint with the White Sox. Add in Jake Peavy, who now drops to a more appropriate No. 4 in the rotation, and Matt Cain, who may finally be healthy, and you've got a pitching staff that isn't going to allow very many runs in 2016. They should score more than they have in the past, too. Adding Denard Span to play center field and leadoff was a great addition. That moves Angel Pagan to left and out of the leadoff spot, which makes the lineup even longer. Keeping guys healthy will be a key, though, especially the marquee names of Posey, Pence and Belt. Because outside of Gregor Blanco, they don't really have a bench. Injuries are probably the only thing that can derail the Giants this season. But their pitching, which also includes a dynamite bullpen, is so good that they might be able to overcome a DL trip here or there to one of their regulars. I wouldn't be surprised to see them make a trade deadline move, either.
Projected Lineup: Denard Span-CF, Joe Panik-2B, Buster Posey-C, Hunter Pence-RF, Brandon Belt-1B, Angel Pagan-LF, Matt Duffy-3B, Brandon Crawford-SS
Projected Rotation: Madison Bumgarner, Johnny Cueto, Jeff Samardzija, Jake Peavy, Matt Cain
Closer: Santiago Casilla
Projected Record: 90-72
2. Los Angeles Dodgers: Don Mattingly and the Dodgers came to a mutual decision that he should move on mainly because he couldn't get them out of the Division Series. Now it's Dave Roberts' turn to bear the weight of expectations in the City of Angels. Although, those expectations are a little more tempered this season. Why? Because Clayton Kershaw is now the only pitcher they've got, and he can only throw once every five days. Hyung-Jin Ryu, Brett Anderson and Brandon McCarthy are all still recovering from the injuries that forced them out last year. They replaced Greinke with Japanese stud Kenta Maeda, but who knows what to expect from him in his first season on this side of the Pacific? That deep lineup has always been their backup plan, but the bats were completely shut down by the Mets in the Division Series. They have cleaned the lineup up a little bit. Jimmy Rollins lost his job to early Rookie of the Year favorite Corey Seager last September, and he's now in Chicago. They still have the four outfielder problem, but Andre Ethier is currently injured, so they're OK for now on that front. Besides, Joc Pederson and Yasiel Puig can't go into the same hitting funks they went in last season. Pederson went from Rookie of the Year favorite and All-Star starter in July to batting eighth/benched in September and October, while Puig had more stretches than I can count in 2015 where he was virtually absent. That can't happen again. The Dodgers have so much talent that it's unrealistic and unfair to rely on Adrian Gonzalez and his continued brilliance to do all of the hitting for everyone. That lineup will get even stronger as they get starters back from injuries. At full strength, the Dodgers have the deepest lineup (starters & bench) in the game. For the last couple seasons, they've relied on their pitching to carry them. This year, I think those roles will reverse. Then maybe they can get Kershaw some help later in the season.
Projected Lineup: Carl Crawford-LF, Chase Utley-2B, Joc Pederson-CF, Adrian Gonzalez-1B, Yasiel Puig-RF, Corey Seager-SS, Justin Turner-3B, A.J. Ellis-C
Projected Rotation: Clayton Kershaw, Scott Kazmir, Kenta Maeda, Alex Wood, Ross Stripling
Closer: Kenley Jansen
Projected Record: 88-74
3. Arizona Diamondbacks: There's always that one team that's super active in the offseason, only to have none of those moves work as they struggle through a disappointing season. Last year, it was the Red Sox and Padres, the year before that it was the Blue Jays. The leading candidate for that award this year has to be the Arizona Diamondbacks. A complete overhaul that even included disgusting new uniforms was highlighted by the signing of Zack Greinke and the trade for Shelby Miller. Johnson and Schilling they're not, but they certainly give Arizona's pitching staff an instant upgrade, while moving Patrick Corbin down to a more appropriate No. 3 spot in the rotation. Problem is they didn't do much to address their offensive deficiencies. Paul Goldschmidt is probably the best player you've never heard of, and he's been the bedrock of this lineup for a while. They don't have anybody around him, though. And center fielder A.J. Pollock, arguably their second-best player, is out for a while (if not the entire season) after breaking his elbow in one of the final Spring Training games. That's where I think Arizona is going to struggle. They need to score runs, and they'll need someone other than Goldschmidt in order to do that. The Pollock injury moves Chris Owings to center field, while Nick Ahmed and former Brewer Jean Segura will anchor the middle infield (that was originally supposed to be a rotation between the three). They also need Yasmany Tomas to be the player they invested all that money in. You can't really say he did that last season. Arizona has the potential to surprise or, at the very least, be a spoiler. I just don't see how they're going to score enough runs to challenge the Dodgers and Giants, though.
Projected Lineup: Chris Owings-CF, David Peralta-RF, Paul Goldschmidt-1B, Yasmany Tomas-LF, Jean Segura-2B, Jake Lamb-3B, Nick Ahmed-SS, Wellington Castillo-C
Projected Rotation: Zack Greinke, Shelby Miller, Patrick Corbin, Rubby de la Rosa, Robbie Ray
Closer: Brad Ziegler
Projected Record: 81-81
4. Colorado Rockies: Ah, the Rockies. They have the opposite problem of the Diamondbacks. They've got a ton of bats, but no pitching. The hitting is a by-product of Coors Field, of course, by all of these guys have been All-Stars recently. Carlos Gonzalez and Nolan Arenado are studs, while I think Charlie Blackmon and D.J. LeMahieu are not all they're cracked up to be. One of their big additions was former Gold Glove winner Gerardo Parra in left field, who I think will be a good fit in Colorado. Last year, they got Jose Reyes at the trade deadline for Troy Tulowitzki, expecting him to be their leadoff hitter this season. Execpt Reyes is dealing with some legal troubles and won't be available until they're resolved. And who knows when that'll be? Their pitching is a big cause of concern, though. Behind veteran Jorge de la Rosa are a bunch of guys who'll have the challenge of keeping the ball in the park (at least enough for the Rockies to outscore the other team). The bullpen actually isn't that bad, with Chad Qualls and Boone Logan supporting new closer Jake McGee. Coloardo's problem isn't a lack of talent. It's being in the same division as the Giants and Dodgers. Their biggest competition will come from San Diego--in the battle to stay out of last place.
Projected Lineup: Gerardo Parra-LF, D.J. LeMahieu-2B, Carlos Gonzalez-RF, Nolan Arenado-3B, Charlie Blackmon-CF, Ben Paulsen-1B, Nick Hundley-C, Trevor Story-SS
Projected Rotation: Jorge de la Rosa, Chad Bettis, Tyler Chatwood, Jordan Lyles, Christian Bergman
Closer: Jake McGee
Projected Record: 72-90
5. San Diego Padres: The All-Star Game is at Petco Park this year. Sadly, that'll probably be the highlight of the Padres' season. Last year's overhaul in an attempt to be competitive didn't work, so this year they're taking a different approach. They traded Jedd Gyorko, one of their better young players, to St. Louis for center fielder Jon Jay and moved Wil Myers to first, where he'll hopefully stay healthy. They also have a new shortstop in Alexei Ramirez after deciding not to re-sign free agent Everth Cabrera. The Upton brothers have also been separated (which I think they'd even agree at this point is better for them). Justin left as a free agent and is now in Detroit. Will that turn the Artist Formerly Known as B.J. back into the player he was in Tampa instead of the one that was stealing money from the Braves? He did have a nice bounce back last year, his first in San Diego, though. Tyson Ross will actually be their Opening Day starter over James Shields, one of those big-name, big-money free agents they got last season. If there's anybody who needs a bounce-back it's Shields. He was a solid 13-7 in his first year in the National League, but had a 3.91 ERA. Except in the NL West, he couldn't go toe-to-toe with Kershaw and Bumgarner (you can throw Greinke in their now). So, I actually think dropping him to No. 2 in the rotation will help him. I actually don't think the Padres' rotation is that terrible. Ian Kennedy was a significant loss, though. In the bullpen, they've got Fernando Rodney, who goes back to his more-familiar closer role after doing a good job as a setup man for the Cubs after a trade with the Mariners last season.
Projected Lineup: Jon Jay-CF, Alexei Ramirez-SS, Matt Kemp-RF, Wil Myers-1B, Derek Norris-C, Melvin Upton Jr.-LF, Cory Spangenberg-2B, Yangervis Solarte-3B
Projected Rotation: Tyson Ross, James Shields, Andrew Cashner, Drew Pomeranz, Colin Rea
Closer: Fernando Rodney
Projected Record: 71-91
So, to sum everything up, here are my playoff teams in the National League:
East: Mets
Central: Cubs
West: Giants
Wild Card: Nationals vs. Dodgers
NL Champion: Giants
My World Series is the Giants vs. the Astros, and I'm sticking with the whole even-year thing. 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016. The Giants add another even-year championship to the collection.
But before all that, we've got to finish the season preview. As usual, Part 6 is the NL West, which once again boasts a pair of World Series contenders in the rival Giants and Dodgers. You've also got a Diamondbacks team that was more active than anybody during the offseason. Will it make Arizona a contender in the National League? They're the one team I have a question about. The Padres and Rockies...not so much.
In my opinion, the NL West title will once again come down to the Giants and Dodgers. Although, unlike recent seasons, the Dodgers probably don't come in as a clear favorite. They lost their second-best pitcher (to a division rival, no less), while San Francisco got better. This could be as tight a race as I'm expecting Mets-Nationals to be in the East.
1. San Francisco Giants: This is an even-numbered year, so there's really no need to even have a season. Just fast forward to October and the Giants' victory parade. And I'm not just saying that because of superstition. I'm saying that because the Giants are really, really good. For all the talk about the Mets and the NL Central teams, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see San Francisco's rite of even year October continue. Why? Because they might have the best pitching staff in the National League this side of the Mets. Madison Bumgarner is obviously a stud. Then they went out and added Johnny Cueto fresh off his World Series win in Kansas City, and Jeff Samardzija after that one-year stint with the White Sox. Add in Jake Peavy, who now drops to a more appropriate No. 4 in the rotation, and Matt Cain, who may finally be healthy, and you've got a pitching staff that isn't going to allow very many runs in 2016. They should score more than they have in the past, too. Adding Denard Span to play center field and leadoff was a great addition. That moves Angel Pagan to left and out of the leadoff spot, which makes the lineup even longer. Keeping guys healthy will be a key, though, especially the marquee names of Posey, Pence and Belt. Because outside of Gregor Blanco, they don't really have a bench. Injuries are probably the only thing that can derail the Giants this season. But their pitching, which also includes a dynamite bullpen, is so good that they might be able to overcome a DL trip here or there to one of their regulars. I wouldn't be surprised to see them make a trade deadline move, either.
Projected Lineup: Denard Span-CF, Joe Panik-2B, Buster Posey-C, Hunter Pence-RF, Brandon Belt-1B, Angel Pagan-LF, Matt Duffy-3B, Brandon Crawford-SS
Projected Rotation: Madison Bumgarner, Johnny Cueto, Jeff Samardzija, Jake Peavy, Matt Cain
Closer: Santiago Casilla
Projected Record: 90-72
2. Los Angeles Dodgers: Don Mattingly and the Dodgers came to a mutual decision that he should move on mainly because he couldn't get them out of the Division Series. Now it's Dave Roberts' turn to bear the weight of expectations in the City of Angels. Although, those expectations are a little more tempered this season. Why? Because Clayton Kershaw is now the only pitcher they've got, and he can only throw once every five days. Hyung-Jin Ryu, Brett Anderson and Brandon McCarthy are all still recovering from the injuries that forced them out last year. They replaced Greinke with Japanese stud Kenta Maeda, but who knows what to expect from him in his first season on this side of the Pacific? That deep lineup has always been their backup plan, but the bats were completely shut down by the Mets in the Division Series. They have cleaned the lineup up a little bit. Jimmy Rollins lost his job to early Rookie of the Year favorite Corey Seager last September, and he's now in Chicago. They still have the four outfielder problem, but Andre Ethier is currently injured, so they're OK for now on that front. Besides, Joc Pederson and Yasiel Puig can't go into the same hitting funks they went in last season. Pederson went from Rookie of the Year favorite and All-Star starter in July to batting eighth/benched in September and October, while Puig had more stretches than I can count in 2015 where he was virtually absent. That can't happen again. The Dodgers have so much talent that it's unrealistic and unfair to rely on Adrian Gonzalez and his continued brilliance to do all of the hitting for everyone. That lineup will get even stronger as they get starters back from injuries. At full strength, the Dodgers have the deepest lineup (starters & bench) in the game. For the last couple seasons, they've relied on their pitching to carry them. This year, I think those roles will reverse. Then maybe they can get Kershaw some help later in the season.
Projected Lineup: Carl Crawford-LF, Chase Utley-2B, Joc Pederson-CF, Adrian Gonzalez-1B, Yasiel Puig-RF, Corey Seager-SS, Justin Turner-3B, A.J. Ellis-C
Projected Rotation: Clayton Kershaw, Scott Kazmir, Kenta Maeda, Alex Wood, Ross Stripling
Closer: Kenley Jansen
Projected Record: 88-74
3. Arizona Diamondbacks: There's always that one team that's super active in the offseason, only to have none of those moves work as they struggle through a disappointing season. Last year, it was the Red Sox and Padres, the year before that it was the Blue Jays. The leading candidate for that award this year has to be the Arizona Diamondbacks. A complete overhaul that even included disgusting new uniforms was highlighted by the signing of Zack Greinke and the trade for Shelby Miller. Johnson and Schilling they're not, but they certainly give Arizona's pitching staff an instant upgrade, while moving Patrick Corbin down to a more appropriate No. 3 spot in the rotation. Problem is they didn't do much to address their offensive deficiencies. Paul Goldschmidt is probably the best player you've never heard of, and he's been the bedrock of this lineup for a while. They don't have anybody around him, though. And center fielder A.J. Pollock, arguably their second-best player, is out for a while (if not the entire season) after breaking his elbow in one of the final Spring Training games. That's where I think Arizona is going to struggle. They need to score runs, and they'll need someone other than Goldschmidt in order to do that. The Pollock injury moves Chris Owings to center field, while Nick Ahmed and former Brewer Jean Segura will anchor the middle infield (that was originally supposed to be a rotation between the three). They also need Yasmany Tomas to be the player they invested all that money in. You can't really say he did that last season. Arizona has the potential to surprise or, at the very least, be a spoiler. I just don't see how they're going to score enough runs to challenge the Dodgers and Giants, though.
Projected Lineup: Chris Owings-CF, David Peralta-RF, Paul Goldschmidt-1B, Yasmany Tomas-LF, Jean Segura-2B, Jake Lamb-3B, Nick Ahmed-SS, Wellington Castillo-C
Projected Rotation: Zack Greinke, Shelby Miller, Patrick Corbin, Rubby de la Rosa, Robbie Ray
Closer: Brad Ziegler
Projected Record: 81-81
4. Colorado Rockies: Ah, the Rockies. They have the opposite problem of the Diamondbacks. They've got a ton of bats, but no pitching. The hitting is a by-product of Coors Field, of course, by all of these guys have been All-Stars recently. Carlos Gonzalez and Nolan Arenado are studs, while I think Charlie Blackmon and D.J. LeMahieu are not all they're cracked up to be. One of their big additions was former Gold Glove winner Gerardo Parra in left field, who I think will be a good fit in Colorado. Last year, they got Jose Reyes at the trade deadline for Troy Tulowitzki, expecting him to be their leadoff hitter this season. Execpt Reyes is dealing with some legal troubles and won't be available until they're resolved. And who knows when that'll be? Their pitching is a big cause of concern, though. Behind veteran Jorge de la Rosa are a bunch of guys who'll have the challenge of keeping the ball in the park (at least enough for the Rockies to outscore the other team). The bullpen actually isn't that bad, with Chad Qualls and Boone Logan supporting new closer Jake McGee. Coloardo's problem isn't a lack of talent. It's being in the same division as the Giants and Dodgers. Their biggest competition will come from San Diego--in the battle to stay out of last place.
Projected Lineup: Gerardo Parra-LF, D.J. LeMahieu-2B, Carlos Gonzalez-RF, Nolan Arenado-3B, Charlie Blackmon-CF, Ben Paulsen-1B, Nick Hundley-C, Trevor Story-SS
Projected Rotation: Jorge de la Rosa, Chad Bettis, Tyler Chatwood, Jordan Lyles, Christian Bergman
Closer: Jake McGee
Projected Record: 72-90
5. San Diego Padres: The All-Star Game is at Petco Park this year. Sadly, that'll probably be the highlight of the Padres' season. Last year's overhaul in an attempt to be competitive didn't work, so this year they're taking a different approach. They traded Jedd Gyorko, one of their better young players, to St. Louis for center fielder Jon Jay and moved Wil Myers to first, where he'll hopefully stay healthy. They also have a new shortstop in Alexei Ramirez after deciding not to re-sign free agent Everth Cabrera. The Upton brothers have also been separated (which I think they'd even agree at this point is better for them). Justin left as a free agent and is now in Detroit. Will that turn the Artist Formerly Known as B.J. back into the player he was in Tampa instead of the one that was stealing money from the Braves? He did have a nice bounce back last year, his first in San Diego, though. Tyson Ross will actually be their Opening Day starter over James Shields, one of those big-name, big-money free agents they got last season. If there's anybody who needs a bounce-back it's Shields. He was a solid 13-7 in his first year in the National League, but had a 3.91 ERA. Except in the NL West, he couldn't go toe-to-toe with Kershaw and Bumgarner (you can throw Greinke in their now). So, I actually think dropping him to No. 2 in the rotation will help him. I actually don't think the Padres' rotation is that terrible. Ian Kennedy was a significant loss, though. In the bullpen, they've got Fernando Rodney, who goes back to his more-familiar closer role after doing a good job as a setup man for the Cubs after a trade with the Mariners last season.
Projected Lineup: Jon Jay-CF, Alexei Ramirez-SS, Matt Kemp-RF, Wil Myers-1B, Derek Norris-C, Melvin Upton Jr.-LF, Cory Spangenberg-2B, Yangervis Solarte-3B
Projected Rotation: Tyson Ross, James Shields, Andrew Cashner, Drew Pomeranz, Colin Rea
Closer: Fernando Rodney
Projected Record: 71-91
So, to sum everything up, here are my playoff teams in the National League:
East: Mets
Central: Cubs
West: Giants
Wild Card: Nationals vs. Dodgers
NL Champion: Giants
My World Series is the Giants vs. the Astros, and I'm sticking with the whole even-year thing. 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016. The Giants add another even-year championship to the collection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)