That may sound like a really simple question, but as the David Ortiz Retirement Tour reaches its final stop, it's one worth asking. On the surface, the answer is obvious. He's the greatest DH in history and he's won three World Series rings for a franchise that had gone 86 years without a championship before he arrived. But there's so much more to it than that.
First, we've got to deal with the elephant in the room. Ortiz is having such a great year that many are questioning whether or not he's actually going to retire. I have no doubt that he will. He wouldn't have announced it so early and gotten the Derek Jeter/Mariano Rivera-type Farewell Tour if he wasn't. If Oritz was having second thoughts, he wouldn't have announced it in Spring Training. He would've waited until midseason like Mark Teixeira did and avoided the pomp & circumstance that came with every road series this season.
And it's not like having a sensational final season is unprecedented, either. There are plenty of examples. Remember what Mariano Rivera did just three years ago? Was anyone suggesting he wasn't serious about retirement? Likewise, John Elway was MVP of the Super Bowl in his final game. Or we can take it back all the way to April, when some guy named Kobe had 60 points in his finale.
Maybe the early announcement took some of the pressure off Ortiz this season. He didn't have the weight of thinking about it on him all season. He was able to go out there and just play, leaving it all out on the field because he knew this was going to be it. Yes, he's still got it. But maybe that's part of the reason, too. Remember how A-Rod's career ended a few weeks ago? Or how Ken Griffey, Jr., the man who got more Hall of Fame votes than any person in history, simply got in his car and drove home to Florida in the middle of a horrible season with Seattle? Ortiz wants to leave the game while he's still got something to give it. You've got to respect that.
Now, let me make one thing clear. As a Yankees fan, I absolutely despise David Ortiz. For obvious reasons. Not only did he deliver three Red Sox championships, he was an absolute Yankee killer throughout his entire career.
With that being said, though, I respect the hell out of him. He's made himself a legend in Boston because of the way he played the game, especially in the big moments. He deserves all of the love and admiration he has been shown. That speech prior to the Red Sox' first home game after the Boston Marathon bombings was so poignant and moving. It was exactly what that city needed. And it'll be a great day in Boston when his number is retired.
But...and this is a big BUT, Ortiz was named in the Mitchell Report. That's what complicates what would otherwise be a slam-dunk (home run?) Hall of Fame case. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are the poster boys for the Steroid Era, which also includes Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro and others who would otherwise be sure-fire Hall of Famers if not for their association with PEDs. And I'm fairly certain A-Rod won't be sitting by the phone waiting for the Hall of Fame's call five years from now.
The Hall of Fame voters have made it pretty clear what their stance on anyone with even the hint of steroid use is. I'm not saying Ortiz did take steroids, but he was named in the Mitchell Report, which will likely be enough for some of the voters. And if it isn't, if those voters who've professed they'll never vote for a PED "user" check off David Ortiz's name, how do they justify voting for him over others whose "guilt" is nothing more than suspicion or a mention in the Mitchell Report?
David Ortiz would absolutely get a nonexistent "vote" from me, but that's probably not a surprise, seeing as my stance on the Steroid Era has been the same for quite some time. My point remains though. If you're one of those hard-line guys who's sworn to never vote for anyone associated with steroids, how could you vote for him and not any of the others? See the conundrum?
If it was based strictly on what he accomplished on the field, there's absolutely no doubt all of New England would invade Cooperstown on a late July day in 2022 for David Ortiz's Hall of Fame induction. And he still may be inducted. He might get the Mike Piazza treatment and have to wait a few years because of the suspicion about him. I'm sure being a DH will probably be held against him, too, even though it shouldn't. (It's a position! It's been one for 40 years! Get over it!)
Ultimately, I do think Big Papi will one day get a plaque in Cooperstown. The steroid suspicion surrounding him is much less than it is around others. But even if he doesn't, that's not going to matter to Red Sox fans. He brought them three championships (maybe four) and became a legend in New England. Even if that's all he gets, it might be enough.
There are plenty around baseball who are going to miss Big Papi. Those of us in New York are not among them. He won't be hitting three-run homers against the Yankees anymore. Thank God!
Friday, September 30, 2016
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
An Emotional Tribute, A Teammate Gone Too Soon
Ever since Sunday morning, I've been trying to make sense of the death of Marlins pitcher Jose Fernandez. Not only was he Miami's best player, he was one of the most exciting young pitchers in the game. Then I realized there really isn't a way to make sense of it. Sometimes this sort of stuff just happens.
Then I tried to find any sort of similar situations. And the only one even remotely comparable was Thurman Munson. A popular player in his prime gone way too soon. Trying to figure out why was pointless. But there were still games to play.
The connection between Munson and Fernandez became even deeper on Monday night. Back in 1979, the Yankees flew to Munson's funeral in Ohio, then played a nationally-televised game against the Orioles that night. And Bobby Murcer, one of Munson's closest friends on the team, drove in all five runs, including the game-winning hit, in a 5-4 victory.
After rightfully cancelling their game against the Braves on Sunday, the Marlins played the Mets on Monday in their first game without their ace. Miami may be out of the playoff race, but I've never seen a team get a more emotional win. It started with Dee Gordon taking his first at-bat from the opposite batter's box wearing Fernandez's batting helmet, then ending that at-bat with his first home run of the season. Miami poured it on. And afterwards, they all silently gathered around the pitcher's mound in honor of their fallen teammate before leaving their hats on the mound.
I hate Jackie Robinson Day. I think everybody wearing 42 defeats the purpose. But when the Marlins all took the field wearing Fernandez's jersey on Monday night, it seemed right. It was the best tribute possible. And that's the last time the number 16 will ever be seen on the back of a Marlins jersey. Jose Fernandez was on his way to an outstanding career. Perhaps the best for any pitcher in franchise history. It's only appropriate that the number 16 will forever be his.
It wasn't just the Marlins that paid tribute to Fernandez, one of the brightest-shining young stars in the game. The Cardinals gave shortstop Aledmys Diaz permission to be with Fernandez's family at a private service on Monday morning. On Tuesday night, he hit his first career grand slam in his friend's honor. (St. Louis, remember, had to cope with the death of outfielder Oscar Tavares during last year's World Series.) The Mets, Miami's opponent on Monday night, hung a Hernandez jersey in their dugout on Sunday afternoon...then signed it and gave it to the Marlins. They weren't alone in the gesture. The Cubs did the same thing. So did the Dodgers. And the Twins. It's moments like this when it's obvious that baseball players, regardless of team, truly are a family.
Of course, the sad irony is that Fernandez was likely only out on Saturday night because his start got pushed back a day. He was supposed to start that game on Monday that became a tribute to him. Fernandez was originally scheduled to pitch on Sunday, but was given an extra day to accomodate Tom Koehler's return from the DL. Instead, it was Koehler that started in Fernandez's place on Monday.
Jose Fernandez wasn't just beloved in Miami. He was beloved around the Major Leagues. If you saw the Marlins' press conference on Sunday morning, you saw how devastated they all were. Don Mattingly could barely keep himself together, and the team president had to push the microphone away because he started weeping uncontrollably. The entire team went to the stadium when the game was supposed to going on and painted a number 16 on the mound, then left his glove there. During their postgame tribute, Giancarlo Stanton turned his jersey around so that Fernandez's name was facing forwards.
What impact this will eventually have is anybody's guess. The Marlins are already out of the playoff race, so the final week of their 2016 season will strictly be about their fallen teammate. And I'm sure next year on Opening Day in Washington and again in their home opener against Atlanta, they'll do something to honor Fernandez. Whether that means nobody goes out to the mound when everyone else takes the field or something else I don't know.
Miami is hosting next year's All-Star Game, too. Hernandez was a two-time All-Star. He likely would've been pitching in his third in his home park. It's a tragic shame that he won't be. Because Jose Fernandez shined in the big moments.
Authorities are still investigating the crash and trying to determine if any factors other than extreme speed were in play. Frankly, none of those details even matter. Because they're not going to change anything. One of the best, most dynamic, most exciting young pitchers in baseball is gone. Jose Fernandez was only 24. He had such a bright future ahead of him. Now his career is just a memory. And we're left wishing there were more memories for him to make.
Then I tried to find any sort of similar situations. And the only one even remotely comparable was Thurman Munson. A popular player in his prime gone way too soon. Trying to figure out why was pointless. But there were still games to play.
The connection between Munson and Fernandez became even deeper on Monday night. Back in 1979, the Yankees flew to Munson's funeral in Ohio, then played a nationally-televised game against the Orioles that night. And Bobby Murcer, one of Munson's closest friends on the team, drove in all five runs, including the game-winning hit, in a 5-4 victory.
After rightfully cancelling their game against the Braves on Sunday, the Marlins played the Mets on Monday in their first game without their ace. Miami may be out of the playoff race, but I've never seen a team get a more emotional win. It started with Dee Gordon taking his first at-bat from the opposite batter's box wearing Fernandez's batting helmet, then ending that at-bat with his first home run of the season. Miami poured it on. And afterwards, they all silently gathered around the pitcher's mound in honor of their fallen teammate before leaving their hats on the mound.
I hate Jackie Robinson Day. I think everybody wearing 42 defeats the purpose. But when the Marlins all took the field wearing Fernandez's jersey on Monday night, it seemed right. It was the best tribute possible. And that's the last time the number 16 will ever be seen on the back of a Marlins jersey. Jose Fernandez was on his way to an outstanding career. Perhaps the best for any pitcher in franchise history. It's only appropriate that the number 16 will forever be his.
It wasn't just the Marlins that paid tribute to Fernandez, one of the brightest-shining young stars in the game. The Cardinals gave shortstop Aledmys Diaz permission to be with Fernandez's family at a private service on Monday morning. On Tuesday night, he hit his first career grand slam in his friend's honor. (St. Louis, remember, had to cope with the death of outfielder Oscar Tavares during last year's World Series.) The Mets, Miami's opponent on Monday night, hung a Hernandez jersey in their dugout on Sunday afternoon...then signed it and gave it to the Marlins. They weren't alone in the gesture. The Cubs did the same thing. So did the Dodgers. And the Twins. It's moments like this when it's obvious that baseball players, regardless of team, truly are a family.
Of course, the sad irony is that Fernandez was likely only out on Saturday night because his start got pushed back a day. He was supposed to start that game on Monday that became a tribute to him. Fernandez was originally scheduled to pitch on Sunday, but was given an extra day to accomodate Tom Koehler's return from the DL. Instead, it was Koehler that started in Fernandez's place on Monday.
Jose Fernandez wasn't just beloved in Miami. He was beloved around the Major Leagues. If you saw the Marlins' press conference on Sunday morning, you saw how devastated they all were. Don Mattingly could barely keep himself together, and the team president had to push the microphone away because he started weeping uncontrollably. The entire team went to the stadium when the game was supposed to going on and painted a number 16 on the mound, then left his glove there. During their postgame tribute, Giancarlo Stanton turned his jersey around so that Fernandez's name was facing forwards.
What impact this will eventually have is anybody's guess. The Marlins are already out of the playoff race, so the final week of their 2016 season will strictly be about their fallen teammate. And I'm sure next year on Opening Day in Washington and again in their home opener against Atlanta, they'll do something to honor Fernandez. Whether that means nobody goes out to the mound when everyone else takes the field or something else I don't know.
Miami is hosting next year's All-Star Game, too. Hernandez was a two-time All-Star. He likely would've been pitching in his third in his home park. It's a tragic shame that he won't be. Because Jose Fernandez shined in the big moments.
Authorities are still investigating the crash and trying to determine if any factors other than extreme speed were in play. Frankly, none of those details even matter. Because they're not going to change anything. One of the best, most dynamic, most exciting young pitchers in baseball is gone. Jose Fernandez was only 24. He had such a bright future ahead of him. Now his career is just a memory. And we're left wishing there were more memories for him to make.
Sunday, September 25, 2016
2016 NFL Week 3
Well, we've established that it really doesn't matter who's playing quarterback for the Patriots. I could be under center and they'd still win. If I was the Patriots' quarterback for an entire season, we'd still probably go 12-4 and host a playoff game.
As you can tell, I was way off with my pick for the Thursday night game this week. Maybe the Texans thought they were supposed to be playing New England on Sunday. Whatever the reason was, they didn't show up. Hopefully the rest of the league doesn't have that problem as we hit Week 3.
Cardinals (1-1) at Bills (0-2): Arizona-I don't know what's going on with the Bills. They held the Ravens to 13 points, then gave up 37 against the Jets. It was the offensive coordinator that bit the bullet, but you've gotta wonder how much Rex's brother is to blame for Buffalo's 0-2 start. Arizona, meanwhile, hits the road for the first time after splitting a pair of home games. We'll see how the Cardinals fare after the cross country trip.
Broncos (2-0) at Bengals (1-1): Cincinnati-What happened to our Bengals-Broncos Week 16 Monday night game? Instead they meet in Week 3. And it's a big one for both teams. Cincinnati hasn't had the easiest schedule to start (at Jets, Pittsburgh, Denver), but neither has Denver (Carolina, Indianapolis, at Cincinnati). The Bengals already have a loss to the Steelers, which means if they lose to the Broncos, too, they'll have already put themselves in a bad position when it comes to playoff tiebreakers. I think they'll be ready for the challenge.
Lions (1-1) at Packers (1-1): Green Bay-Is it just me, or has Aaron Rodgers not looked like himself this season? The Packers' opener against Jacksonville was too close for comfort, and then they go drop a division game against the rival Vikings. You can somewhat write off last week as the excitement over opening the new stadium, but that doesn't change the fact Rodgers threw an interception on the final drive that essentially sealed the game for Minnesota. If there was ever a team that needed the comforts of home, this is it. And they're not leaving Lambeau for a while, either. After their bye, they have three straight home games, which means it's five weeks until Green Bay travels again. A great chance to gain some confidence and get a winning streak going.
Raiders (1-1) at Titans (1-1): Oakland-After opening with two straight against the NFC South, the Raiders finally play an AFC team. The same is true for the Titans, who opened against Minnesota before getting that one-point win last week in Detroit. One of these squads will be a surprising 2-1. Although, I won't be that surprised if it's Oakland.
Browns (0-2) at Dolphins (0-2): Miami-One of them has to win! As has been widely documented over the last week, Cleveland is using its fifth different starting quarterback in its last five games dating back to Week 16 of last season (by the way, Brady will be New England's fourth straight this year alone when he returns in Week 5). And I can't say I'm excited about the prospect of this one, either. I had to look it up to know its Cody Kessler. Johnny Manzeil's still available if they want to make it six straight next week.
Redskins (0-2) at Giants (2-0): Giants-Last year, the Giants lost so many close games it was excruciating. And it's ultimately what cost Tom Coughlin his job. This season under Ben McAdoo, they're 2-for-2. They've beaten the Cowboys and Saints by a combined four points in their first two games. That's enough to make them one of three 2-0 teams in the NFC. On the other end of the spectrum, we have the Redskins. Which is not entirely a surprise. Washington usually gives the Giants a game, and I expect this to be no different. I expect a third close Giants win to start the season, though.
Vikings (2-0) at Panthers (1-1): Carolina-Sam Bradford has done everything right during the Vikings' 2-0 start (ironic that Minnesota and Philly have the same record, isn't it?). Except now Minnesota's offense will need to consist of more than turning around and giving the ball to Adrian Peterson. The Panthers, meanwhile, got their mojo back in that blowout win over San Francisco in their home opener. This one will be tough on Bradford.
Ravens (2-0) at Jaguars (0-2): Baltimore-Of the eight teams to start 2-0, Baltimore may be the most surprising. The Ravens scored just 13 points in their season-opening win, which is a credit to their defense allowing just seven. Then last week, they gave up 20 points in the first quarter before shutting Cleveland out the rest of the way in a 25-20 come-from-behind win. If you look at Jacksonville's 0-2 mark, you'd think "same old Jaguars," but this team is much improved. This will be a game, and a Jaguars win wouldn't shock me, but I'm going with the Ravens.
49ers (1-1) at Seahawks (1-1): Seattle-Will the real San Francisco 49ers please stand up? They had that dominant Monday night win in the opener (which they did last year, too, by the way), then got smacked around in Carolina last week. The Seahawks, meanwhile, have managed a grand total of 15 points against Miami and Los Angeles. They've clearly got some offensive issues they need to figure out. The good thing for them is that they've got a winnable home game in which to work on them.
Rams (1-1) at Buccaneers (1-1): Tampa Bay-Los Angeles makes its first cross-country trek in more than 20 years (the road trips tend to be shorter when you're right smack in the middle) still looking for its first touchdown of the season. Although, considering they played Seattle last week and won without one, I'm sure Jeff Fisher will take 1-1 right now. They'll need to finally get that TD this week, though, if they're going to entertain beating Jamies Winston and Co. in the Bucs' home opener.
Chargers (1-1) at Colts (0-2): Indianapolis-The good news for the Colts is that their 0-2 start hasn't really hurt them, especially with the Texans losing on Thursday night. That doesn't mean I recommend an 0-3 start, though. They already blew their home opener against Detroit. San Diego's another team that they should beat at home. This time, I don't see them squandering the opportunity.
Jets (1-1) at Chiefs (1-1): Kansas City-Twice this season Kansas City hasn't gotten off to a good start. They got away with it against the Chargers, coming all the way back to win in overtime, but didn't last week in that playoff rematch with the Texans. They're gonna need to figure out how to play better first quarters. Because they won't be able to come back on everybody. Teams like the Jets are fully capable of taking advantage of those slow starts by the Chiefs. I think Kansas City will find a way again, though.
Steelers (2-0) at Eagles (2-0): Pittsburgh-Both Pennsylvania teams come into their matchup at 2-0, but they've gotten there in different ways. It looks like the Eagles made the right decision on Carson Wentz. He's the first rookie to start 2-0 with no turnovers since 1970. The Steelers, meanwhile, have looked every bit as dominant as some experts predicted they would be. That win in Cincinnati last week was proof of that. So who stays undefeated and earns Keystone State supremacy? I think Wentz's luck runs out. It'll be the Steelers.
Bears (0-2) at Cowboys (1-1): Dallas-So it turns out all that worrying Dallas fans were doing about life without Tony Romo was unnecessary. Because Dak Prescott has proven to be a more than acceptable alternative. Cowboys fans are no longer worrying about when Romo's coming back. If they are, it's because they're worried Prescott will get them off to something good and Romo will screw it up.
Falcons (1-1) at Saints (0-2): New Orleans-In our Monday night game, it's an NFC South matchup. Both of these teams have played Oakland. The Saints lost to the Raiders, the Falcons beat them. But you can't use that alone to judge their seasons so far. New Orleans lost on a two-point conversion against Oakland and a last-second field goal last week. They're 0-2 by a combined four points. I think luck has had more to do with their record than anything else. They won't be in a position to lose another close one this week. I see the Saints winning by at least a touchdown, probably double-digits.
This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 11-5
Overall: 21-12
As you can tell, I was way off with my pick for the Thursday night game this week. Maybe the Texans thought they were supposed to be playing New England on Sunday. Whatever the reason was, they didn't show up. Hopefully the rest of the league doesn't have that problem as we hit Week 3.
Cardinals (1-1) at Bills (0-2): Arizona-I don't know what's going on with the Bills. They held the Ravens to 13 points, then gave up 37 against the Jets. It was the offensive coordinator that bit the bullet, but you've gotta wonder how much Rex's brother is to blame for Buffalo's 0-2 start. Arizona, meanwhile, hits the road for the first time after splitting a pair of home games. We'll see how the Cardinals fare after the cross country trip.
Broncos (2-0) at Bengals (1-1): Cincinnati-What happened to our Bengals-Broncos Week 16 Monday night game? Instead they meet in Week 3. And it's a big one for both teams. Cincinnati hasn't had the easiest schedule to start (at Jets, Pittsburgh, Denver), but neither has Denver (Carolina, Indianapolis, at Cincinnati). The Bengals already have a loss to the Steelers, which means if they lose to the Broncos, too, they'll have already put themselves in a bad position when it comes to playoff tiebreakers. I think they'll be ready for the challenge.
Lions (1-1) at Packers (1-1): Green Bay-Is it just me, or has Aaron Rodgers not looked like himself this season? The Packers' opener against Jacksonville was too close for comfort, and then they go drop a division game against the rival Vikings. You can somewhat write off last week as the excitement over opening the new stadium, but that doesn't change the fact Rodgers threw an interception on the final drive that essentially sealed the game for Minnesota. If there was ever a team that needed the comforts of home, this is it. And they're not leaving Lambeau for a while, either. After their bye, they have three straight home games, which means it's five weeks until Green Bay travels again. A great chance to gain some confidence and get a winning streak going.
Raiders (1-1) at Titans (1-1): Oakland-After opening with two straight against the NFC South, the Raiders finally play an AFC team. The same is true for the Titans, who opened against Minnesota before getting that one-point win last week in Detroit. One of these squads will be a surprising 2-1. Although, I won't be that surprised if it's Oakland.
Browns (0-2) at Dolphins (0-2): Miami-One of them has to win! As has been widely documented over the last week, Cleveland is using its fifth different starting quarterback in its last five games dating back to Week 16 of last season (by the way, Brady will be New England's fourth straight this year alone when he returns in Week 5). And I can't say I'm excited about the prospect of this one, either. I had to look it up to know its Cody Kessler. Johnny Manzeil's still available if they want to make it six straight next week.
Redskins (0-2) at Giants (2-0): Giants-Last year, the Giants lost so many close games it was excruciating. And it's ultimately what cost Tom Coughlin his job. This season under Ben McAdoo, they're 2-for-2. They've beaten the Cowboys and Saints by a combined four points in their first two games. That's enough to make them one of three 2-0 teams in the NFC. On the other end of the spectrum, we have the Redskins. Which is not entirely a surprise. Washington usually gives the Giants a game, and I expect this to be no different. I expect a third close Giants win to start the season, though.
Vikings (2-0) at Panthers (1-1): Carolina-Sam Bradford has done everything right during the Vikings' 2-0 start (ironic that Minnesota and Philly have the same record, isn't it?). Except now Minnesota's offense will need to consist of more than turning around and giving the ball to Adrian Peterson. The Panthers, meanwhile, got their mojo back in that blowout win over San Francisco in their home opener. This one will be tough on Bradford.
Ravens (2-0) at Jaguars (0-2): Baltimore-Of the eight teams to start 2-0, Baltimore may be the most surprising. The Ravens scored just 13 points in their season-opening win, which is a credit to their defense allowing just seven. Then last week, they gave up 20 points in the first quarter before shutting Cleveland out the rest of the way in a 25-20 come-from-behind win. If you look at Jacksonville's 0-2 mark, you'd think "same old Jaguars," but this team is much improved. This will be a game, and a Jaguars win wouldn't shock me, but I'm going with the Ravens.
49ers (1-1) at Seahawks (1-1): Seattle-Will the real San Francisco 49ers please stand up? They had that dominant Monday night win in the opener (which they did last year, too, by the way), then got smacked around in Carolina last week. The Seahawks, meanwhile, have managed a grand total of 15 points against Miami and Los Angeles. They've clearly got some offensive issues they need to figure out. The good thing for them is that they've got a winnable home game in which to work on them.
Rams (1-1) at Buccaneers (1-1): Tampa Bay-Los Angeles makes its first cross-country trek in more than 20 years (the road trips tend to be shorter when you're right smack in the middle) still looking for its first touchdown of the season. Although, considering they played Seattle last week and won without one, I'm sure Jeff Fisher will take 1-1 right now. They'll need to finally get that TD this week, though, if they're going to entertain beating Jamies Winston and Co. in the Bucs' home opener.
Chargers (1-1) at Colts (0-2): Indianapolis-The good news for the Colts is that their 0-2 start hasn't really hurt them, especially with the Texans losing on Thursday night. That doesn't mean I recommend an 0-3 start, though. They already blew their home opener against Detroit. San Diego's another team that they should beat at home. This time, I don't see them squandering the opportunity.
Jets (1-1) at Chiefs (1-1): Kansas City-Twice this season Kansas City hasn't gotten off to a good start. They got away with it against the Chargers, coming all the way back to win in overtime, but didn't last week in that playoff rematch with the Texans. They're gonna need to figure out how to play better first quarters. Because they won't be able to come back on everybody. Teams like the Jets are fully capable of taking advantage of those slow starts by the Chiefs. I think Kansas City will find a way again, though.
Steelers (2-0) at Eagles (2-0): Pittsburgh-Both Pennsylvania teams come into their matchup at 2-0, but they've gotten there in different ways. It looks like the Eagles made the right decision on Carson Wentz. He's the first rookie to start 2-0 with no turnovers since 1970. The Steelers, meanwhile, have looked every bit as dominant as some experts predicted they would be. That win in Cincinnati last week was proof of that. So who stays undefeated and earns Keystone State supremacy? I think Wentz's luck runs out. It'll be the Steelers.
Bears (0-2) at Cowboys (1-1): Dallas-So it turns out all that worrying Dallas fans were doing about life without Tony Romo was unnecessary. Because Dak Prescott has proven to be a more than acceptable alternative. Cowboys fans are no longer worrying about when Romo's coming back. If they are, it's because they're worried Prescott will get them off to something good and Romo will screw it up.
Falcons (1-1) at Saints (0-2): New Orleans-In our Monday night game, it's an NFC South matchup. Both of these teams have played Oakland. The Saints lost to the Raiders, the Falcons beat them. But you can't use that alone to judge their seasons so far. New Orleans lost on a two-point conversion against Oakland and a last-second field goal last week. They're 0-2 by a combined four points. I think luck has had more to do with their record than anything else. They won't be in a position to lose another close one this week. I see the Saints winning by at least a touchdown, probably double-digits.
This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 11-5
Overall: 21-12
Friday, September 23, 2016
Brian Cashman For Executive of the Year
After a few weeks where it looked like they might actually somehow sneak into the wild card race, the Yankees finally appear to be officially out of the playoffs. This is no surprise to anyone. They've never really been in the race, and anybody who thought they were was fooling themselves. It's really a miracle that they were considered "contenders" for this long.
They were terrible in April, slightly less bad in May, and decent in June. Pretty much every game over the first three months of the season followed the same script--either they hit a few solo homers in a 4-2 loss, or they actually did get a few hits, but no pitching and lost 10-8.
It got to the point that the Yankees found themselves in the unusual position of being sellers at the trade deadline. First they sent Aroldis Chapman to the Cubs, then traded Andrew Miller to the Indians, turning No Runs DMC (the only thing on the team worth watching during the first half of the season) into No Runs D. Then it was their best player, Carlos Beltran, getting shipped to Texas. Oh yeah, and A-Rod was essentially fired in the middle of all this, too.
Then something crazy happened. They got good. The Yankees were 52-52 on August 1. On September 1, they were 69-63. They hit their high-water mark on September 10, when they won to go 11 games over .500 at 76-65. In other words, a team that was .500 after 100 games (they were actually 52-48 after 100 games, but you get my point) went 24-13 (a .649 winning percentage) over their next 37. And this after getting rid of the three best players on the team!
I've never seen a team overhaul their roster this much in the middle of the season. Let alone get better after making such massive changes. In fairness, there are only about 10 players from the Opening Day roster no longer on the team, but Mark Teixeira and Brian McCann have also seen their playing time drop significantly, so it really does seem like an entirely new squad.
That's why I think Brian Cashman deserves some serious consideration for Executive of the Year. When the Yankees made all of their deadline moves, Cashman and Joe Girardi both insisted that they weren't throwing in the towel for 2016. It turns out they were right. Some people thought they were making room for Gary Sanchez, Aaron Judge and Co. to give them extended auditions for 2017 and beyond. Well, guess what? Those guys are the reason for the turnaround. Not only are they better than the guys they replaced, they had no idea what they were doing (and I mean that in a good way). The Baby Bombers brought a new energy that had been missing for quite a while. Suddenly the Yankees were fun to watch again. And it was all because they did a complete reset at midseason.
A popular debate among baseball experts right now is Gary Sanchez's Rookie of the Year candidacy. Now, I don't think a guy who's only been in the Majors for two months deserves to be Rookie of the Year over someone who's been in the Big Leagues all season. And I do think the Tigers' Michael Fuhlmer will win (which he deserves to). But Sanchez does deserve consideration, even if he doesn't end up winning the award.
What Sanchez has done since being promoted permanently in August is unprecedented. He's hitting home runs at a record clip, and is definitely the most exciting Yankees rookie since Robinson Cano. Sanchez is so impressive that he got Alex Rodriguez fired, turned Brian McCann into a platoon player/pinch hitter (although, I'd love to see McCann return next season as the DH), and become the everyday No. 3 hitter for the New York Yankees. And don't be surprised if he occupies that lineup spot for years to come.
To say Gary Sanchez, Aaron Judge and Co. are the main reason for the Yankees turnaround wouldn't be a stretch. And that's another reason why he belongs in the Rookie of the Year conversation. Again, I don't think he should or will win, but Cashman and Girardi's instincts about the Major-League ready talent the Yankees had waiting in the wings was right on. (It should be worth noting that Scranton/Wilkes-Barre won the Triple A championship without all those guys who got called up.)
None of these moves were made with 2016 in mind. Yet they hung around in the wild card race much longer than anyone anticipated. And they restocked the farm system at the same time, which didn't go unnoticed by other organizations. They came much closer to the playoffs in 2016 than anybody thought they would, all while preparing to be really good in 2017-18. Brian Cashman should get as much credit for that as the players he promoted to the Major Leagues.
Gary Sanchez won't be the AL Rookie of the Year and Brian Cashman won't be the AL Executive of the Year (you've gotta think that's going to be Ben Cherington). But don't be surprised if the last three months of the 2016 season marked the beginning of the next great Yankees dynasty.
They were terrible in April, slightly less bad in May, and decent in June. Pretty much every game over the first three months of the season followed the same script--either they hit a few solo homers in a 4-2 loss, or they actually did get a few hits, but no pitching and lost 10-8.
It got to the point that the Yankees found themselves in the unusual position of being sellers at the trade deadline. First they sent Aroldis Chapman to the Cubs, then traded Andrew Miller to the Indians, turning No Runs DMC (the only thing on the team worth watching during the first half of the season) into No Runs D. Then it was their best player, Carlos Beltran, getting shipped to Texas. Oh yeah, and A-Rod was essentially fired in the middle of all this, too.
Then something crazy happened. They got good. The Yankees were 52-52 on August 1. On September 1, they were 69-63. They hit their high-water mark on September 10, when they won to go 11 games over .500 at 76-65. In other words, a team that was .500 after 100 games (they were actually 52-48 after 100 games, but you get my point) went 24-13 (a .649 winning percentage) over their next 37. And this after getting rid of the three best players on the team!
I've never seen a team overhaul their roster this much in the middle of the season. Let alone get better after making such massive changes. In fairness, there are only about 10 players from the Opening Day roster no longer on the team, but Mark Teixeira and Brian McCann have also seen their playing time drop significantly, so it really does seem like an entirely new squad.
That's why I think Brian Cashman deserves some serious consideration for Executive of the Year. When the Yankees made all of their deadline moves, Cashman and Joe Girardi both insisted that they weren't throwing in the towel for 2016. It turns out they were right. Some people thought they were making room for Gary Sanchez, Aaron Judge and Co. to give them extended auditions for 2017 and beyond. Well, guess what? Those guys are the reason for the turnaround. Not only are they better than the guys they replaced, they had no idea what they were doing (and I mean that in a good way). The Baby Bombers brought a new energy that had been missing for quite a while. Suddenly the Yankees were fun to watch again. And it was all because they did a complete reset at midseason.
A popular debate among baseball experts right now is Gary Sanchez's Rookie of the Year candidacy. Now, I don't think a guy who's only been in the Majors for two months deserves to be Rookie of the Year over someone who's been in the Big Leagues all season. And I do think the Tigers' Michael Fuhlmer will win (which he deserves to). But Sanchez does deserve consideration, even if he doesn't end up winning the award.
What Sanchez has done since being promoted permanently in August is unprecedented. He's hitting home runs at a record clip, and is definitely the most exciting Yankees rookie since Robinson Cano. Sanchez is so impressive that he got Alex Rodriguez fired, turned Brian McCann into a platoon player/pinch hitter (although, I'd love to see McCann return next season as the DH), and become the everyday No. 3 hitter for the New York Yankees. And don't be surprised if he occupies that lineup spot for years to come.
To say Gary Sanchez, Aaron Judge and Co. are the main reason for the Yankees turnaround wouldn't be a stretch. And that's another reason why he belongs in the Rookie of the Year conversation. Again, I don't think he should or will win, but Cashman and Girardi's instincts about the Major-League ready talent the Yankees had waiting in the wings was right on. (It should be worth noting that Scranton/Wilkes-Barre won the Triple A championship without all those guys who got called up.)
None of these moves were made with 2016 in mind. Yet they hung around in the wild card race much longer than anyone anticipated. And they restocked the farm system at the same time, which didn't go unnoticed by other organizations. They came much closer to the playoffs in 2016 than anybody thought they would, all while preparing to be really good in 2017-18. Brian Cashman should get as much credit for that as the players he promoted to the Major Leagues.
Gary Sanchez won't be the AL Rookie of the Year and Brian Cashman won't be the AL Executive of the Year (you've gotta think that's going to be Ben Cherington). But don't be surprised if the last three months of the 2016 season marked the beginning of the next great Yankees dynasty.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Streaming Sports
We're coming up on the second week of the NFL streaming Thursday Night Football on Twitter, which, by all accounts, was a rousing success during its initial run last week. And, of course, the broadcast of last year's Bills-Jaguars game was exclusively on Yahoo.
Last Friday, the day after the game, I had a conversation with somebody about the Twitter stream, and he loved it. He's one of the many people that no longer has cable and was thankful he had the opportunity to watch the game. He even argued that this is the wave of the future. That eventually you'll only be able to watch games on your computer and cable will no longer be a thing.
I quickly dismissed that argument as asinine. For starters, cable companies are smart. In order to watch most online programming, you need to first enter your cable login...which means you can't watch it unless you have a cable subscription. And with cable you don't need to deal with buffering or the screen freezing or anything like that. And, I think I'm like most people here, but if given the option of watching a game on TV or on my computer, I'm picking the TV. Even with Netflix and Hulu and Amazon producing original programming that you can only watch online, that doesn't mean TV as we've always known it is going anywhere.
That doesn't mean I dismiss live streaming of sports. Quite the opposite actually. Webcasting has completely changed the game. In a good way. It's not going anywhere, and I don't think anyone wants it to--including the TV networks. They use streaming to their benefit. It allows them to do different things and show so many more events than they'd ever be able to show if they only had 24 hours of programming a day available to them. None of this is a bad thing.
Take ESPN3. That has completely changed the way people watch college sports. They show so many football and basketball games, a lot of which are exclusive. Some schools and conferences have even signed deals with ESPN3 to have all of their home events streamed, and that includes soccer, baseball, softball, etc., as well as conference championship track and swimming meets, among others. Most Division I schools (and some at the lower levels) stream their home games themselves if they aren't on TV or ESPN3, and virtually every league has a conference-wide streaming platform.
None of this would be possible without a platform to stream these events on, and it's something that fans have come to expect. In addition to all these events, ESPN3 gives ESPN the ability to broadcast multiple events at once...or to show things live before editing them for future broadcast. They can also utilize different camera angles or have dedicated cameras for certain teams or individual players. You can't do that if you only have the standard game broadcast, which has to be the traditional, neutral coverage.
Likewise, NBC has taken its usual amount of Olympic criticism for its coverage from Rio. But one thing they can't be criticized for is the ability to watch whatever event you want whenever you want. They streamed every event live on NBCOlympics.com, and they were all made available On Demand, as well (I was actually watching some of the Olympic track & field earlier this evening).
Fans have only had this option since 2012, but it has completely changed Olympic viewing. If you're a fan of badminton, you don't have to hope NBC shows it on one of its networks. You can watch it online as it's happening. In the past, badminton fans would've been lucky to see any coverage at all. Which isn't entirely NBC's fault. They simply don't have enough broadcast hours to show these niche sports at the expense of the marquee events that are going to draw better ratings.
It's so much more than that, though. Thanks to the internet, you can watch virtually any event you can think of, from virtually anywhere in the world. I got to watch the European Championships in track & field on the European Athletics website, and NBC Sports Live Extra has all kinds of Olympic sports programming that they picked up after Universal Sports Network went under. You can also purchase a subscription to watch sports like cycling or figure skating or skiing online. Sports that don't have enough of an audience to justify TV airtime, yet are still worthwhile enough viewing to show them somewhere. Without the online option, these sports wouldn't be seen at all.
And I haven't even touched on things like MLB.tv, which lets you watch any out-of-market game you want. If you live in St. Louis and you're a Red Sox fan, you can just pull up the NESN broadcast and watch the Red Sox game. I took full advantage of that to watch the Yankees when I was in San Francisco earlier this year. (In the interest of full disclosure, my MLB.tv subscription is free because I'm a T-Mobile customer, but that's not the only reason why I think it's great.) The NHL's streaming platform, meanwhile, is so successful, that MLB recently bought it for $1.2 billion.
All of this, of course, gives you the option of watching the game not just on your TV. You can watch it on your computer, your iPad, your phone, whatever. Live streaming doesn't mark the beginning of the end of televised sports (after all, live streaming, if you think about it, essentially IS a TV broadcast). Rather, live streaming has enhanced televised sports. And that relationship will only grow stronger in the future.
Last Friday, the day after the game, I had a conversation with somebody about the Twitter stream, and he loved it. He's one of the many people that no longer has cable and was thankful he had the opportunity to watch the game. He even argued that this is the wave of the future. That eventually you'll only be able to watch games on your computer and cable will no longer be a thing.
I quickly dismissed that argument as asinine. For starters, cable companies are smart. In order to watch most online programming, you need to first enter your cable login...which means you can't watch it unless you have a cable subscription. And with cable you don't need to deal with buffering or the screen freezing or anything like that. And, I think I'm like most people here, but if given the option of watching a game on TV or on my computer, I'm picking the TV. Even with Netflix and Hulu and Amazon producing original programming that you can only watch online, that doesn't mean TV as we've always known it is going anywhere.
That doesn't mean I dismiss live streaming of sports. Quite the opposite actually. Webcasting has completely changed the game. In a good way. It's not going anywhere, and I don't think anyone wants it to--including the TV networks. They use streaming to their benefit. It allows them to do different things and show so many more events than they'd ever be able to show if they only had 24 hours of programming a day available to them. None of this is a bad thing.
Take ESPN3. That has completely changed the way people watch college sports. They show so many football and basketball games, a lot of which are exclusive. Some schools and conferences have even signed deals with ESPN3 to have all of their home events streamed, and that includes soccer, baseball, softball, etc., as well as conference championship track and swimming meets, among others. Most Division I schools (and some at the lower levels) stream their home games themselves if they aren't on TV or ESPN3, and virtually every league has a conference-wide streaming platform.
None of this would be possible without a platform to stream these events on, and it's something that fans have come to expect. In addition to all these events, ESPN3 gives ESPN the ability to broadcast multiple events at once...or to show things live before editing them for future broadcast. They can also utilize different camera angles or have dedicated cameras for certain teams or individual players. You can't do that if you only have the standard game broadcast, which has to be the traditional, neutral coverage.
Likewise, NBC has taken its usual amount of Olympic criticism for its coverage from Rio. But one thing they can't be criticized for is the ability to watch whatever event you want whenever you want. They streamed every event live on NBCOlympics.com, and they were all made available On Demand, as well (I was actually watching some of the Olympic track & field earlier this evening).
Fans have only had this option since 2012, but it has completely changed Olympic viewing. If you're a fan of badminton, you don't have to hope NBC shows it on one of its networks. You can watch it online as it's happening. In the past, badminton fans would've been lucky to see any coverage at all. Which isn't entirely NBC's fault. They simply don't have enough broadcast hours to show these niche sports at the expense of the marquee events that are going to draw better ratings.
It's so much more than that, though. Thanks to the internet, you can watch virtually any event you can think of, from virtually anywhere in the world. I got to watch the European Championships in track & field on the European Athletics website, and NBC Sports Live Extra has all kinds of Olympic sports programming that they picked up after Universal Sports Network went under. You can also purchase a subscription to watch sports like cycling or figure skating or skiing online. Sports that don't have enough of an audience to justify TV airtime, yet are still worthwhile enough viewing to show them somewhere. Without the online option, these sports wouldn't be seen at all.
And I haven't even touched on things like MLB.tv, which lets you watch any out-of-market game you want. If you live in St. Louis and you're a Red Sox fan, you can just pull up the NESN broadcast and watch the Red Sox game. I took full advantage of that to watch the Yankees when I was in San Francisco earlier this year. (In the interest of full disclosure, my MLB.tv subscription is free because I'm a T-Mobile customer, but that's not the only reason why I think it's great.) The NHL's streaming platform, meanwhile, is so successful, that MLB recently bought it for $1.2 billion.
All of this, of course, gives you the option of watching the game not just on your TV. You can watch it on your computer, your iPad, your phone, whatever. Live streaming doesn't mark the beginning of the end of televised sports (after all, live streaming, if you think about it, essentially IS a TV broadcast). Rather, live streaming has enhanced televised sports. And that relationship will only grow stronger in the future.
Monday, September 19, 2016
The Paralympics Come to a Close
This year was really the first time that I watched more than just a few minutes of the Paralympics. And, honestly, I was missing out. Because these athletes are incredible to watch. From the eight-foot tall Iranian sitting volleyball player to the Egyptian table tennis player with no arms to the sheer skill and athleticism of the wheelchair rugby players (talk about brutal, that sport is called "murderball" for a reason). There are so many amazing athletes in the Paralympics that deserve to have their stories told. (Although, my feelings on certain publicity-seeking Paralympians remain unchanged.)
And NBC did a great job of telling those stories. They've received criticism in the past (mainly from the IOC and IPC) for their lack of coverage in the past, but this year NBC showed more of the Paralympics they ever have before.
I have no idea what their final ratings for Rio will end up looking like, but the Paralympics put NBC in a tough spot. They invest so many resources and dedicate so much air time to the Olympics because they know the audience is there. The Paralympics are part of the deal, though, both for the host city and the broadcasters. In the past, NBC has explained its lack of Paralympic coverage by arguing that the interest in the Paralympics simply isn't there. Although, it's tough to build interest if there's nowhere to watch the Paralympic events, which presents an interesting catch-22 for NBC.
Maybe this increased exposure will result in increased interest in the Paralympics. Paralympians were included in the Team USA commercials alongside the Olympians, and athletes like Tatyana McFadden and Jessica Long have become just as well-known. The Paralympics are only going to continue to grow, too. Especially if anybody saw how intense and competitive those wheelchair basketball and wheelchair rugby games were.
One of the other cool things about the Paralympics is the range of the athletes. Their athletic peak is much different than that of able-bodied Olympians. Rio was Jessica Long's fourth Paralympics. She's only 24. She made her debut at 12 in Athens. There were plenty of teenagers, but there were also a number of 40-somethings. Likewise, there were athletes who've had their condition since berth, as well as army vets who lost a limb in war and those who suffered some sort of catastrophic injury or illness at various ages. It truly is a diverse collection of athletes.
Although, the Paralympics are difficult to follow. There are so many different classifications that all the different numbers can get confusing. Especially since they have different events in the different classifications, which may or may not be the same. I understand why they do this. These athletes have different levels of disability and they have to make the playing field as level as they can. Having an artificial leg is much different than being blind, which is different still than having a limited range of motion. But that doesn't make it any easier for those of us on the outside looking in to know what number stands for what or who competes against who. Even though it's sometimes obvious.
That might be why NBCSN focused so heavily on the team sports. In wheelchair basketball or wheelchair rugby or sitting volleyball, you're not sitting there trying to figure out why the athletes are in a certain class. The athletes are assigned a point value based on their level of disability and the players on the court have to add up to a certain number, but you don't need to know whose point value is what to understand what you're watching.
From all accounts, the fans have enjoyed what they've been seeing, too. There were worries about lagging ticket sales heading into the Paralympics. But from the events I've seen, the venues were either sold out or close to it. Some Paralympic events even drew better than some Olympic events in the same venue! The Paralympics are more accessible and the competition is just as good.
Some have suggested that the Paralympics be integrated into the Olympics somehow. Whether that means combining them into a single entity or holding the Paralympics immediately after the Olympics end instead of the current gap of a few weeks, I don't know. But either would be a mistake. Because that won't increase exposure or interest in the Paralympics. I think it would actually have the reverse effect. The Paralympics would lose their identity. Those events would just be Olympic events like all the others.
The Paralympics are never going to be the Olympics. And that's OK. They still deserve their own spotlight. Which is why the Paralympics are perfect the way they are. They just need to be appreciated. That appreciation will only continue to grow as the Paralympics gain more exposure. And that exposure will only come if the Paralympics and Olympics remain separate but equal entities.
And NBC did a great job of telling those stories. They've received criticism in the past (mainly from the IOC and IPC) for their lack of coverage in the past, but this year NBC showed more of the Paralympics they ever have before.
I have no idea what their final ratings for Rio will end up looking like, but the Paralympics put NBC in a tough spot. They invest so many resources and dedicate so much air time to the Olympics because they know the audience is there. The Paralympics are part of the deal, though, both for the host city and the broadcasters. In the past, NBC has explained its lack of Paralympic coverage by arguing that the interest in the Paralympics simply isn't there. Although, it's tough to build interest if there's nowhere to watch the Paralympic events, which presents an interesting catch-22 for NBC.
Maybe this increased exposure will result in increased interest in the Paralympics. Paralympians were included in the Team USA commercials alongside the Olympians, and athletes like Tatyana McFadden and Jessica Long have become just as well-known. The Paralympics are only going to continue to grow, too. Especially if anybody saw how intense and competitive those wheelchair basketball and wheelchair rugby games were.
One of the other cool things about the Paralympics is the range of the athletes. Their athletic peak is much different than that of able-bodied Olympians. Rio was Jessica Long's fourth Paralympics. She's only 24. She made her debut at 12 in Athens. There were plenty of teenagers, but there were also a number of 40-somethings. Likewise, there were athletes who've had their condition since berth, as well as army vets who lost a limb in war and those who suffered some sort of catastrophic injury or illness at various ages. It truly is a diverse collection of athletes.
Although, the Paralympics are difficult to follow. There are so many different classifications that all the different numbers can get confusing. Especially since they have different events in the different classifications, which may or may not be the same. I understand why they do this. These athletes have different levels of disability and they have to make the playing field as level as they can. Having an artificial leg is much different than being blind, which is different still than having a limited range of motion. But that doesn't make it any easier for those of us on the outside looking in to know what number stands for what or who competes against who. Even though it's sometimes obvious.
That might be why NBCSN focused so heavily on the team sports. In wheelchair basketball or wheelchair rugby or sitting volleyball, you're not sitting there trying to figure out why the athletes are in a certain class. The athletes are assigned a point value based on their level of disability and the players on the court have to add up to a certain number, but you don't need to know whose point value is what to understand what you're watching.
From all accounts, the fans have enjoyed what they've been seeing, too. There were worries about lagging ticket sales heading into the Paralympics. But from the events I've seen, the venues were either sold out or close to it. Some Paralympic events even drew better than some Olympic events in the same venue! The Paralympics are more accessible and the competition is just as good.
Some have suggested that the Paralympics be integrated into the Olympics somehow. Whether that means combining them into a single entity or holding the Paralympics immediately after the Olympics end instead of the current gap of a few weeks, I don't know. But either would be a mistake. Because that won't increase exposure or interest in the Paralympics. I think it would actually have the reverse effect. The Paralympics would lose their identity. Those events would just be Olympic events like all the others.
The Paralympics are never going to be the Olympics. And that's OK. They still deserve their own spotlight. Which is why the Paralympics are perfect the way they are. They just need to be appreciated. That appreciation will only continue to grow as the Paralympics gain more exposure. And that exposure will only come if the Paralympics and Olympics remain separate but equal entities.
Sunday, September 18, 2016
2016 NFL Week 2
Well, Week 1 sure was something, wasn't it? Four one-point games, two two-point games (which would've been three if not for that meaningless last-play safety in the Lions-Colts game), and an overtime game in Kansas City that saw a crazy Chiefs comeback. Oh yeah, and New England won when nobody expected them to because, well, that's just what the Patriots do.
I also didn't notice this until the games were actually being played, but there were 10! interconference games in Week 1. That's kinda crazy if you think about it. In Week 2, we make up for it. Only two interconference tilts, with most of the games this week division matchups. We've also got the NFL's return to LA (which wasn't last week why?) and the opening of the Vikings' new stadium (with Sam Bradford at quarterback for the home team).
With all those division games on tap, we're gonna see some intense rivalries come to the surface. None more so than the first Bengals-Steelers game since last year's playoffs. One of those intriguing division games already happened, with the Jetropolitans beating their old coach for the first time, prompting Rex to fire his offensive coordinator after just two games.
Now on to the rest of the league...
Ravens (1-0) at Browns (0-1): Baltimore-Cleveland got smacked around last week in Philly and lost RG3 for two months. He never even got to play a home game before getting hurt! The Ravens, meanwhile, won despite scoring only 13 points. They probably won't need much more than that this week, either.
Titans (0-1) at Lions (1-0): Detroit-Detroit's win in Indianapolis was perhaps the most surprising result in Week 1. We didn't know what kind of a team the Lions would put on the field in game one of the Post-Megatron Era. But all indications look good so far. Granted, it was only one week, but it was on the road against a good Colts team. The Titans aren't good, so the Lions should be able to do it again in their home opener.
Dolphins (0-1) at Patriots (1-0): New England-While Tom Brady's off playing catch with Jim Harbaugh in Ann Arbor, his team takes the field with Jimmy Garroppolo under center in the first of three straight home games before Brady comes back. If Patriots fans were worried about Garroppolo, they're not anymore. And this was one of the games people figured New England would win anyway, so I have no reason to go against the Patriots here.
Saints (0-1) at Giants (1-0): Giants-New Orleans missed an extra point--and ended up losing to the Raiders when Jack Del Rio made the gutsy decision to go for two. The Giants, meanwhile, won by one--helped in large part by the Cowboys' clock mismanagement. You know they want to atone for coming up on the short end of that shootout in the Superdome last year, and you know they'll want to impress in Ben McAdoo's first home game as head coach.
Bengals (1-0) at Steelers (1-0): Pittsburgh-Definitely one of the most-anticipated matchups of the week. Cincinnati will give Pittsburgh its best shot after handing the Steelers that playoff game in January. And they won't have Vontaze Burfict because of his stupid penalty that helped lead to that winning Pittsburgh field goal. It would've been better for them if he was playing. Because the Steelers are clear favorites here.
Cowboys (0-1) at Redskins (0-1): Dallas-It's too early to call a Week 2 game a "must-win," but this one sure seems like it. Especially for the Cowboys. Because a Dallas loss wouldn't just make them 0-2, it would make them 0-2 in the division. Things are already going to be difficult for them without Romo, but the playoff hopes would be all but gone if that happened. That's why I'm taking Dallas in this one.
49ers (1-0) at Panthers (0-1): Carolina-Ron Rivera is still on the whole Week 1 Super Bowl rematch thing. He says he feels "disrespected" that they didn't open at home. Well, you know what dude? Get over it! The NFL only scheduled you in Denver to start the season because of the unique opportunity to have a Super Bowl rematch. It had nothing to do with you or how they feel about your team, which should've won that game, by the way. They'll take it out on the 49ers, who aren't as good as their 28-0 win over the Rams might make some people want to believe.
Chiefs (1-0) at Texans (1-0): Kansas City-Bengals-Steelers isn't the only Week 2 AFC Wild Card Game rematch. Although, the Kansas City-Houston playoff matchup was significantly less competitive. Houston has been waiting months to get another shot at them, and the Texans will have a much better showing this time. But after what the Chiefs managed to pull off last week, how can you go against them?
Seahawks (1-0) at Rams (0-1): Seattle-Can someone explain to me (1) why the Rams opened on the road and (2) why their first home game is against Seattle? Last week's Monday night game against San Francisco should've been the NFL's triumphant return to the City of Angels. Instead, it'll be Russell Wilson and Co. that get the honor of winning the first NFL game in Los Angeles since Christmas Eve 1994 (when, ironically enough, both the Rams and Raiders were home).
Buccaneers (1-0) at Cardinals (0-1): Arizona-Most people figured that the team heading into this game 1-0 would be Arizona. But the heavily-favored Cardinals got dropped by the Brady-less Patriots. Which makes this game that much more important. They can't start 0-2 if they want to win the division. Especially since they're already a game behind the Seahawks.
Colts (0-1) at Broncos (1-0): Denver-Peyton Manning's retirement has taken most (if not all) of the luster out of the Indianapolis-Denver matchup, hasn't it? There's still this, though. The Colts are visiting Denver for the first time since that 2014 divisional playoff. That's motivation enough for the Super Bowl champs.
Falcons (0-1) at Raiders (1-0): Oakland-Jack Del Rio gave everyone an indication of what this year might be like for the Raiders when he went for the win last week in New Orleans...and it paid off! If this is the beginning of their final season in Oakland before moving to Las Vegas, it could be a good one for the Raiders. Traveling cross country and getting a win in always a tough task, especially when it's a trip you only make once every eight years, which is how frequently Atlanta visits Oakland.
Jaguars (0-1) at Chargers (0-1): San Diego-Last week, both of these teams showed us how improved they are. Yet one of them is still going to start the season 0-2. Unfortunately, I think that's probably going to be Gus Bradley's guys. Even though they completely impressed me against the Packers.
Packers (1-0) at Vikings (1-0): Green Bay-See, now this is the way you open a new stadium. Sunday Night Football against your biggest rivals. The same one that you beat in Week 17 last year to snag the division title. Except you're already down to your third quarterback, and said rival is among the preseason Super Bowl favorites. Al and Cris are excited to see the stadium that's going to host next year's Super Bowl. So am I. This should be a good one.
Eagles (1-0) at Bears (0-1): Philadelphia-A group of Eagles players have announced that they're going to join in Colin Kaepernick's national anthem protest on Monday night. So I guess this is just a thing now, huh? I guess that's good. Because eventually people will stop caring enough for it to be a "story" every week. As for the game, Philly will have played Cleveland and Chicago, which would make them probably the weakest 2-0 team in the league, but a 2-0 team nonetheless.
Last Week: 10-6
This Week: 1-0
Season: 11-6
I also didn't notice this until the games were actually being played, but there were 10! interconference games in Week 1. That's kinda crazy if you think about it. In Week 2, we make up for it. Only two interconference tilts, with most of the games this week division matchups. We've also got the NFL's return to LA (which wasn't last week why?) and the opening of the Vikings' new stadium (with Sam Bradford at quarterback for the home team).
With all those division games on tap, we're gonna see some intense rivalries come to the surface. None more so than the first Bengals-Steelers game since last year's playoffs. One of those intriguing division games already happened, with the Jetropolitans beating their old coach for the first time, prompting Rex to fire his offensive coordinator after just two games.
Now on to the rest of the league...
Ravens (1-0) at Browns (0-1): Baltimore-Cleveland got smacked around last week in Philly and lost RG3 for two months. He never even got to play a home game before getting hurt! The Ravens, meanwhile, won despite scoring only 13 points. They probably won't need much more than that this week, either.
Titans (0-1) at Lions (1-0): Detroit-Detroit's win in Indianapolis was perhaps the most surprising result in Week 1. We didn't know what kind of a team the Lions would put on the field in game one of the Post-Megatron Era. But all indications look good so far. Granted, it was only one week, but it was on the road against a good Colts team. The Titans aren't good, so the Lions should be able to do it again in their home opener.
Dolphins (0-1) at Patriots (1-0): New England-While Tom Brady's off playing catch with Jim Harbaugh in Ann Arbor, his team takes the field with Jimmy Garroppolo under center in the first of three straight home games before Brady comes back. If Patriots fans were worried about Garroppolo, they're not anymore. And this was one of the games people figured New England would win anyway, so I have no reason to go against the Patriots here.
Saints (0-1) at Giants (1-0): Giants-New Orleans missed an extra point--and ended up losing to the Raiders when Jack Del Rio made the gutsy decision to go for two. The Giants, meanwhile, won by one--helped in large part by the Cowboys' clock mismanagement. You know they want to atone for coming up on the short end of that shootout in the Superdome last year, and you know they'll want to impress in Ben McAdoo's first home game as head coach.
Bengals (1-0) at Steelers (1-0): Pittsburgh-Definitely one of the most-anticipated matchups of the week. Cincinnati will give Pittsburgh its best shot after handing the Steelers that playoff game in January. And they won't have Vontaze Burfict because of his stupid penalty that helped lead to that winning Pittsburgh field goal. It would've been better for them if he was playing. Because the Steelers are clear favorites here.
Cowboys (0-1) at Redskins (0-1): Dallas-It's too early to call a Week 2 game a "must-win," but this one sure seems like it. Especially for the Cowboys. Because a Dallas loss wouldn't just make them 0-2, it would make them 0-2 in the division. Things are already going to be difficult for them without Romo, but the playoff hopes would be all but gone if that happened. That's why I'm taking Dallas in this one.
49ers (1-0) at Panthers (0-1): Carolina-Ron Rivera is still on the whole Week 1 Super Bowl rematch thing. He says he feels "disrespected" that they didn't open at home. Well, you know what dude? Get over it! The NFL only scheduled you in Denver to start the season because of the unique opportunity to have a Super Bowl rematch. It had nothing to do with you or how they feel about your team, which should've won that game, by the way. They'll take it out on the 49ers, who aren't as good as their 28-0 win over the Rams might make some people want to believe.
Chiefs (1-0) at Texans (1-0): Kansas City-Bengals-Steelers isn't the only Week 2 AFC Wild Card Game rematch. Although, the Kansas City-Houston playoff matchup was significantly less competitive. Houston has been waiting months to get another shot at them, and the Texans will have a much better showing this time. But after what the Chiefs managed to pull off last week, how can you go against them?
Seahawks (1-0) at Rams (0-1): Seattle-Can someone explain to me (1) why the Rams opened on the road and (2) why their first home game is against Seattle? Last week's Monday night game against San Francisco should've been the NFL's triumphant return to the City of Angels. Instead, it'll be Russell Wilson and Co. that get the honor of winning the first NFL game in Los Angeles since Christmas Eve 1994 (when, ironically enough, both the Rams and Raiders were home).
Buccaneers (1-0) at Cardinals (0-1): Arizona-Most people figured that the team heading into this game 1-0 would be Arizona. But the heavily-favored Cardinals got dropped by the Brady-less Patriots. Which makes this game that much more important. They can't start 0-2 if they want to win the division. Especially since they're already a game behind the Seahawks.
Colts (0-1) at Broncos (1-0): Denver-Peyton Manning's retirement has taken most (if not all) of the luster out of the Indianapolis-Denver matchup, hasn't it? There's still this, though. The Colts are visiting Denver for the first time since that 2014 divisional playoff. That's motivation enough for the Super Bowl champs.
Falcons (0-1) at Raiders (1-0): Oakland-Jack Del Rio gave everyone an indication of what this year might be like for the Raiders when he went for the win last week in New Orleans...and it paid off! If this is the beginning of their final season in Oakland before moving to Las Vegas, it could be a good one for the Raiders. Traveling cross country and getting a win in always a tough task, especially when it's a trip you only make once every eight years, which is how frequently Atlanta visits Oakland.
Jaguars (0-1) at Chargers (0-1): San Diego-Last week, both of these teams showed us how improved they are. Yet one of them is still going to start the season 0-2. Unfortunately, I think that's probably going to be Gus Bradley's guys. Even though they completely impressed me against the Packers.
Packers (1-0) at Vikings (1-0): Green Bay-See, now this is the way you open a new stadium. Sunday Night Football against your biggest rivals. The same one that you beat in Week 17 last year to snag the division title. Except you're already down to your third quarterback, and said rival is among the preseason Super Bowl favorites. Al and Cris are excited to see the stadium that's going to host next year's Super Bowl. So am I. This should be a good one.
Eagles (1-0) at Bears (0-1): Philadelphia-A group of Eagles players have announced that they're going to join in Colin Kaepernick's national anthem protest on Monday night. So I guess this is just a thing now, huh? I guess that's good. Because eventually people will stop caring enough for it to be a "story" every week. As for the game, Philly will have played Cleveland and Chicago, which would make them probably the weakest 2-0 team in the league, but a 2-0 team nonetheless.
Last Week: 10-6
This Week: 1-0
Season: 11-6
Thursday, September 15, 2016
The World Cup of Hockey
It's hard to get up for the World Cup of Hockey the same way you would for the World Cup of Soccer or the World Baseball Classic or the Olympics or any other event held somewhat regularly. This World Cup started 20 years ago, yet this is just the third one being held. They went eight years between the first two, and Canada's been waiting 12 years to defend its title.
The World Cup of Hockey really seems to be held only when the NHL feels like it. There's absolutely no regularity, which, again, makes the event a difficult one to follow. The timing always seems way too convenient also. The first one was in 1996, which was two years NHL players first played in the Olympics. The next one was in 2004, and it ended just before Lockout 1.0 wiped out the entire season. Now the NHL is thinking about NOT going to the Olympics in 2018. Seems to me like the World Cup was revived as a potential replacement for the Olympics (provided they actually hold it somewhat regularly).
While the NHL's participation in the Olympics is a topic for another day, that doesn't change the fact the World Cup is here. And we should be excited for it. Because it's always fun to watch the best in the world compete for their country, especially since in sports like hockey that doesn't happen very often.
This year's World Cup is slightly different than the previous two. The 1996 and 2004 editions were actually "World" Cups, with games taking place in Europe and North America. This time, every game will be in Toronto as a part of the Maple Leafs' 100th anniversary celebration. This change I like. All of the games in one place makes it easier on everybody--the fans, the broadcasters and the players. Eliminating the travel should result in a better quality tournament. After all, in the Olympics there's no travel (except back and forth between arenas if they're using two), which probably explains why the Olympic tournaments are so good (of course, the Olympics taking place in the middle of the season has something to do with that also).
As for the teams, you've got the top six, along with Team Europe and Team North America. I'm not overly keen on that idea. I get why they want to have a Team Europe. There are a number of good NHL players randomly scattered across the continent, and the NHLPA would rather see their own guys than a bunch of KHL players with a few NHLers mixed in. Team North America is way too gimmicky, though. It's the Canadian/American combined under-23 team. Their worry was probably that guys like Johnny Gaudreau and Connor McDavid wouldn't make the regular Team USA and Team Canada, and they want to show off their young stars. So, as a result, Team North America was born.
I think my biggest problem with Team Europe and Team North America is that Slovakia really got shafted here. Slovakia is just as strong as the six nations that are participating. They took part in the first two World Cups, and would probably put up a respectable showing if they were participating in this one. My solution is to include Slovakia and hold a qualifying tournament for the eighth spot. Or even increase it to 10 and have three qualifiers.
Anyway, those are plans for the 2026 World Cup of Hockey (just guessing the next time they'll actually hold the tournament based on the regularity of previous editions). Right now, it's time for the 2016 tournament. And the home team, which has won the last two Olympic gold medals (and three of the last four), is the overwhelming favourites. As they should be.
But who plays Canada in the finals? The smart money's on either Sweden or Finland. Sweden won the silver in Sochi and has the only Olympic gold that Canada hasn't won this millennium. It also isn't lost on me that most of the best players in the NHL that aren't Canadian are from Sweden. Throw in Henrik Lundqvist, and you can see why I'm high on the Swedes. As we've seen, a hot goalie can carry you, especially in a short tournament like this one.
Finland, meanwhile, looks poised for a breakout. They're one of the most consistent teams in these major international tournaments, yet they've never taken the big prize. I don't think they will here, either, but they're definitely a threat to be in the finals. Of course, they'll have to knock off Russia just to get to the semifinals. The Russians have Alex Ovechkin and are determined to make up for the disaster that was their hosting turn in Sochi. Team North America is in for a struggle against those three.
Don't think Sweden, Finland and Russia weren't all placed together intentionally. That way, they were able to set up both a guaranteed Canada-USA game, as well as making the Americans' road to the semifinals much easier. Team Europe is going to be better than some people might think, though. I can see them pulling off a surprise. They won't advance, but they'll give all three teams in Group A a game. That second spot behind Canada comes down to the United States and the Czech Republic (which evidently wants to be known as "Czechia" now; for some reason, I don't see that catching on). But with Jonathan Quick in goal and a legion of American fans in attendance, I expect Team USA to win that game and advance to the semifinals.
In the semifinals, I have Sweden knocking off the USA and Canada beating Finland. And, in a rematch of the 2014 Olympic gold medal game, the Canadians win again, defending their World Cup title from 12 years ago.
The World Cup of Hockey really seems to be held only when the NHL feels like it. There's absolutely no regularity, which, again, makes the event a difficult one to follow. The timing always seems way too convenient also. The first one was in 1996, which was two years NHL players first played in the Olympics. The next one was in 2004, and it ended just before Lockout 1.0 wiped out the entire season. Now the NHL is thinking about NOT going to the Olympics in 2018. Seems to me like the World Cup was revived as a potential replacement for the Olympics (provided they actually hold it somewhat regularly).
While the NHL's participation in the Olympics is a topic for another day, that doesn't change the fact the World Cup is here. And we should be excited for it. Because it's always fun to watch the best in the world compete for their country, especially since in sports like hockey that doesn't happen very often.
This year's World Cup is slightly different than the previous two. The 1996 and 2004 editions were actually "World" Cups, with games taking place in Europe and North America. This time, every game will be in Toronto as a part of the Maple Leafs' 100th anniversary celebration. This change I like. All of the games in one place makes it easier on everybody--the fans, the broadcasters and the players. Eliminating the travel should result in a better quality tournament. After all, in the Olympics there's no travel (except back and forth between arenas if they're using two), which probably explains why the Olympic tournaments are so good (of course, the Olympics taking place in the middle of the season has something to do with that also).
As for the teams, you've got the top six, along with Team Europe and Team North America. I'm not overly keen on that idea. I get why they want to have a Team Europe. There are a number of good NHL players randomly scattered across the continent, and the NHLPA would rather see their own guys than a bunch of KHL players with a few NHLers mixed in. Team North America is way too gimmicky, though. It's the Canadian/American combined under-23 team. Their worry was probably that guys like Johnny Gaudreau and Connor McDavid wouldn't make the regular Team USA and Team Canada, and they want to show off their young stars. So, as a result, Team North America was born.
I think my biggest problem with Team Europe and Team North America is that Slovakia really got shafted here. Slovakia is just as strong as the six nations that are participating. They took part in the first two World Cups, and would probably put up a respectable showing if they were participating in this one. My solution is to include Slovakia and hold a qualifying tournament for the eighth spot. Or even increase it to 10 and have three qualifiers.
Anyway, those are plans for the 2026 World Cup of Hockey (just guessing the next time they'll actually hold the tournament based on the regularity of previous editions). Right now, it's time for the 2016 tournament. And the home team, which has won the last two Olympic gold medals (and three of the last four), is the overwhelming favourites. As they should be.
But who plays Canada in the finals? The smart money's on either Sweden or Finland. Sweden won the silver in Sochi and has the only Olympic gold that Canada hasn't won this millennium. It also isn't lost on me that most of the best players in the NHL that aren't Canadian are from Sweden. Throw in Henrik Lundqvist, and you can see why I'm high on the Swedes. As we've seen, a hot goalie can carry you, especially in a short tournament like this one.
Finland, meanwhile, looks poised for a breakout. They're one of the most consistent teams in these major international tournaments, yet they've never taken the big prize. I don't think they will here, either, but they're definitely a threat to be in the finals. Of course, they'll have to knock off Russia just to get to the semifinals. The Russians have Alex Ovechkin and are determined to make up for the disaster that was their hosting turn in Sochi. Team North America is in for a struggle against those three.
Don't think Sweden, Finland and Russia weren't all placed together intentionally. That way, they were able to set up both a guaranteed Canada-USA game, as well as making the Americans' road to the semifinals much easier. Team Europe is going to be better than some people might think, though. I can see them pulling off a surprise. They won't advance, but they'll give all three teams in Group A a game. That second spot behind Canada comes down to the United States and the Czech Republic (which evidently wants to be known as "Czechia" now; for some reason, I don't see that catching on). But with Jonathan Quick in goal and a legion of American fans in attendance, I expect Team USA to win that game and advance to the semifinals.
In the semifinals, I have Sweden knocking off the USA and Canada beating Finland. And, in a rematch of the 2014 Olympic gold medal game, the Canadians win again, defending their World Cup title from 12 years ago.
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
North Carolina and the NCAA
When North Carolina passed its controversial new HB2 law, you knew there was going to be a lot of negative backlash from all over. And with good reason. While that may not have been its intent, it's easy to view the law as discriminatory. Especially considering how much of a hot-button topic LGBT issues have become.
For those that don't know, the HB2 law (House Bill 2 or, officially, the "Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act") requires transgender people to use the public restroom for the sex listed on their birth certificate, not the sex with which they identify (even if they've legally transitioned). It also excludes gender identity and sexual orientation from anti-discrimination protection.
As you can imagine, reaction to the law has been swift. Various states have passed legislation prohibiting travel to North Carolina using state funds. As a result, Duke had to scrap a non-conference basketball game against Albany, and other North Carolina schools will have to adjust their schedules, as well. The 2017 NBA All-Star Game was supposed to be in Charlotte. But, in reaction to the law, the league has moved it to New Orleans. That was the first major event moved out of North Carolina as a result of this law.
Then on Monday, the NCAA announced that it was moving seven championship events out of the state. This isn't the first time that the NCAA has prevented a certain area from hosting one of its championships. They don't hold any in Nevada or New Jersey because of gambling, and South Carolina only just got the right to host back once they agreed to stop flying the Confederate flag at the State Capitol. Likewise, North Dakota only just reentered the hosting rotation in hockey after not being allowed to until dropping the incredibly awesome "Fighting Sioux" nickname.
But Monday's move is significant because of the message it sends. Not only did they pull championships already scheduled for North Carolina, they also made it clear that there will be no NCAA Championships held in North Carolina as long as the law is in place. Considering they had seven scheduled for this year alone, and that eliminates Duke and North Carolina (among others) from hosting events that are held at campus sites, that's potentially a lot of NCAA events that will end up being held elsewhere.
Naturally, some of these championships are more marquee than others. The Women's College Cup regularly takes place in the Raleigh area and was supposed to again this year. Now it won't. The Women's Lacrosse Championship was also set to take place there, but that, too will be moved.
The biggest event being moved out of North Carolina, though, is the first two rounds of the Men's Basketball Tournament in Greensboro. The ACC Tournament is held in Greensboro more than any other location, and Greensboro also regularly hosts the first two rounds of the NCAA Tournament. One of the reasons Greensboro hosts so frequently is because Duke and/or North Carolina is usually good, and with those fan bases, they're all but guaranteed a sellout. And with Duke likely to be in the Preseason Top 5, it seems probable that Duke was going to be playing their first two NCAA Tournament games in Greensboro.
Duke's athletic director went on record saying he agreed with the NCAA's decision, while both North Carolina and NC State expressed their disappointment (although, it should be noted here that North Carolina and NC State are state-funded, while Duke is a private institution). North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory, meanwhile, went on the offensive, accusing the NCAA of taking "political retaliation" while the matter is still being decided in the courts.
McCrory's reaction was tame compared to that of North Carolina Republican Party spokeswoman Kami Mueller, though. This quote is so ridiculous, you'd think it has to be made up, but it all comes straight from Mueller: "This is so absurd it's almost comical. I genuinely look forward to the NCAA merging all men's and women's teams together as singular, unified, unisex teams. Under the NCAA's logic, colleges should make cheerleaders and football players share bathrooms, showers and hotel rooms. This decision is an assault to female athletes across the nation. If you are unwilling to have women's bathrooms and locker rooms, how do you have a women's team?"
Hang on, it gets better. "I wish the NCAA was this concerned about the women who were raped at Baylor. Perhaps the NCAA should stop with their political peacocking -- and instead focus their energies on making sure our nation's collegiate athletes are safe, both on and off the field."
Seriously, with such a sound and reasoned argument, how could you possibly disagree with Mueller? She didn't take it to an absolutely ludicrous extreme or anything. She completely gets the point.
While it's clear North Carolina's lawmakers don't think there's anything wrong with this law, the vast majority of Americans disagree with them. The NBA and NCAA's actions prove that.
This doesn't mean there won't be any big time sporting events in the State of North Carolina, either. They haven't decertified the Belk Bowl (and probably won't), and NASCAR hasn't said anything one way or the other, but you'd figure they're not inclined to pull the Coca-Cola 600, one of their biggest events, out of Charlotte, which is also the site of the NASCAR Hall of Fame. The Panthers and Hornets and all of the colleges will still play all of their home games, too.
North Carolina should take the NCAA's move seriously, though. It's a chance for them to step back and look at the bigger picture. Maybe then they'll see why so many people think the law is wrong. Since North Carolina's elected officials aren't going to do anything about it, the NCAA did it for them. If North Carolina wants to host NCAA events in the future, the way to do that is pretty clear. Become welcoming--to everybody--and the NCAA will gladly come back. Until then, enjoy traveling.
For those that don't know, the HB2 law (House Bill 2 or, officially, the "Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act") requires transgender people to use the public restroom for the sex listed on their birth certificate, not the sex with which they identify (even if they've legally transitioned). It also excludes gender identity and sexual orientation from anti-discrimination protection.
As you can imagine, reaction to the law has been swift. Various states have passed legislation prohibiting travel to North Carolina using state funds. As a result, Duke had to scrap a non-conference basketball game against Albany, and other North Carolina schools will have to adjust their schedules, as well. The 2017 NBA All-Star Game was supposed to be in Charlotte. But, in reaction to the law, the league has moved it to New Orleans. That was the first major event moved out of North Carolina as a result of this law.
Then on Monday, the NCAA announced that it was moving seven championship events out of the state. This isn't the first time that the NCAA has prevented a certain area from hosting one of its championships. They don't hold any in Nevada or New Jersey because of gambling, and South Carolina only just got the right to host back once they agreed to stop flying the Confederate flag at the State Capitol. Likewise, North Dakota only just reentered the hosting rotation in hockey after not being allowed to until dropping the incredibly awesome "Fighting Sioux" nickname.
But Monday's move is significant because of the message it sends. Not only did they pull championships already scheduled for North Carolina, they also made it clear that there will be no NCAA Championships held in North Carolina as long as the law is in place. Considering they had seven scheduled for this year alone, and that eliminates Duke and North Carolina (among others) from hosting events that are held at campus sites, that's potentially a lot of NCAA events that will end up being held elsewhere.
Naturally, some of these championships are more marquee than others. The Women's College Cup regularly takes place in the Raleigh area and was supposed to again this year. Now it won't. The Women's Lacrosse Championship was also set to take place there, but that, too will be moved.
The biggest event being moved out of North Carolina, though, is the first two rounds of the Men's Basketball Tournament in Greensboro. The ACC Tournament is held in Greensboro more than any other location, and Greensboro also regularly hosts the first two rounds of the NCAA Tournament. One of the reasons Greensboro hosts so frequently is because Duke and/or North Carolina is usually good, and with those fan bases, they're all but guaranteed a sellout. And with Duke likely to be in the Preseason Top 5, it seems probable that Duke was going to be playing their first two NCAA Tournament games in Greensboro.
Duke's athletic director went on record saying he agreed with the NCAA's decision, while both North Carolina and NC State expressed their disappointment (although, it should be noted here that North Carolina and NC State are state-funded, while Duke is a private institution). North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory, meanwhile, went on the offensive, accusing the NCAA of taking "political retaliation" while the matter is still being decided in the courts.
McCrory's reaction was tame compared to that of North Carolina Republican Party spokeswoman Kami Mueller, though. This quote is so ridiculous, you'd think it has to be made up, but it all comes straight from Mueller: "This is so absurd it's almost comical. I genuinely look forward to the NCAA merging all men's and women's teams together as singular, unified, unisex teams. Under the NCAA's logic, colleges should make cheerleaders and football players share bathrooms, showers and hotel rooms. This decision is an assault to female athletes across the nation. If you are unwilling to have women's bathrooms and locker rooms, how do you have a women's team?"
Hang on, it gets better. "I wish the NCAA was this concerned about the women who were raped at Baylor. Perhaps the NCAA should stop with their political peacocking -- and instead focus their energies on making sure our nation's collegiate athletes are safe, both on and off the field."
Seriously, with such a sound and reasoned argument, how could you possibly disagree with Mueller? She didn't take it to an absolutely ludicrous extreme or anything. She completely gets the point.
While it's clear North Carolina's lawmakers don't think there's anything wrong with this law, the vast majority of Americans disagree with them. The NBA and NCAA's actions prove that.
This doesn't mean there won't be any big time sporting events in the State of North Carolina, either. They haven't decertified the Belk Bowl (and probably won't), and NASCAR hasn't said anything one way or the other, but you'd figure they're not inclined to pull the Coca-Cola 600, one of their biggest events, out of Charlotte, which is also the site of the NASCAR Hall of Fame. The Panthers and Hornets and all of the colleges will still play all of their home games, too.
North Carolina should take the NCAA's move seriously, though. It's a chance for them to step back and look at the bigger picture. Maybe then they'll see why so many people think the law is wrong. Since North Carolina's elected officials aren't going to do anything about it, the NCAA did it for them. If North Carolina wants to host NCAA events in the future, the way to do that is pretty clear. Become welcoming--to everybody--and the NCAA will gladly come back. Until then, enjoy traveling.
Monday, September 12, 2016
All This Progress, Yet So Much Still Remains
I read about a very disturbing story from the Paralympics today. The women's goalball team from Algeria finally arrived in Rio after multiple delays, flight cancellations and missed connections. As a result, the Algerians have had to forfeit their first two scheduled games...one of which happened to be against Israel.
It's the missed game against Israel that's raising red flags. More than a few people think that the Algerians arrived late on purpose, just so they wouldn't have to face Israel. I sure hope that's not the case. Because I sure want to believe that they actually did have to deal with nightmare travel rather than avoiding the Israel matchup.
The IPC is obviously not happy about this situation, and they're looking into it. But, you can tell how skeptical they are of the Algerians' account. Craig Spence, the IPC's communications director, noted that it doesn't take six days to get to Rio (which is the second-largest city in the largest country in South America). He also pointed out the fact that there are plenty of other nations that gladly would've taken Algeria's place in the tournament. However, if the IPC were to take the step of disqualifying Algeria, it would likely be challenged in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (that seems unlikely to happen anyway, seeing as Algeria has left itself with virtually no chance of advancing to the medal round, rendering a DQ unnecessary).
Sadly, this wouldn't be the first time that an Islamic country deliberately stayed away from a meeting with Israel, and it probably wouldn't be the last either. Which, especially in this day and age, is downright unacceptable. Sports are supposed to bring people together. Not drive them further apart.
Now, I'm nowhere near well-versed enough to delve into the very complex and tense political situation in the Middle East. But I can think of plenty of examples where an athlete from an Islamic nation refused to take on an Israeli opponent. A wrestler from Iran went all the way to London for the last Olympics and didn't even compete because he drew an Israeli in the first round. I can even recall a situation in swimming, I think it was a meet in Qatar, where they didn't even put the Israeli flag on the graphic showing which lane each swimmer was in. It was just a blank white box. There was also a women's tennis tournament that tried to deny entry to Israel's Shahar Peer a few years ago before the WTA stepped in and told them that if they didn't accept her, there would be no tournament altogether.
Middle Eastern politics are obviously incredibly complicated. The basic gist of it is that many Islamic nations don't recognize Israel as a nation (or even ackowledge Israel's right to exist). Algeria, while in Africa, is still an Islamic country that's close to the Middle East and shares many of the same ideologies. Algeria and Israel have no diplomatic relations, and you can't even enter Algeria with an Israeli passport (or even a visa from Israel).
Whether it's for religious or political reasons (or a combination of the two), I don't know, but the relations between Israel and its Middle Eastern neighbors has been this way for quite some time. That's why Israel, despite being located in Asia geographically, has been considered a member of Europe when it comes to international sports since the early '90s (they were actually kicked out of the Asian Games in 1981 due to pressure from the Arab nations).
If an athlete (or national team) opts not to take on an opponent from Israel, that's their choice. And if there are consequences involved, so be it. That's actually considered the noble and honorable thing in some countries that don't recognize Israel, and it's often rewarded when they get back home.
But it would be such a bigger statement if they chose to use sports as a way of building bridges. Like when those shooters from Russia and Georgia embraced during the London Games, despite the fact their two countries had just gone to war with each other. Or when the Koreas marched in together at the Sydney Games.
Those moments spoke volumes. Much more than hearing the same old story one more time. The one that brings the tensions between Islamic nations and Israel back to the surface. Again.
It's the missed game against Israel that's raising red flags. More than a few people think that the Algerians arrived late on purpose, just so they wouldn't have to face Israel. I sure hope that's not the case. Because I sure want to believe that they actually did have to deal with nightmare travel rather than avoiding the Israel matchup.
The IPC is obviously not happy about this situation, and they're looking into it. But, you can tell how skeptical they are of the Algerians' account. Craig Spence, the IPC's communications director, noted that it doesn't take six days to get to Rio (which is the second-largest city in the largest country in South America). He also pointed out the fact that there are plenty of other nations that gladly would've taken Algeria's place in the tournament. However, if the IPC were to take the step of disqualifying Algeria, it would likely be challenged in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (that seems unlikely to happen anyway, seeing as Algeria has left itself with virtually no chance of advancing to the medal round, rendering a DQ unnecessary).
Sadly, this wouldn't be the first time that an Islamic country deliberately stayed away from a meeting with Israel, and it probably wouldn't be the last either. Which, especially in this day and age, is downright unacceptable. Sports are supposed to bring people together. Not drive them further apart.
Now, I'm nowhere near well-versed enough to delve into the very complex and tense political situation in the Middle East. But I can think of plenty of examples where an athlete from an Islamic nation refused to take on an Israeli opponent. A wrestler from Iran went all the way to London for the last Olympics and didn't even compete because he drew an Israeli in the first round. I can even recall a situation in swimming, I think it was a meet in Qatar, where they didn't even put the Israeli flag on the graphic showing which lane each swimmer was in. It was just a blank white box. There was also a women's tennis tournament that tried to deny entry to Israel's Shahar Peer a few years ago before the WTA stepped in and told them that if they didn't accept her, there would be no tournament altogether.
Middle Eastern politics are obviously incredibly complicated. The basic gist of it is that many Islamic nations don't recognize Israel as a nation (or even ackowledge Israel's right to exist). Algeria, while in Africa, is still an Islamic country that's close to the Middle East and shares many of the same ideologies. Algeria and Israel have no diplomatic relations, and you can't even enter Algeria with an Israeli passport (or even a visa from Israel).
Whether it's for religious or political reasons (or a combination of the two), I don't know, but the relations between Israel and its Middle Eastern neighbors has been this way for quite some time. That's why Israel, despite being located in Asia geographically, has been considered a member of Europe when it comes to international sports since the early '90s (they were actually kicked out of the Asian Games in 1981 due to pressure from the Arab nations).
If an athlete (or national team) opts not to take on an opponent from Israel, that's their choice. And if there are consequences involved, so be it. That's actually considered the noble and honorable thing in some countries that don't recognize Israel, and it's often rewarded when they get back home.
But it would be such a bigger statement if they chose to use sports as a way of building bridges. Like when those shooters from Russia and Georgia embraced during the London Games, despite the fact their two countries had just gone to war with each other. Or when the Koreas marched in together at the Sydney Games.
Those moments spoke volumes. Much more than hearing the same old story one more time. The one that brings the tensions between Islamic nations and Israel back to the surface. Again.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Erasing Results, Not History
I saw an article today that celebrated the Belgian women's 4x100 meter relay team getting its gold medals from the Beijing Olympics the other day, eight years after the fact. The reason is the exact one you might think. The victorious Russians were stripped of their medals because one of their runners was found guilty of a doping violation, and the rules stipulate that if any member of a relay team is stripped of a medal, the entire team is.
In this day and age, all Olympic results might as well say "unofficial" even after the medals are handed out. You can guarantee that plenty of results from Rio will be changed after the IOC conducts all of its tests and retests. They save samples for eight years for the sole purpose of being able to test for drugs that they can't currently detect, but might with more sophisticated testing. That's why we're only now talking about results from the 2008 Games being vacated and medals reallocated.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm glad they're catching the drug cheats and taking their medals away. Especially those who deliberately do it and know their medals are frauds. There's no place for that in the Olympics, or sports in general. (None of which changes my stance that the Russian team belonged in Rio, by the way.)
Of course, those athletes that are belatedly given medals are the ones who really get cheated in these situations. Instead of crossing the line first and celebrating being the Olympic champion in the moment, they have to watch someone else receive that false glory and only get their rightful title much later. Instead of being given their gold medal during the Games in a packed stadium with the whole world watching, they have to settle for a personal ceremony far away from the Olympic arena with some friends and family and maybe a few TV cameras watching.
The national anthem is still played in their honor and they're still recognized as the Olympic champion, but it's definitely not the same. That's perhaps the biggest thing that gets taken away from the athlete who was robbed of the greatest moment of their sporting life by a cheater.
"So what exactly is his point?," you may be wondering. It's a fair question, especially because I'm going to sound like I'm contradicting myself. Well, that's because doping is a complicated topic that lends itself to different opinions, even from the same person. (For example, I fully support the idea of past dopers being allowed back in the Olympics once their suspensions are over, something American swimmer Lilly King clearly disagrees with.)
Well, my point is this. I get the reason why they take away medals and change results, even if it is sometimes years after the fact. But the whole idea of simply rewriting the history books and acting like what actually happened didn't is totally stupid. Did Lance Armstrong NOT finish first in the Tour de France seven years in a row? Travis Tygart may not think so, but there's mountains of video evidence that proves otherwise. Likewise, did Barry Bonds NOT hit all of those home runs? Goran Visnjic hasn't hopped in that time machine and changed history just yet (Timeless, coming to NBC Mondays this Fall).
It's just like when vacating wins as part of a program's penalties for an NCAA violation. Memphis had to vacate wins for the season Derrick Rose was on the team, so apparently Kansas beat nobody in the 2008 National Championship Game. And the thing I've always wondered about vacating wins is how come the losing team doesn't get to claim the win for themselves (just like Kansas beat nobody, they lost to nobody?).
Yes, that analogy is a stretch. But I think you see my point. When an Olympics end, people remember who won. They remember seeing that person cross the line and celebrate their victory. They don't remember who finished second. Likewise, if that person eventually ascends to gold, they'll only remember that the original winner was stripped of their title. Quick, who got the gold in the women's 200 in Sydney after Marion Jones had all of her medals taken away? (The answer, which I had to look up, is Pauline Davis-Thompson of the Bahamas.)
There's been a lot of debate over the last few years over whether or not East German women should be retroactively disqualified because of the state-sponsored doping in that country in the 1970s and 80s. That's a whole nother discussion, but the common consensus, which I agree with, is that no, they shouldn't. Because what good will rewriting the results 40 years after the fact do anyway?
Eventually, none of it will matter. When someone's introduced as an Olympic champion and shows off their gold medal, the only questions they're going to be asked (other than "Can I touch it?") are which Olympics and what event it's from. But that doesn't change the fact that those Olympic champions were robbed of their rightful glory. That's why so many athletes (especially recently) have felt cheated when they finished fourth behind a known doper.
They get their medal eventually, which is the good thing in all of this. But reallocating medals and changing results doesn't change what actually happened. Especially in this era where you can find the video of pretty much anything you want. They may be the gold medalist, but they didn't cross the line first. And that's sometimes the hardest thing to explain.
In this day and age, all Olympic results might as well say "unofficial" even after the medals are handed out. You can guarantee that plenty of results from Rio will be changed after the IOC conducts all of its tests and retests. They save samples for eight years for the sole purpose of being able to test for drugs that they can't currently detect, but might with more sophisticated testing. That's why we're only now talking about results from the 2008 Games being vacated and medals reallocated.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm glad they're catching the drug cheats and taking their medals away. Especially those who deliberately do it and know their medals are frauds. There's no place for that in the Olympics, or sports in general. (None of which changes my stance that the Russian team belonged in Rio, by the way.)
Of course, those athletes that are belatedly given medals are the ones who really get cheated in these situations. Instead of crossing the line first and celebrating being the Olympic champion in the moment, they have to watch someone else receive that false glory and only get their rightful title much later. Instead of being given their gold medal during the Games in a packed stadium with the whole world watching, they have to settle for a personal ceremony far away from the Olympic arena with some friends and family and maybe a few TV cameras watching.
The national anthem is still played in their honor and they're still recognized as the Olympic champion, but it's definitely not the same. That's perhaps the biggest thing that gets taken away from the athlete who was robbed of the greatest moment of their sporting life by a cheater.
"So what exactly is his point?," you may be wondering. It's a fair question, especially because I'm going to sound like I'm contradicting myself. Well, that's because doping is a complicated topic that lends itself to different opinions, even from the same person. (For example, I fully support the idea of past dopers being allowed back in the Olympics once their suspensions are over, something American swimmer Lilly King clearly disagrees with.)
Well, my point is this. I get the reason why they take away medals and change results, even if it is sometimes years after the fact. But the whole idea of simply rewriting the history books and acting like what actually happened didn't is totally stupid. Did Lance Armstrong NOT finish first in the Tour de France seven years in a row? Travis Tygart may not think so, but there's mountains of video evidence that proves otherwise. Likewise, did Barry Bonds NOT hit all of those home runs? Goran Visnjic hasn't hopped in that time machine and changed history just yet (Timeless, coming to NBC Mondays this Fall).
It's just like when vacating wins as part of a program's penalties for an NCAA violation. Memphis had to vacate wins for the season Derrick Rose was on the team, so apparently Kansas beat nobody in the 2008 National Championship Game. And the thing I've always wondered about vacating wins is how come the losing team doesn't get to claim the win for themselves (just like Kansas beat nobody, they lost to nobody?).
Yes, that analogy is a stretch. But I think you see my point. When an Olympics end, people remember who won. They remember seeing that person cross the line and celebrate their victory. They don't remember who finished second. Likewise, if that person eventually ascends to gold, they'll only remember that the original winner was stripped of their title. Quick, who got the gold in the women's 200 in Sydney after Marion Jones had all of her medals taken away? (The answer, which I had to look up, is Pauline Davis-Thompson of the Bahamas.)
There's been a lot of debate over the last few years over whether or not East German women should be retroactively disqualified because of the state-sponsored doping in that country in the 1970s and 80s. That's a whole nother discussion, but the common consensus, which I agree with, is that no, they shouldn't. Because what good will rewriting the results 40 years after the fact do anyway?
Eventually, none of it will matter. When someone's introduced as an Olympic champion and shows off their gold medal, the only questions they're going to be asked (other than "Can I touch it?") are which Olympics and what event it's from. But that doesn't change the fact that those Olympic champions were robbed of their rightful glory. That's why so many athletes (especially recently) have felt cheated when they finished fourth behind a known doper.
They get their medal eventually, which is the good thing in all of this. But reallocating medals and changing results doesn't change what actually happened. Especially in this era where you can find the video of pretty much anything you want. They may be the gold medalist, but they didn't cross the line first. And that's sometimes the hardest thing to explain.
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
2016 NFL Week 1
For the first time since December, we've got a full NFL Sunday this weekend. A lot has changed since then. For starters, Peyton Manning is looking for someone to watch the games with him. Maybe he should call Tom Brady. He'll be available. Starting next week, they'll be able to watch games in LA again. But the Rams are away this week for some reason.
With the NFL back in full swing, it's also time for my weekly picks segment. Now, in case you're new to the blog, here's how I do my picks. First, I normally don't post them until Saturday night/Sunday morning. I do pick the Thursday night game, but that seems kinda early to reveal the entire slate, which is why I wait until the Sunday games. The only exception (other than Week 1) is Thanksgiving.
Also, I know a lot of people make their picks against the spread. I don't. Why? Because the spread doesn't matter! If you win but don't cover the spread, you still win. Just like if you cover the spread and lose, it still counts as a loss in the standings. And they determine who makes the playoffs based on your actual record. Not your record against the spread!
So, with all that out of the way, it's time to make my selections for the first 16 of the 256 NFL games we've got in store this season.
Panthers at Broncos: Denver-We start the season with the first Week 1 Super Bowl rematch since 1970. And Denver, of course, begins its title defense with Trevor Semian at quarterback. Carolina has designs on getting back to the Super Bowl, and they're actually favored in this game. But they were favored in the Super Bowl, too, and the Broncos' defense completely ate them up. If Von Miller and Co. play like that, it doesn't matter who's under center. And, with the Panthers upset they're opening on the road, coupled with the Broncos raising their championship banner, I see the same result that we had in February.
Buccaneers at Falcons: Atlanta-The Braves aren't the only Atlanta team that's moving out of a venue that's only 20 years old. The Falcons begin their final season in the Georgia Dome against Tampa Bay. Atlanta was so good at the start of last season, then fell off big time. I'm still not really sure how. Because they look like a playoff team. They get the Week 1 home win.
Vikings at Titans: Minnesota-Remember the ridiculous NFL debut Marcus Mariota had last year in Week 1? If only the rest of the Titans' season had been like that. Minnesota did have a dream season in 2015, only to see it turn into a nightmare with that playoff loss to Seattle. Now the Vikings enter the 2016 campaign looking for replacement for Teddy Bridgewater. Fortunately, they get the Titans in their opener. When they open the new stadium against the Packers next week, though, things could get interesting.
Chargers at Chiefs: Kansas City-Kansas City is one of the teams I like the most entering this season. The Chiefs had such a brutal stretch at the start last year, which is why they were just 1-5 before ending the season on a 10-game winning streak. This year's slate is much more favorable. San Diego usually gives them trouble, but I like the Chiefs here.
Raiders at Saints: New Orleans-An Oakland win here wouldn't totally surprise me. The Raiders are going to be a tough game all season long. Except they're playing early against the Saints offense. And I'm not sure Oakland's capable of putting up enough points to keep pace with New Orleans. Especially in the Superdome.
Bengals at Jets: Cincinnati-This is one of the more intriguing matchups of Week 1. How good are the Jets? We'll get to find out right away against one of the best teams in the AFC. If they pull off the win, expect them to be a playoff contender. I'm not sure they will, though. Cincinnati is a veteran team that knows how to win (in the regular season at least). Marvin Lewis will have his bunch ready, and they'll avoid the upset.
Browns at Eagles: Philadelphia-On the other end of the spectrum, we've got Browns-Eagles. The big news out of Cleveland is that they made Robert Griffin III a captain. Philadelphia, meanwhile, is sticking with Sam Bradford, at least for now, over another No. 2 overall pick, Carson Wentz. I'd say this one is a toss up, but it's really not. The Eagles are a superior team, and they're playing at home.
Packers at Jaguars: Green Bay-Teams playing Jacksonville can't just assume they're going to have an easy week and virtually guaranteed victory anymore. The Jaguars are going to give some teams plenty of trouble, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a loss to Jacksonville cost someone a playoff berth. With all that being said, though, the Green Bay Packers won't have that problem.
Bills at Ravens: Buffalo-Earlier this evening, I took my test for Sports Jeopardy!, and I got a question about the Ravens wrong. I'm still upset about it. Anyway, chalk this one up as my upset special for the week. The Bills are going to surprise some people. I really want to see what Rex and Rob have cooked up to mess with the Baltimore offense.
Bears at Texans: Houston-When we last saw the Houston Texans, they were in the midst of being thoroughly dismantled by the Chiefs in the wild card game. That was a long time ago. And they now have Brock Osweiler running the offense to complement that incredible J.J. Watt-led defense. The Bears will be the first team to see the new-look Texans first hand.
Dolphins at Seahawks: Seattle-One of the NFL's best team hosts one of the worst in what should be one of the easiest Week 1 games to call. The Seahawks got off to a slow start last season, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that they lose here, but the Dolphins should be making the long trip home from one corner of the country to literally the other with an 0-1 record.
Giants at Cowboys: Giants-These two play their annual Week 1 tilt, but this time we mix it up a little and play it during the day. Dallas is favored, but I'm not sure why. Everyone saw how badly they fell apart without Tony Romo last year, and now they've got Mark Sanchez. The Giants always play well in Dallas and enter the season healthy. I give them the nod.
Lions at Colts: Indianapolis-Detroit coach Jim Caldwell takes on his former team (the one that fired him after a 2-14 season that was completely not his fault) for the first time. And he does it with his current team in a state of flux. We'll get to see just how bad the 2016 Lions are potentially going to be against a Colts team that can't lose to a team like Detroit if they want to make the playoffs.
Patriots at Cardinals: Arizona-Even if Tom Brady was playing, this was going to be a very difficult game for New England. They go on the road to take on a team that a lot of experts are predicting could end up in the Super Bowl. Nothing against Jimmy Garroppolo, but if it was going to be tough with Brady, it's going to be even tougher without him. I think the loss here is pretty much the consensus for those who've said the Patriots will still go 3-1 or 2-2 without the Deflator.
Steelers at Redskins: Pittsburgh-I've gotta admit, this is a strange selection for the first half of the Monday night doubleheader. Yes, they were both playoff teams last season. But there are so many better matchups than Steelers-Redskins. I fully expect Pittsburgh to win this game pretty easily.
Rams at 49ers: Los Angeles-Writing "Los Angeles" there felt really weird, but it also felt right. The Rams have returned home. Except the first NFL game in LA since Christmas Eve 1994 won't actually be until next week. Instead, they renew their West Coast rivalry with the 49ers in the northern part of the state. When the NFL does officially return to the City of Angels, the home team will be 1-0.
With the NFL back in full swing, it's also time for my weekly picks segment. Now, in case you're new to the blog, here's how I do my picks. First, I normally don't post them until Saturday night/Sunday morning. I do pick the Thursday night game, but that seems kinda early to reveal the entire slate, which is why I wait until the Sunday games. The only exception (other than Week 1) is Thanksgiving.
Also, I know a lot of people make their picks against the spread. I don't. Why? Because the spread doesn't matter! If you win but don't cover the spread, you still win. Just like if you cover the spread and lose, it still counts as a loss in the standings. And they determine who makes the playoffs based on your actual record. Not your record against the spread!
So, with all that out of the way, it's time to make my selections for the first 16 of the 256 NFL games we've got in store this season.
Panthers at Broncos: Denver-We start the season with the first Week 1 Super Bowl rematch since 1970. And Denver, of course, begins its title defense with Trevor Semian at quarterback. Carolina has designs on getting back to the Super Bowl, and they're actually favored in this game. But they were favored in the Super Bowl, too, and the Broncos' defense completely ate them up. If Von Miller and Co. play like that, it doesn't matter who's under center. And, with the Panthers upset they're opening on the road, coupled with the Broncos raising their championship banner, I see the same result that we had in February.
Buccaneers at Falcons: Atlanta-The Braves aren't the only Atlanta team that's moving out of a venue that's only 20 years old. The Falcons begin their final season in the Georgia Dome against Tampa Bay. Atlanta was so good at the start of last season, then fell off big time. I'm still not really sure how. Because they look like a playoff team. They get the Week 1 home win.
Vikings at Titans: Minnesota-Remember the ridiculous NFL debut Marcus Mariota had last year in Week 1? If only the rest of the Titans' season had been like that. Minnesota did have a dream season in 2015, only to see it turn into a nightmare with that playoff loss to Seattle. Now the Vikings enter the 2016 campaign looking for replacement for Teddy Bridgewater. Fortunately, they get the Titans in their opener. When they open the new stadium against the Packers next week, though, things could get interesting.
Chargers at Chiefs: Kansas City-Kansas City is one of the teams I like the most entering this season. The Chiefs had such a brutal stretch at the start last year, which is why they were just 1-5 before ending the season on a 10-game winning streak. This year's slate is much more favorable. San Diego usually gives them trouble, but I like the Chiefs here.
Raiders at Saints: New Orleans-An Oakland win here wouldn't totally surprise me. The Raiders are going to be a tough game all season long. Except they're playing early against the Saints offense. And I'm not sure Oakland's capable of putting up enough points to keep pace with New Orleans. Especially in the Superdome.
Bengals at Jets: Cincinnati-This is one of the more intriguing matchups of Week 1. How good are the Jets? We'll get to find out right away against one of the best teams in the AFC. If they pull off the win, expect them to be a playoff contender. I'm not sure they will, though. Cincinnati is a veteran team that knows how to win (in the regular season at least). Marvin Lewis will have his bunch ready, and they'll avoid the upset.
Browns at Eagles: Philadelphia-On the other end of the spectrum, we've got Browns-Eagles. The big news out of Cleveland is that they made Robert Griffin III a captain. Philadelphia, meanwhile, is sticking with Sam Bradford, at least for now, over another No. 2 overall pick, Carson Wentz. I'd say this one is a toss up, but it's really not. The Eagles are a superior team, and they're playing at home.
Packers at Jaguars: Green Bay-Teams playing Jacksonville can't just assume they're going to have an easy week and virtually guaranteed victory anymore. The Jaguars are going to give some teams plenty of trouble, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a loss to Jacksonville cost someone a playoff berth. With all that being said, though, the Green Bay Packers won't have that problem.
Bills at Ravens: Buffalo-Earlier this evening, I took my test for Sports Jeopardy!, and I got a question about the Ravens wrong. I'm still upset about it. Anyway, chalk this one up as my upset special for the week. The Bills are going to surprise some people. I really want to see what Rex and Rob have cooked up to mess with the Baltimore offense.
Bears at Texans: Houston-When we last saw the Houston Texans, they were in the midst of being thoroughly dismantled by the Chiefs in the wild card game. That was a long time ago. And they now have Brock Osweiler running the offense to complement that incredible J.J. Watt-led defense. The Bears will be the first team to see the new-look Texans first hand.
Dolphins at Seahawks: Seattle-One of the NFL's best team hosts one of the worst in what should be one of the easiest Week 1 games to call. The Seahawks got off to a slow start last season, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that they lose here, but the Dolphins should be making the long trip home from one corner of the country to literally the other with an 0-1 record.
Giants at Cowboys: Giants-These two play their annual Week 1 tilt, but this time we mix it up a little and play it during the day. Dallas is favored, but I'm not sure why. Everyone saw how badly they fell apart without Tony Romo last year, and now they've got Mark Sanchez. The Giants always play well in Dallas and enter the season healthy. I give them the nod.
Lions at Colts: Indianapolis-Detroit coach Jim Caldwell takes on his former team (the one that fired him after a 2-14 season that was completely not his fault) for the first time. And he does it with his current team in a state of flux. We'll get to see just how bad the 2016 Lions are potentially going to be against a Colts team that can't lose to a team like Detroit if they want to make the playoffs.
Patriots at Cardinals: Arizona-Even if Tom Brady was playing, this was going to be a very difficult game for New England. They go on the road to take on a team that a lot of experts are predicting could end up in the Super Bowl. Nothing against Jimmy Garroppolo, but if it was going to be tough with Brady, it's going to be even tougher without him. I think the loss here is pretty much the consensus for those who've said the Patriots will still go 3-1 or 2-2 without the Deflator.
Steelers at Redskins: Pittsburgh-I've gotta admit, this is a strange selection for the first half of the Monday night doubleheader. Yes, they were both playoff teams last season. But there are so many better matchups than Steelers-Redskins. I fully expect Pittsburgh to win this game pretty easily.
Rams at 49ers: Los Angeles-Writing "Los Angeles" there felt really weird, but it also felt right. The Rams have returned home. Except the first NFL game in LA since Christmas Eve 1994 won't actually be until next week. Instead, they renew their West Coast rivalry with the 49ers in the northern part of the state. When the NFL does officially return to the City of Angels, the home team will be 1-0.
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Football 2016, Part II
Injuries, especially at the quarterback position, have already derailed a few teams that were considered to be NFC contenders. Tony Romo's annual injury took place in the preseason this year, so Dallas is actually better equipped to be without him this time. Although, the loss of Teddy Bridgewater is going to be backbreaking for Minnesota in its first year in the new stadium.
Really, the NFC has three or four powerhouse teams, with everybody else fighting for a very doable wild card (and, don't forget, somebody has to win the NFC East). I don't think there's a really bad NFC team out there, either. Sure, teams like the 49ers and Lions are longer shots to make the playoffs than others. But don't be surprised to see them pull off an upset or two...or even make a playoff run.
We'll start out west because that's the division with the most clarity. The Cardinals are a very chic Super Bowl pick, and it's easy to see why. Arizona reached the NFC Championship Game last season, and there's no reason to believe they can't get back there. Except their friends in the Pacific Northwest might have something to say about that. After two straight NFC titles, the Seahawks got off to a bad start last year, but recovered to get a wild card. If the Seahawks don't stumble out of the gate (and play better within the division) this season, I actually see them winning the division over Arizona.
Of course, one of the biggest stories in all of football this season takes place on the southern end of the Pacific Coast, as the Rams return home to Los Angeles. And this team definitely has the potential to make some noise. They probably won't make the playoffs, but a respectable 7-9 or 8-8 is a real possibility. Jeff Fisher has been through this before. He was the Oilers' coach when they became the Titans. That's not a small thing. The transition from St. Louis to LA should be much easier as a result of his leadership. I'd like to see the LA Rams' first game in 20 years actually be in LA, but, alas, their rivalry with the 49ers will be renewed in San Francisco. Have any members of the 49ers made any headlines during the last few weeks? Good luck keeping that from being a distraction.
Meanwhile, Panthers coach Ron Rivera is upset that the defending NFC champions are starting the season on the road. Although, the Super Bowl rematch is probably the only reason for that, and the NFL wouldn't have done it otherwise, so I'm not really buying his argument there. Regardless, I think it'll be difficult for Carolina to repeat. They're not going to sneak up on anybody this year, and the defense lost Jared Allen, as well as Josh Norman, so Seattle's Legion of Boom goes back to being the most formidable unit in the NFC.
Speaking of defense, Atlanta's got a good one. Remember, the Falcons were really good at the beginning of the season last year before completely falling apart. They definitely have the look of a playoff team, though. And if a few things go their way, I don't think it's a stretch to say that about the Bucs, either. Tampa Bay's underrated offense is one of the better units in the game. New Orleans, of course, is all about the offense. If the Saints get a defense as good as their Super Bowl team again, they can make some noise, too.
Even before Bridgewater's injury, I thought Green Bay was the team to beat in the NFC North. I'm especially high on the Packers now. To me, they look like the most complete team in the NFC. Especially if all of Aaron Rodgers' toys can stay on the field. If the Vikings can figure out what they're gonna do at quarterback, they should be able to make another playoff run. And, frankly, it's not that hard to turn around and hand the ball to Adrian Peterson.
The Bears. Every year I think they're either going to be really good or really terrible, and they usually do the exact opposite. So this year, I'm gonna temper my expectations a little bit. Let's say 6-10 and go from there. As for the Lions, I really want to see what kind of team they are without Megatron. He's been their franchise for so long that it's hard to even picture the Lions without him.
And now for the perfectly flawed NFC East. All four teams could easily win the division, and all four could easily finish last. It really might come down to which one is the healthiest at the end of the season.
Washington, last year's surprise division winner, pulled off one of the biggest coups of the off season by signing Josh Norman. They look more equipped for sustained success with Kirk Cousins running the offense, but the Redskins also have this tendency to randomly be good one year before going right back to 5-11 the next. They're gonna need to prove it. I really think the favorites in the NFC East might be the Giants, though. They made a great move by promoting Ben McAdoo to head coach, and I really think they're going to do some good things with him in charge. Everyone knows the Giants have the talent. Last year they just lost way too many close games. If they get that straightened out, a division crown is a real possibility.
As for the Eagles and Cowboys, there are just too many flaws. Philadelphia mortgaged its entire future on Carson Wentz, and managed to anger incumbent Sam Bradford in the process. Their are going to be some internal issues that plague this team all season. And we saw Dallas without Romo last year, and it wasn't pretty. So why should we expect anything different this year?
So, with all that being said, my NFC playoff teams are the Giants, Packers, Panthers, Falcons, Seahawks and Cardinals. I've got Arizona over the Giants and Seattle over Atlanta in the wild card games. After the Packers beat the Seahawks and the Cardinals beat the Panthers, Green Bay beats Arizona for the NFC title. And, six years after beating Pittsburgh in the Super Bowl, the Packers do it again.
Really, the NFC has three or four powerhouse teams, with everybody else fighting for a very doable wild card (and, don't forget, somebody has to win the NFC East). I don't think there's a really bad NFC team out there, either. Sure, teams like the 49ers and Lions are longer shots to make the playoffs than others. But don't be surprised to see them pull off an upset or two...or even make a playoff run.
We'll start out west because that's the division with the most clarity. The Cardinals are a very chic Super Bowl pick, and it's easy to see why. Arizona reached the NFC Championship Game last season, and there's no reason to believe they can't get back there. Except their friends in the Pacific Northwest might have something to say about that. After two straight NFC titles, the Seahawks got off to a bad start last year, but recovered to get a wild card. If the Seahawks don't stumble out of the gate (and play better within the division) this season, I actually see them winning the division over Arizona.
Of course, one of the biggest stories in all of football this season takes place on the southern end of the Pacific Coast, as the Rams return home to Los Angeles. And this team definitely has the potential to make some noise. They probably won't make the playoffs, but a respectable 7-9 or 8-8 is a real possibility. Jeff Fisher has been through this before. He was the Oilers' coach when they became the Titans. That's not a small thing. The transition from St. Louis to LA should be much easier as a result of his leadership. I'd like to see the LA Rams' first game in 20 years actually be in LA, but, alas, their rivalry with the 49ers will be renewed in San Francisco. Have any members of the 49ers made any headlines during the last few weeks? Good luck keeping that from being a distraction.
Meanwhile, Panthers coach Ron Rivera is upset that the defending NFC champions are starting the season on the road. Although, the Super Bowl rematch is probably the only reason for that, and the NFL wouldn't have done it otherwise, so I'm not really buying his argument there. Regardless, I think it'll be difficult for Carolina to repeat. They're not going to sneak up on anybody this year, and the defense lost Jared Allen, as well as Josh Norman, so Seattle's Legion of Boom goes back to being the most formidable unit in the NFC.
Speaking of defense, Atlanta's got a good one. Remember, the Falcons were really good at the beginning of the season last year before completely falling apart. They definitely have the look of a playoff team, though. And if a few things go their way, I don't think it's a stretch to say that about the Bucs, either. Tampa Bay's underrated offense is one of the better units in the game. New Orleans, of course, is all about the offense. If the Saints get a defense as good as their Super Bowl team again, they can make some noise, too.
Even before Bridgewater's injury, I thought Green Bay was the team to beat in the NFC North. I'm especially high on the Packers now. To me, they look like the most complete team in the NFC. Especially if all of Aaron Rodgers' toys can stay on the field. If the Vikings can figure out what they're gonna do at quarterback, they should be able to make another playoff run. And, frankly, it's not that hard to turn around and hand the ball to Adrian Peterson.
The Bears. Every year I think they're either going to be really good or really terrible, and they usually do the exact opposite. So this year, I'm gonna temper my expectations a little bit. Let's say 6-10 and go from there. As for the Lions, I really want to see what kind of team they are without Megatron. He's been their franchise for so long that it's hard to even picture the Lions without him.
And now for the perfectly flawed NFC East. All four teams could easily win the division, and all four could easily finish last. It really might come down to which one is the healthiest at the end of the season.
Washington, last year's surprise division winner, pulled off one of the biggest coups of the off season by signing Josh Norman. They look more equipped for sustained success with Kirk Cousins running the offense, but the Redskins also have this tendency to randomly be good one year before going right back to 5-11 the next. They're gonna need to prove it. I really think the favorites in the NFC East might be the Giants, though. They made a great move by promoting Ben McAdoo to head coach, and I really think they're going to do some good things with him in charge. Everyone knows the Giants have the talent. Last year they just lost way too many close games. If they get that straightened out, a division crown is a real possibility.
As for the Eagles and Cowboys, there are just too many flaws. Philadelphia mortgaged its entire future on Carson Wentz, and managed to anger incumbent Sam Bradford in the process. Their are going to be some internal issues that plague this team all season. And we saw Dallas without Romo last year, and it wasn't pretty. So why should we expect anything different this year?
So, with all that being said, my NFC playoff teams are the Giants, Packers, Panthers, Falcons, Seahawks and Cardinals. I've got Arizona over the Giants and Seattle over Atlanta in the wild card games. After the Packers beat the Seahawks and the Cardinals beat the Panthers, Green Bay beats Arizona for the NFC title. And, six years after beating Pittsburgh in the Super Bowl, the Packers do it again.
Monday, September 5, 2016
Football 2016, Part I
I'll be honest. I didn't watch a second of the NFL preseason. I don't care about preseason football under normal circumstances, but this year with the Olympics taking up all of my attention for most of August, I completely didn't even realize the preseason was starting until they had that whole big thing about the melted paint on the turf at the Hall of Fame Game.
That doesn't mean I've been completely oblivious to what's going on in the NFL, though. Quarterback drama is running rampant. Teddy Bridgewater and Tony Romo are out injured, seriously derailing the playoff hopes of the Vikings and Cowboys. And who had Trevor Siemian pegged as Denver's starter when they begin their title defense on Thursday night?
In each of the last four seasons, New England and Denver have received the two AFC playoff byes, and in three of those four years, one or the other went to the Super Bowl. I think that changes in 2016. The last four years also represent the length of Peyton Manning's tenure in Denver. The Broncos' success during that span wasn't a coincidence. But with a new era starting and a much more competitive AFC West, I'm not even sure Denver wins the division. New England will still probably win the AFC East, but the Brady suspension is obviously going to dominate much of the conversation about the Patriots over the first month of the season.
Since I'm already on the Patriots, let's start in the AFC East. Yes, they're obviously going to be a much different team without Tom Brady, but if any team can weather a loss like that, it's the Patriots. Remember the year he tore his ACL in the season opener? They still went 11-5. This is only four games, three of which are at home, and two of which are in the division. They'll lose the opener in Arizona, but I can easily see the Patriots winning two of those three home games (Houston will be tough).
If somebody else has a chance of winning the AFC East, it might be the Jets. They've definitely gotten better offensively with Matt Forte. Will their offense be good enough to take some of the pressure of their first-rate defense? If it is, they've got a real shot at a wild card. Same thing with the Bills. Buffalo is the only team in the NFL that hasn't made the playoffs this century, and I see that streak continuing for at least another year. The Bills simply aren't as good as some of the other teams in the AFC. Neither is Miami. Like I said, the AFC East is still New England's division to lose. Not because of how good the Patriots are, but because of how little competition the other three offer. Tom Brady missing a month doesn't change that.
Over in the AFC North, it's the opposite problem. There are three really good teams, and Cleveland isn't the pushover they used to be. In fact, with the hiring of Hue Jackson as coach and finally freeing themselves of the scourge known as Johnny Manzeil, the Browns look like they're going to be much more competitive this season. Although, that probably won't lift them out of last place. Simply because the rest of the division is so strong.
The Bengals know they blew a golden opportunity last year, and the playoff misfortunes have to be getting in their heads. How else can you explain that complete mental breakdown at the end of the wild card game last year? Regardless, expect to see Cincinnati in the playoffs again, either as the division champs or a wild card. I think wild card is more likely, though. Because, on paper, Pittsburgh is the best team in the AFC heading into the season. The Steelers have a seasoned quarterback in Ben Roethlisberger, a star running back in Le'Veon Bell, a first-rate defense, and one of the best players in the game in Antonio Brown. Unless injuries creep in, the Steelers sure look like they'll be playing deep into January. I wish I could say the same about Baltimore, but this division is starting to pass the Ravens by. They're better than the 5-11 they were last season, but they're the third-best team in this division at best.
Houston. That's the team that could be a real sleeper contender in the AFC. Brock Osweiler was Peyton Manning's preordained successor in Denver. But he leaves the Broncos at the altar and signs that massive free agent deal with the Texans, filling their one deficiency that was exposed big time in that embarrassing playoff loss to Kansas City. Now with Osweiler running the offense and that outstanding J.J. Watt-led defense, Houston is going to win a lot of games in 2016.
And don't just assume Indianapolis will automatically finish second in the AFC South, either. Because Jacksonville, after years where they made you wonder whether you were watching an NFL squad or a college team, is no longer a laughingstock. The Jaguars' slow build will pay off this season. Not with a playoff berth, but at least with respectability. That same respectability that the Titans are still about two years away from. Tennessee will at least be better in Marcus Mariota's second season.
Which brings me to the AFC West. It's no longer the exclusive domain of the Denver Broncos. In fact, I've got this division tabbed as the most wide-open in football. The Broncos won the Super Bowl last year, the Chiefs made the playoffs, the Raiders are much-improved, and the Chargers were in every game despite their record.
On paper, Kansas City's gotta be the AFC West favorites. The Chiefs have very few flaws and return mostly in tact a squad that won 11 straight games before finally being stopped by the Patriots in the divisional playoffs. They don't have that brutal start this year, so don't be surprised to see Kansas City gain some early momentum. I'm not saying to count the Broncos out. They won the Super Bowl because of that defense, which is still the lifeblood of the team in year one post-Peyton. Manning won them the Super Bowl they got him for, but he did it in the dreaded "game manager" role. And that's all they need Trevor Siemian to be. Von Miller and Co. can take care of winning the games.
Meanwhile, the Raiders have a good thing going. On the field at least. Jack Del Rio's biggest challenge will be keeping the franchise's off-the-field problems and the questions about where they're going to play from being distractions. Because, for the first time in a long time, the Raiders look like a potential playoff team. Just like the "will they or won't they?" really took its toll on the Chargers last season. San Diego's not a 4-12 team. They're much better than that. Maybe a playoff push will give the Spanos family and the city the impetus to get a stadium deal done and keep the Chargers where they belong.
So, my AFC playoff teams are going to look very familiar. It's the same six that made the playoffs last season. I know the numbers don't favor that actually happening, but I still think that they're the six best teams in the AFC. In the wild card games, New England beats Denver and Cincinnati upsets Kansas City. The Steelers then beat the Bengals, while the Texans knock off the Patriots, with Pittsburgh winning the AFC title game to prevent Houston from becoming the first team to play a Super Bowl in its home stadium.
That doesn't mean I've been completely oblivious to what's going on in the NFL, though. Quarterback drama is running rampant. Teddy Bridgewater and Tony Romo are out injured, seriously derailing the playoff hopes of the Vikings and Cowboys. And who had Trevor Siemian pegged as Denver's starter when they begin their title defense on Thursday night?
In each of the last four seasons, New England and Denver have received the two AFC playoff byes, and in three of those four years, one or the other went to the Super Bowl. I think that changes in 2016. The last four years also represent the length of Peyton Manning's tenure in Denver. The Broncos' success during that span wasn't a coincidence. But with a new era starting and a much more competitive AFC West, I'm not even sure Denver wins the division. New England will still probably win the AFC East, but the Brady suspension is obviously going to dominate much of the conversation about the Patriots over the first month of the season.
Since I'm already on the Patriots, let's start in the AFC East. Yes, they're obviously going to be a much different team without Tom Brady, but if any team can weather a loss like that, it's the Patriots. Remember the year he tore his ACL in the season opener? They still went 11-5. This is only four games, three of which are at home, and two of which are in the division. They'll lose the opener in Arizona, but I can easily see the Patriots winning two of those three home games (Houston will be tough).
If somebody else has a chance of winning the AFC East, it might be the Jets. They've definitely gotten better offensively with Matt Forte. Will their offense be good enough to take some of the pressure of their first-rate defense? If it is, they've got a real shot at a wild card. Same thing with the Bills. Buffalo is the only team in the NFL that hasn't made the playoffs this century, and I see that streak continuing for at least another year. The Bills simply aren't as good as some of the other teams in the AFC. Neither is Miami. Like I said, the AFC East is still New England's division to lose. Not because of how good the Patriots are, but because of how little competition the other three offer. Tom Brady missing a month doesn't change that.
Over in the AFC North, it's the opposite problem. There are three really good teams, and Cleveland isn't the pushover they used to be. In fact, with the hiring of Hue Jackson as coach and finally freeing themselves of the scourge known as Johnny Manzeil, the Browns look like they're going to be much more competitive this season. Although, that probably won't lift them out of last place. Simply because the rest of the division is so strong.
The Bengals know they blew a golden opportunity last year, and the playoff misfortunes have to be getting in their heads. How else can you explain that complete mental breakdown at the end of the wild card game last year? Regardless, expect to see Cincinnati in the playoffs again, either as the division champs or a wild card. I think wild card is more likely, though. Because, on paper, Pittsburgh is the best team in the AFC heading into the season. The Steelers have a seasoned quarterback in Ben Roethlisberger, a star running back in Le'Veon Bell, a first-rate defense, and one of the best players in the game in Antonio Brown. Unless injuries creep in, the Steelers sure look like they'll be playing deep into January. I wish I could say the same about Baltimore, but this division is starting to pass the Ravens by. They're better than the 5-11 they were last season, but they're the third-best team in this division at best.
Houston. That's the team that could be a real sleeper contender in the AFC. Brock Osweiler was Peyton Manning's preordained successor in Denver. But he leaves the Broncos at the altar and signs that massive free agent deal with the Texans, filling their one deficiency that was exposed big time in that embarrassing playoff loss to Kansas City. Now with Osweiler running the offense and that outstanding J.J. Watt-led defense, Houston is going to win a lot of games in 2016.
And don't just assume Indianapolis will automatically finish second in the AFC South, either. Because Jacksonville, after years where they made you wonder whether you were watching an NFL squad or a college team, is no longer a laughingstock. The Jaguars' slow build will pay off this season. Not with a playoff berth, but at least with respectability. That same respectability that the Titans are still about two years away from. Tennessee will at least be better in Marcus Mariota's second season.
Which brings me to the AFC West. It's no longer the exclusive domain of the Denver Broncos. In fact, I've got this division tabbed as the most wide-open in football. The Broncos won the Super Bowl last year, the Chiefs made the playoffs, the Raiders are much-improved, and the Chargers were in every game despite their record.
On paper, Kansas City's gotta be the AFC West favorites. The Chiefs have very few flaws and return mostly in tact a squad that won 11 straight games before finally being stopped by the Patriots in the divisional playoffs. They don't have that brutal start this year, so don't be surprised to see Kansas City gain some early momentum. I'm not saying to count the Broncos out. They won the Super Bowl because of that defense, which is still the lifeblood of the team in year one post-Peyton. Manning won them the Super Bowl they got him for, but he did it in the dreaded "game manager" role. And that's all they need Trevor Siemian to be. Von Miller and Co. can take care of winning the games.
Meanwhile, the Raiders have a good thing going. On the field at least. Jack Del Rio's biggest challenge will be keeping the franchise's off-the-field problems and the questions about where they're going to play from being distractions. Because, for the first time in a long time, the Raiders look like a potential playoff team. Just like the "will they or won't they?" really took its toll on the Chargers last season. San Diego's not a 4-12 team. They're much better than that. Maybe a playoff push will give the Spanos family and the city the impetus to get a stadium deal done and keep the Chargers where they belong.
So, my AFC playoff teams are going to look very familiar. It's the same six that made the playoffs last season. I know the numbers don't favor that actually happening, but I still think that they're the six best teams in the AFC. In the wild card games, New England beats Denver and Cincinnati upsets Kansas City. The Steelers then beat the Bengals, while the Texans knock off the Patriots, with Pittsburgh winning the AFC title game to prevent Houston from becoming the first team to play a Super Bowl in its home stadium.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)