Bye-Bye Baddell?

I've thought for a while that Roger Baddell isn't a very good commissioner.  It's taken a while, but others are starting to see the light, too.  Mr. Brilliant Commissioner's new contract was supposed to be signed, sealed and delivered by now, but, as we approach November, it's still unsigned.  And we really have one man to thank for that.  Jerry Jones.

Jones isn't a member of the NFL's compensation committee, which determines the commissioner's salary.  That's headed by the Falcons' Arthur Blank.  But Jerry Jones is one of the most influential owners in the league (perhaps the most influential), and his opinion is valued by the other owners.  And Jerry Jones has some Texas-sized problems with Ole' Rog.  Big enough problems to stall the extension.

There was a conference call last week (presumably led by Jones) among half of the NFL's owners, and they all seemed to be on the same page about the commissioner.  However, that group of 17, as unhappy as they might be, isn't enough to do anything to halt the extension.  It requires 24 votes to force Baddell out, and it doesn't seem likely that seven other owners would come around to their way of thinking.  But the fact that this is a topic of conversation (and one that has been made public) speaks volumes.

The national anthem thing has angered a lot of owners (Jones and the Texans' Bob McNair the most vocal among them), and that appears to be the last straw for this dissatisfied group.  Although, if you think about it, the national anthem controversy is just the latest on a long list of recent negative headlines for the NFL.  In fact, can you name a positive story out of the NFL over the past few years?

Most of the owners didn't care that Baddell is inept until now because they were still making a crap load of money.  The NFL's total revenue has risen from $6 billion in 2006 to $15 billion this year.  But...TV ratings and ticket sales are both down...and people have noticed.  As a result, they've started paying attention, too.

Baddell's next contract is going to take him thru the NFL's next CBA negotiation.  A negotiation that we already know will be contentious and will probably include a work stoppage.  Which is not a surprise.  Because the players hate him.  Worse, they don't trust him.

And why should the players trust him?  Baddell has done nothing to make them think he's even remotely on their side.  From his lack of ignoring of player safety for too long (while still pushing for an 18-game season, Thursday night games and more international games) to his iron-fisted handling of player discipline, which even the owners agree needs to change, and has led to lawsuit after lawsuit between the league and the union.

Now we've got the national anthem controversy, where Baddell is trying very hard not to take a public stance against the players.  Which backfired spectacularly.  Because there were plenty of owners (Dallas, Washington, Houston) who wanted him to come down hard and force them to stand.  When he wouldn't do that, it didn't sit well.

He's pissed off plenty of owners with his player discipline decisions, too.  Robert Kraft was one of Baddell's biggest supporters...until Deflategate.  Now Jerry Jones has Baddell in his crosshairs over Ezekiel Elliott's six-game suspension, which has been put back into effect by a federal judge, likely costing the Cowboys their best player until mid-December.

So, to recap.  The fans already don't like him.  The players already hate him.  Now he's losing the support of the owners, or at least some of them.  Enough to delay proceedings that even they realize are still probably inevitable.  At the very least, there's no viable alternative right now, so they realize they're stuck with him as their least-bad current option.

All of this has led some pundits to call for Baddell to resign, or at least wonder if he will.  Well, that seems about as likely as another well-known "leader" who's terrible at his job resigning. 

Maybe what this will do is serve as a wake-up call for Baddell.  He's convinced he's doing a great job.  After all, he's making the owners more money.  But there's more to being commissioner than making the owners money.  The players are the owners' employees, but the two sides are also partners.  The commissioner is supposed to be a bridge between those two sides.  Not a stooge who just does whatever the owners want.  And this guy can't even do that.

Football Picks, Week 8

There are incorrect picks.  Then there's my Miami-Baltimore pick.  I sure saw that 40-0 Ravens win coming, didn't I?  Pretty much sums up how my season has been going.  (BTW, what is Ndamukong Suh's problem?  He pushes the guy who push Alonso off Flacco after that cheap shot, then goes after the Ravens bench in the second half?  That guy has some serious anger management issues!)

Anyway, we're finally done with these stupid 9:30 a.m. London games after this week.  I know the NFL loves them, but four is definitely overkill.  Unfortunately, it looks like we're gonna see more London games before we see fewer.

Vikings (5-2) vs. Browns (0-7): Minnesota-Part of my problem with the London games isn't just the sheer number of them, it's that these are the games they put over there.  Crappy teams that don't mind giving up a home game.  Sure, the Jaguars love London, but I think everyone else goes there because they know the league wants them to.  Like Cleveland.  At least the good people of Cleveland are spared a week of actually watching the Browns live.

Raiders (3-4) at Bills (4-2): Oakland-For the Raiders, that might've been a season-saving win in Kansas City last week.  They sure had enough chances to win it, but they eventually did, and they're very much still in it in the AFC West.  Speaking of still in it, the Patriots aren't running away with the AFC East for a change.  And a Bills win over the Raiders would be a definite indication that they're in it for the long run.  I think Oakland will win, though.

Colts (2-5) at Bengals (2-4): Cincinnati-Indianapolis is a mess.  They're not a good football team.  The Bengals aren't that good, either.  But they're exponentially better than the Colts.  And they're at least competitive against good teams.  This time they're actually the better team.  As a result, I think they should take this one pretty comfortably.

Chargers (3-4) at Patriots (5-2): New England-Ever since their trip to New York, the Chargers have been a different team.  They're on a three-game winning streak, which includes a shutout of the Broncos last week.  Speaking of last week, the Patriots dominated Atlanta in that Super Bowl rematch.  It sure seems like the New England team we're used to seeing is on its way here.  The Patriots have two home losses already this season.  This week won't be a third.

Bears (3-4) at Saints (4-2): New Orleans-We've been spending so much time talking about the other three teams in the NFC South that we've completely missed the fact that the Saints are in first place.  But, New Orleans has won four in a row and looked good doing it.  The Bears have been surprisingly good recently, too, notching back-to-back wins over Baltimore and Carolina.  Something's gotta give this week.  And I like Drew Brees and that offense at home.

Falcons (3-3) at Jets (3-4): Atlanta-It's a good thing the Falcons don't have any more games against the AFC East after this week.  Because Atlanta was 3-0 until this four-game stretch against the AFC East, during which they've just looked bad.  First they blow it (at home!) against Miami, then last week's unimpressive showing in New England.  With all that being said, however, I'm taking the Falcons in this one.

49ers (0-7) at Eagles (6-1): Philadelphia-Seemingly out of nowhere, Philadelphia has the best record in football.  Their only loss came against Kansas City, and they were competitive in that one.  The 49ers, meanwhile, are perhaps the worst team in the league.  Yes, even worse than the Browns.  They got slaughtered at home by the Cowboys.  Now they head to Philadelphia, where things could be even worse.

Panthers (4-3) at Buccaneers (2-4): Carolina-Both of these NFC South teams are at a crossroads.  Carolina looked tremendous in beating New England, then they lost to the Bears and looked terrible.  The Bucs, meanwhile, haven't been able to get anything going over the past couple weeks.  Although, their three-game losing streak was all on the road, so we'll see if being home treats them any better.  It'll be close, but I see the Panthers being the ones to turn their fortunes around.

Texans (3-3) at Seahawks (4-2): Seattle-Talk about blowing something way out of proportion.  No, Bob McNair's "inmates running the prison" comment wasn't good.  But the Texans players are completely overreacting to something that was obviously said in jest.  Especially because he immediately apologized.  This should be a non-issue.  Except, now Texans players are talking about staging some sort of protest (a different one) this week.  What they should be worrying about is trying to figure out how to go into Seattle, one of the toughest places in the league to win, and come away with a victory.

Cowboys (3-3) at Redskins (3-3): Washington-FOX has been overhyping this game very badly.  The thing that annoys me about the level of promotion they've done is that they keep calling it the "greatest rivalry in football."  Tell that to the Bears and Packers.  Or the other two teams in the NFC East.  Or the entire AFC West.  Yes, it's a great rivalry.  But FOX was a little too prone to hyperbole in calling it the "best."  Because there are plenty of teams that would disagree.  Anyway, Dallas has been good one week, bad the next.  They were really good last week, so I'm taking Washington.

Steelers (5-2) at Lions (3-3): Pittsburgh-I'll say this about this year's Sunday Night Football slate, they've chosen some odd matchups.  Redskins-Raiders?  Colts-Seahawks?  Now we've got Steelers-Lions, another interconference matchup.  (Are all of these interconference games because NBC has the Super Bowl this season?)  If the good Pittsburgh shows up, they should win this game.  Especially because the Lions have traditionally not had that much success in Sunday night games.

Broncos (3-3) at Chiefs (5-2): Kansas City-The Monday night game, however, is a great (and important) divisional matchup.  The Chiefs were undefeated and riding high...then they lost twice in five days.  Yet they've maintained their hold on first place because the Broncos have also lost two straight...to the Giants and Chargers.  All the while, they've watched the Raiders jump back into the mix, and we've got a three-team race in the AFC West once again.  Which is why this game is so huge for both teams.  Kansas City can get away with a loss a little bit more than Denver can.  But I also think the Chiefs are more likely to make the necessary adjustments after giving away that game last week (on the fourth attempt).  Especially because the teams they lost to were Pittsburgh and Oakland, who are both good.

Thursday Night: Miami (Loss)

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 9-6
Overall: 62-45

Girardi Out, Who's In?

The Yankees announced today that Joe Girardi won't be returning as manager in 2018, a decision that wasn't completely unexpected.  His contract was up and both sides seemed lukewarm about a reunion.  Had Girardi's contract not expired, I'm sure he would've been back next season.  But the fact that the Yankees wanted to move on, plus the fact that he wasn't under contract, made it an easy decision.

Here's the craziest part, though.  Yankees fans have taken to social media to express how "outraged" they are that Girardi won't be back.  The same Yankees fans who would constantly take to those same social media outlets to complain about Girardi and say how terrible a manager he was.  Well, which is it?  Do you want him running the team or is he a terrible manager that needed to go?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say how much he needs to go, then be upset that he is.

Of course, there is one decision for which he deserved all the criticism that was directed his way.  Had the Yankees not come back to win the Indians series, the decision wouldn't have been mutual.  To Girardi's credit, he knew he blew it by not challenging that hit by pitch/strike three call that changed Game 2 and put the Yankees down 0-2.  Although, that was evidently the last straw for Brian Cashman, the one who ultimately decided a change was necessary.

Girardi's legacy is a complicated one.  Managing the Yankees is not an easy job, even if Girardi's predecessor, Joe Torre, made it seem that way.  And Girardi brilliantly navigated so many different challenges over the years.  Consider this.  After reaching the postseason all 12 years under Torre, the Yankees missed the playoffs four times in Girardi's 10 years.  And those four years were the final season at the old Yankee Stadium, the Mariano Rivera and Derek Jeter retirement tours and that awkward A-Rod situation last year.

Yet, despite never having the level of success as Torre (which, if you think about it, was unattainable for whoever was going to follow), Girardi never had a losing season with the Yankees.  So, through all the "disappointment" and the injuries and the youth movement, Girardi's teams still managed to have a winning record every season.  Which is pretty remarkable if you think about it.

Personally, I'm a Girardi fan.  I think he really was the best person to handle the Yankees (and the New York media) over the last 10 years, and, unlike most, I was never one who took for granted how hard it is the marquee franchise in baseball in the pressure cooker that is New York. 

I would've liked to have seen him return, but I was also prepared for this possibility.  And I understand the baseball move behind it.  Which, ultimately, is why the Yankees (the same team once owned by a man who fired people as frequently as our current President did in his former job) are conducting just their third managerial search in the last 22 years.

So, the question now becomes, who replaces him?  Rob Thomson and Tony Pena are the internal candidates, but there's also chatter about Al Pedrique, the Yankees' Triple-A manager in Scranton.  He managed Judge, Bird, Frazier, etc., in the Minors, which is why he's in the mix to manage the Big League club.  But there's more to managing in the Majors, and managing the Yankees specifically, that means a Pedrique promotion isn't just automatic.  In fact, I'd be surprised if he gets the job.

Should they want someone with previous Major League experience, they couldn't really go wrong with Dusty Baker.  He just got fired after two years with the Nationals, falling victim to Washington's ridiculously-high expectations.  I'm not saying the expectations would be any lower in New York, but Baker seems well-equipped to handle them.  After all, he managed the Cubs, which isn't really that much different than managing the Yankees.  And he took the Giants to the World Series, in addition to making the playoffs with Cincinnati.  Yes, it's all National League teams.  But Dusty knows what he's doing.  Although, his age could be a factor.

There's one name that I'm really intrigued by, though.  Don Mattingly.  Mattingly was Torre's preferred choice when the Yankees hired Girardi in 2008.  Mattingly, of course, didn't get the job and ended up going with Torre to LA before taking over when he retired.  He's now managing the Marlins, but Derek Jeter's ownership group is evidently considering a change.  How crazy would it be if the Marlins did decide to let Mattingly go, only for him to succeed Girardi as Yankees manager, a job many think he's been destined for for quite some time?  (It would actually be the second straight time the Yankees got their new manager from the Marlins, too.)

Whoever ultimately ends up taking the Yankees job, whether it be Mattingly or someone else, will face the burden of expectations.  Expectations that are going to be incredibly high for the 2018 Yankees.  It's one of the glamour jobs in the sport, but it's also one of the most pressure-packed.  I just hope whoever it is is up to the challenge.  Just like the two guys named Joe who preceded him were.

Astros and Dodgers

This was the actual cover of Sports Illustrated on June 30, 2014.  When they declared that, I'm not sure how much they actually believed it.  But here we are, three years and three months later, and they're four games away from being right.  

Except I don't think SI was banking on the Astros running into the juggernaut that is the 2017 Los Angeles Dodgers, a team that's been on a mission since February and is four games away from achieving its sole objective for this season.  The Dodgers look nothing like the team that had a 1-15 stretch in late August/early September.  What they do look like is the one that, over a different 50-game stretch this season, went 43-7.

If you thought last year's World Series was good, this one has all the makings of being even better.  Because we actually have the two best teams in Baseball.  Houston was the best team in the AL for four months until an August swoon, while people were talking about the Dodgers as one of those historically good teams until their bad stretch cost them any shot at the all-time wins record.  

They both survived their rough patch and have played some of their best baseball in October, and the result is the first World Series between 100-win teams since 1970.  It's also the first World Series between teams that used to be in the same division (of course, that's only possible if Houston or Milwaukee wins the pennant, but still).  So, even though they're in different leagues now, there's plenty of history between the Dodgers and Astros.

We've got a ton of stars in this World Series, too.  Houston, of course, has Jose Altuve, Carlos Correa and 2014 cover boy George Springer, as well as Dallas Keuchel and Justin Verlander.  The Dodgers, meanwhile, have Corey Seager and Justin Turner and Yasiel Puig, as well as that guy who deserves to be in the World Series more than any of the other 49 players on these two teams.  Clayton Kershaw has been the best pitcher in the game for five years.  Now he finally gets to pitch in a World Series.

I just hope the moment doesn't get the best of Kershaw (whose playoff struggles seem to be behind him).  Although, he's as big game as a pitcher can get.  So is Verlander, who, remarkably is 0-3 with a 7.20 ERA in his World Series career.  Verlander, however, has been reinvigorated since his trade to Houston.  They got him for moments like this.  Except he needs to pitch like the Verlander that was ALCS MVP rather than the Verlander that pitched for the Tigers in the 2006 and 2012 Fall Classics.

Starting pitching is going to be a key in this series, especially for Houston.  The Astros don't trust their bullpen at all, as evidence by the fact that they used Game 4 starter Lance McCullers, Jr., to close out the Yankees in Game 7.  The Dodgers, meanwhile, have no issues going to their bullpen, and we can probably expect to see plenty of Kenley Jansen in this series.

Let's not forget the importance of this year's rule change giving home field to the team with the better record, which is the 104-win Dodgers.  Home field advantage has been such a factor this postseason, as evidence by that ALCS where the home team won every game of a seven-game series for just the fifth time in history.  In fact, home teams are a combined 23-8 thru the LCSes (although, excluding the wild card games, the ALCS is the only series clinched at home).

Both of these teams are undefeated at home this postseason, so I think that home field advantage could end up being significant.  Are we looking at a repeat of 1987, 1991 or 2001?  Probably not.  But if we get to a Game 7, it's going to be a factor.  Especially with that 5 p.m. local time in LA.  The Dodgers are used to playing at that time.  The Astros aren't.

Houston obviously needs to steal one at Dodger Stadium, which means they really need the ALCS Verlander to show up (he'll be pitching Games 2 and 6 in LA).  And I like Darvish going in Game 3.  Because the guy who spent his entire career until a few months ago with the Rangers certainly isn't going to be phased by that crowd at Minute Maid Park.  The Dodgers got Darvish for the same reason the Astros got Verlander.

For the Astros to have any chance, though, they need their offense to actually show up on the road.  It didn't at Fenway Park.  It really didn't at Yankee Stadium.  Although, Dodger Stadium is a pitcher's park, so if Keuchel and Verlander do what they did in Games 1 and 2 of the ALCS in the World Series, they might be able to get away with only a run or two.

The Dodgers, meanwhile, have had no trouble hitting on the road.  And they also had no problem with the defending champion Cubs.  That's why they're the favorites.  As they should be.  Because, as good as the Astros are, the Dodgers are simply a better team.

All year, the Dodgers have been talking about how they're tired of seeing highlights of the 1988 World Series championship team on the scoreboard.  Well, they're not gonna have to watch those highlights for much longer.  The 29 years they've been waiting isn't quite the same as the 55 years Houston's been waiting for its first title.  But the Astros will have to wait a little longer.  

Because the 2017 Dodgers remind me of the 2016 Cubs in so many ways.  They've had a singular mission all season, just like the Cubs last year.  And I see their 2017 campaign ending the same way Chicago's 2016 did.  The Dodgers take it in six.

Football Picks, Week 7

My football picks this season, especially over the past few weeks, have been horrible.  It's just been that kind of a year in the NFL.  I did say it would be a Dodgers-Astros World Series, though.  So at least there's that.

Also, one comment on that ridiculously good Thursday night game.  They really need to revisit the rule about the 10-second run off after booth reviews.  It was the right call on that first touchdown to move the ball to the 1-yard line, because he was clearly down.  But the Raiders had done nothing to deserve a 10-second run off.  The officials were the ones who stopped the clock.  Yes, it was supposed to be running, but it should be treated like when they do a review to check the spot on a running play.  They stop it for the review, then start it immediately.  That should be the rule on late game scoring plays, too.  Fortunately for the Raiders, it didn't cost them.  But the Lions lost a game earlier this year (literally) because of the application of this rule, so I know they'd be in favor of a change.

Buccaneers (2-3) at Bills (3-2): Tampa Bay-Hey, look, the Bucs are actually playing in Buffalo!  This is just the second time that's happened in the 40 years Tampa Bay's been in the league.  In fact, that was one of the reasons the NFL adopted its current scheduling format.  Because at that time, the Bucs had never played in Buffalo, which is just insane.  Anyway, I can see this one going either way, but I'm gonna go with Jamies Winston and Co.

Panthers (4-2) at Bears (2-4): Carolina-Chicago is evidently the best team in the AFC North.  Unfortunately for the Bears, they play in the NFC North.  And their matchup this week is with a Panthers team that might've lost to the Eagles last Thursday, but did nothing to disprove that they're one of the best teams in the NFC.  They're certainly better than the Bears.

Titans (3-3) at Browns (0-6): Tennessee-This is a good week for the Titans to be playing the Browns.  Who knows what kind of a shape Mariota's in?  But Cleveland followed by the bye week means the Titans get two weeks to figure some things out.  Cleveland will keep it close, just like they have in each of their home games this season, but the Titans should come away with a win.

Saints (3-2) at Packers (4-2): New Orleans-Oh man.  There's never a good week to lose your All-Pro quarterback for the season.  But losing him when you've got a matchup with the Saints coming up is even worse.  Because the Packers are gonna need to score a lot of points, and I'm not sure Brett Hundley can keep pace with Drew Brees.  Things aren't gonna be easy for the Rodgers-less Packers.  Especially this week.  At least next week they've got their bye, which will give them some time to figure things out.

Jaguars (3-3) at Colts (2-4): Jacksonville-Ah, yes, AFC South division games!  Gotta love em!  I'm still not ready to call the Jaguars "good," but they are in a three-way tie for first place.  I think they'll still be in that first-place tie after this week.  Because they're less bad than the Colts, who simply aren't a good team (with or without Andrew Luck).

Cardinals (3-3) vs. Rams (4-2): Rams-Game three in London, and the only one that's not at 9:30 a.m.  Except, since both teams are on the West Coast, it still is for them (but at least it's not a 6:30 a.m. local time start).  And we move from Wembley Stadium to Twickenham Stadium for the Rams' annual London home game.  Will their high-flying offense still be as high-flying across the Pond.  I bet it probably will.  They go to 5-2.

Jets (3-3) at Dolphins (3-2): Jets-Why is this game on FOX?  I still don't understand this whole cross-flexing thing.  The Jets won the first game pretty badly, and that wasn't too long ago.  As a result, I'm picking them again...even though I think it'll be a much better game in Miami.

Ravens (3-3) at Vikings (4-2): Baltimore-I don't understand the Baltimore Ravens.  At all.  They go into Oakland and crush the Raiders, the lose at home to the Bears!  And let's not forget they got smoked by Jacksonville in London!  From what I can tell, they play better against better teams.  And Minnesota definitely qualifies as one of the better teams.  Thus, Baltimore's the pick.

Cowboys (2-3) at 49ers (0-6): Dallas-Back in the 90s, this was a can't-miss matchup.  But, things, of course, have changed.  Dallas has done a weird win-loss alternating situation this season.  And they're technically coming off a loss, although I'm not sure how their bye week affected that.  San Francisco, meanwhile, probably shouldn't be 0-6.  They've just been unlucky.  But they're definitely a better team than they were last year.  They'll win soon.  Just not this week.

Seahawks (3-2) at Giants (1-5): Seattle-Alright, where did that come from?  Just when we all started to come to terms with the fact that the Giants are terrible, they go into Denver and win!  I don't get it.  Then you've got Seattle, a notoriously bad road team.  Can they make it two in a row?  I have no idea.  But it seems just as likely they'll lay another egg in a game that CBS wanted so badly they made it a national game, only to change it to a regional game because the Giants suck.

Bengals (2-3) at Steelers (4-2): Pittsburgh-Typical Steelers.  They play an absolutely horrible game (losing to the Bears in overtime), then turn around and dominate the last remaining undefeated team.  And, as a result of that Kansas City win, they're currently the No. 1 seed in the AFC.  Now they're back in their comfort zone with a division game against a Bengals team that won two straight before its bye.  Those games were against the Browns and Bills, though.  Going into Pittsburgh is a different story.

Broncos (3-2) at Chargers (2-4): Denver-Despite losing to the Giants, the Broncos caught a major break when the Chiefs lost to Pittsburgh, then Oakland.  As a result, they're even in the loss column as they head to Southern California, where the "home" team isn't really that welcome.  There will be a lot of Denver fans at the Stub Hub Center.  And they'll see the Broncos put on a much better performance than they did last week.

Falcons (3-2) at Patriots (4-2): New England-Everyone loves a Super Bowl rematch!  This could've been the season opener, but NBC and the NFL decided that it would be New England-Kansas City instead and they'd save this one for mid-October.  Has there been some Super Bowl hangover on the Atlanta side?  Probably.  I'm still not sure how they blew a 17-0 lead at home! against Miami.  But this is also a team that blew a 28-3 lead in the third quarter in February.  You know watching the game tape of the Super Bowl had to be hard for the Falcons' coaches this week.  Anyway, New England's starting to play like New England again.  You know the Falcons have to be up after they should've won the Super Bowl.  But the Patriots should remind them that they're the Super Bowl champions in what I think will be a terrific Sunday night game.

Redskins (3-2) at Eagles (5-1): Philadelphia-When last they played, the Eagles were one of five one-loss teams and Kansas City was undefeated.  Now they have the best record in football (and for a lot of that time, they didn't even do anything).  NFC East division games are always battles, and this one should be no different.  Especially because Washington, which for some reason is already playing its third prime time game of the season, has played well under the lights.  I think the Eagles are the better team, though, and they're playing at home.

Thursday Night: Kansas City (Loss)

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 6-8
Overall: 53-39

Seriously Lady?

A Long Island mother created a good amount of controversy this week when she went on a crusade over her daughter's high school cross country uniform.  She was "appalled" that the uniforms included racing briefs (commonly known as "bun huggers") instead of looser shorts.  So appalled, in fact, that she started a petition to ban them and went on the local news to drum up support for her cause.  And, as expected, the reaction has been mixed.

Now, I understand that some of you may think this is a strange topic for me to be talking about, and I also understand why.  I can also see where some might consider it questionable whether or not it's even an appropriate thing for me to be talking about (in fact, I went back and forth on it myself).  But I've been around the sport long enough and know enough people involved in track & field to feel comfortable enough stating my position without it coming off the wrong way.

I know plenty of female athletes who prefer to wear the bun huggers and plenty who prefer to wear either spandex or regular shorts.  I also know plenty who don't have an option, but would rather wear a different style of bottoms than the ones they're given as part of the uniform.  Everyone has their preference and their reasons for that preference. 

My personal feeling is that they should be given the choice of whatever type of bottoms they want to wear.  If I was a coach, I'd give them the option (with the only caveat being that all members of a relay team should match).  Because it ultimately doesn't really matter.

But this isn't about that.  This is about one idiot parent who thinks she speaks for everyone, even when she doesn't actually know what she's talking about.

She admitted to being a novice when it comes to cross country, which I guess explains her shock at first seeing the uniform.  But she's apparently never seen the Olympics either.  If she had, she would've known that briefs have been the standard in track & field/cross country since at least the mid-80s.  And I also find it strange that the "first time" she was seeing the uniforms was at the first meet.  Her daughter didn't bring her uniform home when it was first issued?  For some reason, I doubt that.

The absolute best part of the news story, though, was when she asked why the boys don't wear them.  Well, lady, there's a slight anatomical difference between boys and girls that doesn't make briefs a practical option for boys.  Have you ever seen a wrestling singlet?  It would be like that, only worse, and it would NOT be comfortable.  By the way, the jerseys are different, too.  For a similar reason.

Her biggest problem seems to be that she feels it's "inappropriate" for high school girls to be wearing them.  Now, I can kind of see her point there (for the varsity, sure, but maybe not for the freshman and JV teams).  But her argument against the uniform loses a lot of steam when she suggests they weren't given a choice about their bottoms.  Which is 100 percent not true.  Not only do the girls have the choice, the photo accompanying one of the articles even shows the team in question wearing both the briefs and regular spandex shorts (which she deems acceptable).

Anyway, her crusade against the bun huggers is misguided to say the least.  For starters, she isn't asking for another choice to be offered.  Rather, she wants bun huggers eliminated as an option.  So, in essence, she wants the choice of bottoms taken away for everybody simply because she finds them inappropriate.  Am I the only one who finds that a little backwards?  (Some people have even suggested that such gender-based discrimination is illegal.)

Meanwhile, there are plenty of athletes and parents who have no issue with these uniforms, which are pretty standard across the country.  MileSplit did a poll and 90 percent of respondents voted "No" to the question of whether or not they should be banned.  Which they shouldn't be.

Bun huggers serve a practical, performance-based purpose.  If they didn't, they wouldn't be the norm.  And the pros certainly wouldn't wear them.  I have no idea why high school and college runners would prefer to wear one style of shorts over another, but I suspect that a lot of those who choose to wear the briefs do so for that very reason.  They see Olympians wearing them and that's what they aspire to.  Or, maybe some high school just want to get used to them before wearing them at a higher level.  And, believe it or not, some runners might simply find them more comfortable. 

Why should any of that matter though?  They didn't start a petition and go on TV.  Starting a petition and going on TV doesn't make you right, though.  Like this mother.

The Sports Equinox

Thanks to the Cubs' win in Game 4 of the NLCS, we ended up with the rarest of sporting phenomena.  The sports equinox.  Thursday marked just the 17th time in history that all four major sports were in action on the same day.  It's one of those things that can only happen in October.

ESPN had a chart listing every sports equinox since the first one in 1971 (it's funny how we're talking about this like the eclipse earlier this year), and they seemed shocked that it happened only once from 1985-2009 (and that was only made possible because the 2001 World Series, which was delayed a week, went seven games).  Frankly, I'm kinda surprised about how frequent it has become since then, although with the NBA season now starting earlier, the chances have become greater.

The reasons why the sports equinox are so rare should be obvious.  Baseball is the only game in town for much of the summer until football season starts in September, and basketball and hockey have the stage to themselves in February and March (with a slight interruption for college basketball).  Until this year, the only time the four sports overlapped was, potentially, the final week in October, provided the World Series wasn't over yet.

And, if you think about it, the leagues have kind of set up their schedules to avoid this happening.  That's why the off days in the World Series are Thursday and Monday.  Those are the nights the NFL plays.  And on that Sunday night when they go head-to-head, Game 5 of the World Series usually gets crushed by the football game.  (There were also a few years when NBC and the NFL didn't schedule a Sunday night game during the World Series.)

Speaking of World Series Game 5, if there is one, we'll have a second sports equinox in 10 days on October 29.  That's one the things about this rare event.  You can't plan on it happening.  Because the baseball game is always *if necessary.  There's only been three times where the sports equinox could've been pre-planned (Game 2 of the World Series in 1972 and 1973, Game 4 in 2009). 

It's also not much of a surprise to see that most of the sports equinoxes have come on a Sunday.  In fact, they're only possible on Sunday, Monday or Thursday, the three nights the NFL plays.  Of the previous 16 sports equinoxes, 14 were on Sundays, and the other two were on Mondays (in 2009 and 2010).  This was the first ever to occur on another day of the week.  And, if the NFL drops Thursday Night Football after this season as many suspect, we'll go back to Sunday and Monday being the only possibilities.

One other factor that contributed to this early sports equinox was the NBA's decision to move up the start of the season.  Opening Night in the NBA has always been right around Halloween, and sometimes basketball season wouldn't even start until the World Series was already over.  (It used to start in mid-October, which is why we had all of those sports equinoxes in the 70s.)

With the NBA moving the start of the season up a week, the sports equinox could become even more frequent.  But that doesn't make it any less fun.

Sure, a playoff baseball game has much more urgency than an early season NHL or NBA game, but we'll take what we can get.  Because for the sports fan, there is no better day.  You don't have to wait until (fill in the blank) season.  For a brief period of time, it's every season.  Although, that leads to the entirely different problem of trying to figure out to watch.

Practice What You Preach

A lot of my posts this week will be catching up on some topics I've seen in recent weeks but haven't gotten the chance to talk about yet.  And today's post is one of them.  It's my reaction to an article I saw about a week ago regarding the walking contradiction that is the IOC.  And, I've gotta say, I agree with many of the points that were made in the article.

The basic argument made was that the IOC keeps telling host cities that they need to find ways to save money in various ways, while at the same time doing things themselves that make hosting the Games inherently more expensive.  And for an organization that's having such an image problem, mainly because potential hosts are balking at the ever-expanding costs, it really is silly that they keep expanding the program and increasing the number of athletes.

How are cities supposed to save money when you're making them spend more?  For example, Tokyo's budget has skyrocketed from the original projections, for a number of reasons.  And one cost-cutting measure that the IOC has suggested is reducing the services available at the Olympic Village.  Now, I've never stayed at the Olympic Village.  But, from the experiences I've heard from those who have, it definitely does sound like there are some features of the Village that could be scaled back.

Their other money-saving suggestion about the Olympic Village made absolutely no sense though.  Instead of reducing the services for the athletes, they want NOC's to ask people not to stay in the Village.  They're even willing to pay for alternative accommodations for coaches, support staff, etc., all in the name of reducing the number of beds needed in the Village.

What NOC would be stupid enough to accept this deal?  The Olympic Charter explicitly requires the organizing committee to provide lodging, transportation, etc., for all accredited personnel at the Games.  Yes, some athletes or teams (USA Basketball being the most notable example) may choose not to stay in the Village on their own, but it's asinine to ask nations to separate the athletes from teh staff (or leave some staff home altogether) just so the organizers can save a few bucks.

Meanwhile, the Games keep expanding for no apparent reason.  The Olympic Charter states that the Summer Games should feature right around 10,500 athletes, 5,000 coaches and support personnel and 310 events.  There were more than 11,000 athletes in Rio.  Yet for Tokyo, they've added five sports, 18 events and nearly 500 more athletes.  You do this while you're simultaneously telling the organizing committee to find ways to reduce costs?

In order to make room for those 500 athletes, the IOC has reduced the number of places in other sports and made team sizes smaller in some team sports.  Which is another contradiction.  You claim the Games are getting too big, yet add more sports for no apparent reason.  Sorry, your reason is to "appeal to youth," and those sports are left to the discretion of the host committee.

That might be my biggest problem with this whole idea.  When the sport program is consistent, you at least have a better shot of coming near those ideal numbers.  Golf and rugby alone don't explain why there were 700 more athletes in Rio than in London, but that number would've been significantly higher had they arbitrarily added sports the way Tokyo did.  And, frankly, the sports added for the Tokyo Games don't really seem to have a place in the Olympic program anyway.

When golf and rugby were added, they went through a rigorous selection process before determining those were the two best fits.  And they were.  The golf and rugby tournaments in Rio were spectacular, and I think they're part of the Olympics to stay.  That's the way sports should be added.  It should be a difficult process that's more rigorous than just "is it popular in the host country?"

Anyway, I digress.  Additional sports mean additional athletes.  Even if you reduce the number of athletes in other sports or cut down on support staff, the athletes in these new sports will still need coaches and support personnel specific to their sport.  In other words, you're "selling" something that's impossible to sell.  You can't reduce the costs associated with housing so many people in the Olympic Village when you're making it so that the number of people who'll be staying in the Village will actually increase!

My solution here is a very simple one.  You stop the arbitrary addition of sports and go back to the old process.  That way your numbers are far easier to control.  Because if you leave the program up to the host organizers, who's to say where it stops?  Maybe Paris does decide to bring in video games for 2024 (don't get me started on that).  Maybe LA wants to add football for 2028.  As we all know, football teams aren't small, and football staffs are nearly as large.

I do think they're serious about wanting to reduce the costs of running an Olympic Games.  If they aren't, they're going to continue to have the same problems with cities refusing to bid.  That's why they have to practice what they preach.  If you don't want the Olympics to cost so much, stop making them bigger!  Especially when you have no reason to do so.

Seriously, does your life suddenly have meaning now that there's Olympic surfing?  Are you dying to watch that Olympic karate tournament?  I didn't think so.

Football Picks, Week 6

I'll admit it.  This hasn't been my best year with NFL picks.  Although, that can probably be chalked up to the fact that there have just been so many upsets in the NFL this season.  Or, not necessarily upsets, there are just a number of teams we thought would be good that haven't been and a number of teams that have surprised us with how well they've done thru Week 5.  I don't know, but it's been a crazy year to say the least.

Dolphins (2-2) at Falcons (3-1): Atlanta-After starting 3-0, the Falcons fell to the Bills in their last game before their bye week.  Miami, meanwhile, got a win over the Titans to even their record at 2-2.  The Dolphins sit just a half-game out in the suddenly crowded AFC East, while the Falcons know that this is their chance to seize control of the NFC South after the Panthers' loss on Thursday.  I haven't really been given any reason to think the Dolphins will be able to put it together in consecutive weeks, so move the Falcons to 4-1.

Packers (4-1) at Vikings (3-2): Green Bay-Ever since that overtime win over Cincinnati, Green Bay has really begun to assert itself.  The Packers have put up 35 points in back-to-back weeks and had that late comeback to put away the Cowboys.  They're really good.  The Vikings, meanwhile, barely beat the Bears on Monday night and only scored seven points against Detroit before that.  They won't be able to handle Green Bay.

Lions (3-2) at Saints (2-2): Detroit-Here we have one of the most intriguing matchups of Week 6.  New Orleans, especially, intrigues me.  The Saints started 0-2, but looked mighty good in their last two games, including a win in Carolina, before their bye week.  But I think the Lions are a better team.  Keep in mind Detroit's only two losses this season were by a combined seven points to Atlanta and Carolina.  Both the Falcons and Panthers are better than New Orleans.

Patriots (3-2) at Jets (3-2): New England-If you'd told me that the New York teams would have a combined three wins and that the Jets would have all of them, I definitely wouldn't have believed you.  But here they are, the winners of three straight and tied for first place.  Although, I do enjoy the fact that the Patriots are only tied for first place right now.  That should change this week.  New England continues its division domination.

49ers (0-5) at Redskins (2-2): Washington-San Francisco's getting closer to actually winning.  Back-to-back overtime losses.  And now they make their way all the way east to conclude a three-game road trip played in three different time zones.  Washington is not at all travel weary.  The Redskins played a really good game against the Chiefs before their bye.  They'll hand the 49ers their third straight overtime loss.

Bears (1-4) at Ravens (3-2): Baltimore-Just when I thought we should start to count the Ravens out, they go and win in Oakland.  And now, all of a sudden, they're back in a first-place tie with the suddenly reeling Steelers.  Now they head back home for a matchup with the Bears that they should win.  I say "should" with some caution, though, because the Ravens often find a way to lose games like this.

Browns (0-5) at Texans (2-3): Houston-Houston has alternated wins and losses so far this season.  That should continue against a Browns team that actually is better than last year, even though the record doesn't indicate it.  They'll give the Texans a challenge, especially since this is Houston's first game without J.J. Watt.  But I think DeShawn Watson will do something spectacular and the Texans will get the victory.

Buccaneers (2-2) at Cardinals (2-3): Arizona-Both of Arizona's wins have come in overtime against teams that aren't really that good.  So why do I like the Cardinals this week?  Because I'm not really sure how good Tampa Bay is.  They needed a last-second field goal to beat the Giants, yet nearly beat New England.  I don't get it at all.  Arizona's at home.  That's the other reason I'm taking them.

Rams (3-2) at Jaguars (3-2): Rams-This is Exhibit A of what I was talking about earlier.  FOX has actually been plugging Rams-Jaguars as their national late game.  The Rams being 3-2?  Not that much of a surprise.  But the Jaguars being 3-2 and in first place?  That's one of the biggest surprises of the season.  And now they face each other in one of the marquee games of the week.  Like I said, it's been a crazy year in the NFL.  The Jaguars, oddly, haven't won in Jacksonville all season.  I don't see that ending.

Steelers (3-2) at Chiefs (5-0): Kansas City-Kansas City's got some big ones coming up, so I don't see the undefeated string lasting much longer.  But I do think we'll see it continue for at least one more game.  The Steelers looked old, tired and incredibly bad last week, when they got smacked at home by Jacksonville.  That team certainly didn't look like one that can win in Kansas City.  Although, let's not forget the Steelers went into Arrowhead and won without a touchdown in the playoffs last season.  You know the Chiefs haven't forgotten.

Chargers (1-4) at Raiders (2-3): Oakland-Oakland started the season 2-0 and everyone thought this was going to be the same Raiders team that led the AFC West for much of last season.  Then they went and lost three straight.  Now I'm just not sure.  Meanwhile, the Chargers finally got a win, although that came with an asterisk since it was against the Giants.  The NFL had its concerns about playing this game because of the wildfires in the Bay Area, but it looks like we're still on as scheduled.  And it looks like the Raiders should end their losing streak.

Giants (0-5) at Broncos (3-1): Denver-When the NFL scheduled this as the Sunday night game, it was an intriguing matchup.  Now?  Not so much.  The Giants aren't just reeling.  They're flat-out bad.  It certainly looks like a lost season, especially a team with no running game just lost both of its starting wide receivers for the year, then suspended a starting cornerback.  This current Giants offense is no match for the Denver defense.

Colts (2-3) at Titans (2-3): Tennessee-We've got an AFC South division game on Monday night.  The Titans come in having dropped two straight, including a beat down in Houston, but now they return home, where they beat Seattle, for the first time in three weeks.  The Colts, meanwhile, have the same record as Tennessee.  But their two wins are over two of the worst teams in football, and one of them was in overtime.  Look for the Titans to even out their record.

Thursday Night: Carolina (Loss)

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 7-7
Season: 47-31

Where Do We Go From Here?

An unmitigated disaster.  A total shock.  An epic failure.  An extreme disappointment.  A complete embarrassment.  Those are just some of the adjectives (the nicest ones) to describe the U.S. Men's National Team's previously unfathomable inability to qualify for the 2018 World Cup.  And they're all deserved.  Because the U.S. not qualifying for the World Cup isn't just unthinkable.  It's something that simply shouldn't happen.  Period.

Every word that Taylor Twellman said in his epic rant (if you didn't see it, YouTube it, it's amazing) was 100 percent true.  Iceland, a nation of 350,000 people, will be in the World Cup.  The United States, a nation of 325 million, will not.  Iceland came out of Europe, the toughest continental qualifying.  The United States is a member of CONCACAF, which, other than Mexico and Costa Rica, isn't exactly full of world beaters.

The USA needed just a tie--a tie--against Trinidad & Tobago, the 99th-ranked team in the world.  And they couldn't get it.  Make whatever excuses you want (it was a rain-soaked field, there were bad calls, etc.).  They know that this is on them.  The players will be the first ones to admit it.    They're not sugar-coating anything.  They know they should be in the World Cup.  They know that they're better than the fifth-best team in CONCACAF.  And they know that this "result" is completely unacceptable.

So, now the question becomes "Where do we go from here?"  And that really is the million dollar question.  Because the last time the U.S. missed the World Cup was 1986, when America didn't care about the sport, the "national team" was made up of college kids and received virtually no funding.  But in 2017, with the money that is invested, the national team full of professionals, and a thriving domestic pro league (say all you want about the "quality" of play in MLS compared to other nations, that's not the point I'm making here). 

That's not even to mention the competition the U.S. goes against in its region, which, again, isn't exactly a who's who of world soccer powers.  Getting out of CONCACAF should be taken for granted.  Especially when only two teams are eliminated at the end of the Hex.  But, as this underwhelming group showed us, you can't take anything for granted.  When you do, this is what happens.

And you can't blame Juergen Klinsmann.  He was jettisoned after the disastrous start to this qualifying cycle.  Which was the right decision.  Someone had to take the fall and the U.S. Men's National Team badly needed a change.  Well, guess who needs a change even more now?  Bruce Arena, who replaced Klinsmann, is as good as gone.  The head coach is always the first one to go.  But he won't be the only one.  He can't be.

This should also be the last we see of Tim Dempsey and Michael Bradley and, yes, even Clint Dempsey in National Team colors.  They were a part of the greatest generation in U.S. soccer history.  But they were also on the field for Tuesday's disaster.  And they're not getting any younger, either.  This is Christian Pulisic's team going forward.  You need to put some more young blood around him as you move past this and set the sights on Qatar 2022.

Except the problem with that plan is the young blood simply isn't as good as Dempsey, Bradley and Co.  The U.S. hasn't qualified for the last two Olympics, either, which is a failure of the under-23 team.  And the under-23 team is supposed to feature the players next in line to join the senior national team or, in some cases, are already on it.  So, the players on the senior national team will be senior citizens themselves soon (although, in fairness, Tim Howard is just three years older than me) and the players on the under-23 team aren't good enough.  It creates quite a catch-22.

Most of the criticism for this plight has been directed towards the U.S. player development system, which is equally justified.  Although, there is some hope.  The United States has reached the quarterfinals in each of the last two Under-20 World Cups.

It really is mind-boggling to think that the U.S. has qualified for a grand total of one major tournament since the 2010 World Cup. Should the U.S. come up short in qualifying for the 2020 Olympics and miss out on the 2021 Confederations Cup, that streak will extend to one major tournament appearance in 10 years (that's assuming, of course, they actually manage to qualify for Qatar 2022).

With the 2026 World Cup pretty much guaranteed to be held primarily in the United States (hey, they won't have to qualify for that one!), the time is now to get it fixed.  The U.S Men's National Team has nine years to figure it out.  That's plenty of time for Christian Pulisic and the next generation of the U.S. Men's National Team to put on a good showing on home soil and make us forget about this disaster.

Although, we never will forget about it.  And we never should.  No one should.  This is one of the darkest moments in the history of U.S. Soccer.  It's something that can never happen again (especially with the World Cup expanding and CONCACAF getting six spots moving forward).  The powers that be need to make sure it doesn't.

Looking Ahead to Russia

World Cup qualifying is wrapping up, and more than half the field for Russia is set.  After Tuesday, there will only be a handful of places remaining (three of the African spots and the six that go to the November playoff winners).  While it's not official yet, the United States, after a tumultuous final qualifying round, is all but assured to make its eighth consecutive World Cup appearance.

Argentina, on the other hand, isn't guaranteed anything.  They might not even make it to the playoff vs. New Zealand.  But if they do make the World Cup, they'll be seeded.  I don't have that much of a problem with that since it's Argentina, but there are a number of other countries that are going to be seeded at the World Cup and shouldn't be.  In fact, all 32 teams at the World Cup will be seeded.

FIFA tried to sneak that in there and hope nobody would notice, but they announced last week that, instead of only seeding seven teams and organizing the rest of the draw geographically, they're going to seed all four pots at December's draw.  And, of course, the seeds will be determined entirely by the FIFA World Rankings, which are incredibly flawed, yet used religiously anyway.

That's right.  In typical FIFA fashion, they took a system that wasn't broken and "fixed" it anyway.  I'm not gonna get into how stupid the FIFA rankings are.  I've made my feelings on that pretty clear a number of times.  But the idea to use those rankings alone for World Cup seeding without the geographical considerations is even dumber.  Especially since the African and Asian countries are all going to be the lowest-seeded teams anyway.    (There was also a chance Italy, which is currently No. 17, could've ended up in Pot 3, but that can no longer happen since Wales didn't qualify and only five of the six South American teams ahead of them can.)

As I noted earlier, Argentina might not even make the World Cup, but if they do, they'll be seeded.  That's not the issue.  Neither are three of the other countries joining Russia on the top line--Germany, Brazil and Portugal.  But you know who the other three top seeds are most likely going to be?  Belgium, Poland and Switzerland.  Does anyone actually believe those are three of seven best teams in the world?  And do they really deserve to be seeded over France and Chile (who are the next two in the FIFA rankings and better than all three of those nations)?

Here's the thing about the seeding 1-31 (I'm excluding Russia since the host automatically goes in position A1): it's totally unnecessary.  Because of the flaws in the FIFA rankings, the European and South American squads are going to be the highest-ranked teams in the World Cup anyway.  And, I'm assuming they're still going to want to keep the teams from the same continents separated, so why not guarantee that?

UEFA specifically wanted 16 teams when the World Cup expands to 48 for that exact reason.  There will be 16 groups, so each will have one European team.  In Russia, there will be 14 European teams, so six groups will have two and two will have only one.  Well, you know what?  Of those top seven seeds, five are European, which would make separating the European teams very easy (six seeded, eight in their own pot and separated one per group).  But because of this seeding everybody nonsense, you'll have European teams in all four pots and could, theoretically, end up with an all-European group.

This plan would make more sense if they were S-curving the teams so that the groups were 1-16-17-32, 2-15-18-31, etc.  That would still require some finagling to separate teams from the same continent, but it makes more sense than this mix-and-match draw that they're going to have.  Which, I'm 100 percent certain, will still have the geographical considerations factored in.

Using the nations that have either already qualified or appear likely to and their current world rankings an S-curve would look like this (for the European second-place finishers, I used the four-highest ranked teams.  Likewise, Australia is ranked higher than either Panama or Honduras, and New Zealand is ranked lower than all of the South American teams):

Group A: Russia, Italy, Costa Rica, Ivory Coast
Group B: Germany, Uruguay, Croatia, Saudi Arabia
Group C: Brazil, England, Northern Ireland, South Korea
Group D: Portugal, Mexico, Iceland, Australia
Group E: Argentina, Spain, Iran, Nigeria
Group F: Belgium, Colombia, United States, Senegal
Group G: Poland, Chile, Egypt, Serbia
Group H: Switzerland, France, Tunisia, Japan

Of course, one of FIFA's arguments for the change is that the groups will be "more balanced" and there's not going to be the proverbial "Group of Death."  But you know what?  What if you end up with a group of Brazil, France, Costa Rica and Senegal?  Or how about Germany, Spain, United States, Nigeria?  They'd all be in separate pots, so that would be possible.  And those still look like pretty formidable groups.

Likewise, you're not eliminating the "easy" group because Russia, which will be the lowest-ranked team in the tournament, has to be seeded.  If I'm in Pot 2 or especially Pot 3, I'm praying I get drawn into Group A.  Either Group A or whichever group Poland ends up the top seed in.  And, since it's still a draw, the chances of having the top seed in each pot end up together are just as good as the chances of the lowest seed in each pot ending up together.

My point is no matter what system you use, it's not going to be perfect.  Were there flaws doing it the old way?  Sure.  But there are plenty of problems with the new way, too.  Which is why changing the seeding procedure is just silly and unnecessary.  But this is FIFA we're talking about.  So we shouldn't really be surprised about it.

Football Picks, Week 5

It's Week 5.  We're through a quarter of the NFL season, and we still haven't really learned much.  There are unexpected teams with good records and many of the teams we thought would be good are struggling.  This is generally where we start to see where teams really are, though, as they shake off the rust from not actually playing that much in the preseason.  We also start to cycle through the byes, so teams (except for the Dolphins and Bucs) will be getting a week off to rest up and recover from injuries.  That's only going to improve the quality of play moving forward, too.

Bills (3-1) at Bengals (1-3): Buffalo-No one picked the Bills in either of their last two games, but they knocked off the Falcons and Broncos and moved into first place in the AFC East.  Since they're playing the Bengals this week, people might actually pick them, although most Bills fans would probably prefer if they didn't.  Either way, I see them pulling it out and going to 4-1.

Jets (2-2) at Browns (0-4): Jets-Why is this game on FOX?  I still don't understand this "cross-flexing" thing, and I highly doubt FOX was banging down the NFL's door begging to get the Jets-Browns game.  (Yes, the Giants are playing the Chargers, but putting that game on FOX would've made more sense, especially since they moved Seahawks-Rams to CBS, which means both LA teams are on the same network for no apparent reason.)  Anyway, I'm taking the Jets in this one.  Meanwhile, the New York-Cleveland game that people actually care about is Sunday night.

Panthers (3-1) at Lions (3-1): Detroit-I've been saying for a few weeks that I think Detroit is one of the best teams in football.  We'll get to see it this week against a Panthers team that went into Foxboro last week and beat the Patriots.  Can they follow it up with a victory in Detroit?  We'll have to see, but I'm inclined to think the Lions will get it done.

49ers (0-4) at Colts (1-3): Indianapolis-They unveiled the Peyton Manning statue outside Lucas Oil Stadium, so there's a lot of pomp and circumstance surrounding this game.  It was a smart one to choose for that, because now people are at least somewhat excited for a 49ers-Colts game.  And for Indianapolis, San Francisco is essentially a homecoming opponent.  Even with Peyton's "successor" nowhere to be seen.

Titans (2-2) at Dolphins (1-2): Tennessee-Miami finally gets to play a home game!  It's the Dolphins fourth game in a fourth different city in two different countries.  They've turned into the NFL's traveling team.  There were no points to be found in New York or London.  Maybe they left them all at home.  Or, more than likely, they're gonna need to rely on their defense to win games.  Tennessee won't have Mariota, but even without him, the Dolphins have shown me nothing to indicate they'll beat them.

Chargers (0-4) at Giants (0-4): Giants-Somebody's finally going to get their first win!  To be honest, these are probably the two best 0-4 teams.  They've both lost close ones late the last couple of weeks (for the Giants, it was back-to-back last-second field goals).  Something's gotta give.  Since the Giants are at home and the New York media will be even more all over them if they lose, they'd better get it together.  That seems more likely than the Chargers traveling cross country and winning a 1:00 game.

Cardinals (2-2) at Eagles (3-1): Philadelphia-Raise your hand if you had the Eagles at 3-1.  After handily winning their opener, they held their own in Kansas City before winning a pair of nail-biters against winless teams.  So, yes, it might be a bit of a mirage.  Or it might be that they're finding ways to win.  Either way, you've gotta like their odds to make it 4-1 this week.  It's Arizona's third 1:00 game already, and they lost in Detroit before barely beating Indianapolis.  Early games and the Cardinals don't exactly mesh well.

Jaguars (2-2) at Steelers (3-1): Pittsburgh-Was the Bears game the Steelers' annual random loss?  It sure looks like it.  Because they were the Steelers again last week against Baltimore.  Jacksonville, meanwhile, might as well move to London, seeing as they came back Stateside last week, were actually a road favorite, and got blown out by the Jets.  The Steelers are actually a good team.  Do you really see them losing this one?

Ravens (2-2) at Raiders (2-2): Oakland-Oakland has lost two straight, but those were both on the road.  They return home this week for a matchup with the Ravens, who are looking to snap a two-game losing streak of their own.  And their travel has taken them from one side of the Atlantic to the other, and now to the West Coast.  That's a brutal string.  One I see them going 0-3 on.

Seahawks (2-2) at Rams (3-1): Rams-The Rams are 3-1 for the second consecutive year.  Of course, last year, they only won one game the rest of the season and finished 4-12.  The difference this season is that they're the highest-scoring team in the league thru four weeks.  Seattle, meanwhile, has had its struggles.  Even the Seahawks' defense isn't strong enough to shut the Rams down totally.  Especially not the current incarnation.

Packers (3-1) at Cowboys (2-2): Green Bay-Which Dallas Cowboys team will show up?  They look awesome one week, then lay an egg the next.  This is an odd week, so if they follow their pattern, this one should be a win.  One problem, though.  They're playing the Packers.  Green Bay went into Dallas in the playoffs last year and won, and the Packers are better this year.  I think they do it again.

Chiefs (4-0) at Texans (2-2): Kansas City-All of those undefeated teams have been falling by the wayside...except Kansas City.  The Chiefs had a tough one against the Redskins, but still managed to pull it out.  That's what good teams do.  I don't think they'll have any easier of a time in Houston.  But I think they'll manage to pull it out again.

Vikings (2-2) at Bears (1-3): Minnesota-Chicago has given up on Mike Glennon and turned the quarterback job over to Mitchell Trubisky.  That's not surprising.  But it'll take a whole lot more than a new quarterback to fix what's wrong with the Bears.  They'll probably be better on Monday night, but a win over Minnesota is a stretch.

Thursday Night: New England (Win)

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 10-6
Overall: 41-23

Hockey Season Preview

Hockey season has started.  And there are so many questions surrounding it.  Can the Penguins, after becoming the first team in 20 years to repeat, win a third straight Cup?  Can the Capitals actually get over the hump?  Will a Canadian team hoist the Cup, ending that 24-year drought?  How good will the expansion Golden Knights be?  And that idiotic decision by the owners not to go to the Olympics, even though that's what all the players wanted, will loom over the entire season, especially as the PyeongChang Games get closer.

In regards to the Golden Knights, they absolutely have a chance to be good.  The NHL wants that team to be good.  They know how important it is.  Are they a playoff team?  Probably not.  But they aren't your typical expansion team, either.  They've got a franchise goalie in Marc-Andre Fleury and they loaded up with quality talent in the expansion draft.  They're probably better than both Arizona and Vancouver.  Give it two years, maybe even next season, and the Golden Knights will be a playoff team.

As for the Penguins, they'll be the hunted even more this season than they were last year.  They had a terrible start last season before catching fire over the final couple months, and they were at their best in the playoffs.  They're like the Blackhawks when they were winning the Cup every other year.  It doesn't matter what their seed is.  Once they get to the playoffs, they're very tough to beat.  But I don't see a three-peat.  For everything to go right in the postseason three years in a row is a lot to ask.  Even of Pittsburgh.

Penguins captain Sidney Crosby was once the next big thing in the NHL.  And he's lived up to the hype, leading Pittsburgh to three Cups and another Final appearance.  But that torch has been passed to Connor McDavid and Auston Matthews.  Which is why there's plenty of reason to hope North of the Border.  It would be a stretch to say that either the Oilers or Leafs will be Stanley Cup favorites.  But it's definitely not out of the realm of possibility.

And, as much as the NHL wants Vegas to be good, they need Toronto and Montreal to be good.  They're two of the marquee franchises in the league, and they play in the two most important markets in Canada...in the only league where that matters.  Toronto's not going anywhere.  They're only gonna get better with Matthews.  And the Canadiens should be one of the better teams in the Eastern Conference, too.

Atlantic Division: Toronto and Montreal should take two of the playoff berths out of the Atlantic Division.  And, let's not forget, Ottawa took Pittsburgh to double overtime in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Final last season.  It's not a stretch at all to think all three Canadian teams could go 1-2-3 in the division.  Which leaves one potential playoff spot for either Tampa Bay or Boston to claim.  The Lightning are slightly better than the Bruins, so I give them the slight edge.  But don't count out the Sabres.  They've been rebuilding for so long that it's easy to overlook them, but this might be the year that all their rebuilding comes to fruition with a playoff berth.  I wish I could say the same about Florida and Detroit.  They're going to struggle.

Metropolitan Division: The Metropolitan Division is the toughest division in hockey.  I don't think many people would dispute that.  We saw the Met's strength last year when Washington, Pittsburgh and Columbus had the three highest point totals in the East.  And let's not forget the Rangers and Flyers were both playoff teams last year, too.  There's no reason to think those five won't be atop the division again this season.  If I have to pick one to draw the short straw, I think it'll be the Blue Jackets.  And the Islanders could sneak into the playoffs, too, which would probably bump the Flyers back.  In any other division, the Devils and Hurricanes would have a chance.

Central Division: Nashville was a popular preseason Stanley Cup pick last year, then went on to have a so-so regular season before proving everyone right in the playoffs.  This year, that chic pick is Minnesota.  Sports Illustrated has even tabbed the Wild as their preseason choice to win the Western Conference.  I'm not gonna go that far.  The Wild are good, but I think the Predators are still the top team in this division.  And let's not forget about the Blackhawks and Blues, either.  Then you throw in Dallas and there could easily be five playoff teams out of the Central.  Colorado and Winnipeg will likely not be among them.

Pacific Division: Here's where things get interesting.  For a few years, the Pacific Division meant "California."  But the Sharks and Kings are down and the two teams in Alberta are up.  I can easily see it being the Oilers and Flames that join the Ducks in the playoffs this season (which would make five Canadian playoff teams).  As for Anaheim, this might finally be the year they don't lose in the Conference Final.  They're like Washington.  We're waiting for them to get over the hump.  It's eventually got to happen.  Right?  They're too good.  Anyway, I think Vegas fits somewhere in fifth or sixth place in this division.  I definitely see them finishing ahead of Vancouver and Arizona.

For my playoff teams in the East, I'm going with Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and Tampa Bay out of the Atlantic, Washington, Pittsburgh, the Rangers and Philadelphia out of the Met.  And in the West, Nashville, Minnesota, Chicago and St. Louis from the Central, Anaheim, Edmonton, San Jose and Calgary out of the Pacific.  I'll take Capitals over Leafs in the Eastern Conference Final and Ducks over Predators in the Western Conference Final, with Anaheim over Washington for the Cup.

MLB Postseason Preview

After some of the most anticlimactic playoff races in Major League history, we're primed for what I think will be a really competitive postseason.  These are clearly the 10 best teams in baseball, and I can reasonably see six of them in the World Series. 

It's also worth noting that there were 10 teams that had a winning record on the road this season.  Nine of them made the playoffs and the 10th, the Yankees, went 40-41.  What's the moral of the story here?  You win on the road, you're in pretty good shape.

That stat about road records could be especially relevant this year, which marks the first time that teh team with the best record gets World Series home field.  The interesting thing about that is it doesn't matter if one team's a wild card and the other isn't.  Of course, that will only matter if the pennant winners are the Diamondbacks and Red Sox, but I'm curious to see how that will affect strategy, if at all, when setting up pitching rotations, etc.

Normally I wait until after the wild card games to make my predictions, but I feel confident enough in the Yankees and Diamondbacks to pencil them in as the winners.  Of course, the wild card game has actually been won more frequently by the road team, but the Yankees and Diamodbacks are far superior to the Twins and Rockies. 

The fact that the Yankees have beaten the Twins a lot in the playoffs has nothing to do with why I like them in the AL Wild Card Game, either.  Unlike the last time they were in the Wild Card Game and lost to Dallas Keuchel, the Yankees are on a roll right now.  They were outstanding in September (including a sweep of the Twins two weeks ago) and certainly look to be peaking at the right time.  There's also the big difference of not going against that big-time ace pitcher, which has been the difference in so many Wild Card Games in the past.  Arizona will have that in Zack Greinke.  That's enough for me.

So, that gives us Yankees-Indians and Diamondbacks-Dodgers to go along with the two series we already knew--Astros-Red Sox and Nationals-Cubs.

Last night on MLB Network, Harold Reynolds said that he can see Yankees-Indians would be the best Division Series matchup.  (For the record, he said Cleveland would sweep Minnesota if the Twins win the Wild Card Game, and I agree with that).  Yankees-Indians could go either way, and you can definitely see either team sweeping, too.  Cleveland swept a series at Yankee Stadium at the beginning of their winning streak in late August, and they might be better than last year's team that lost the World Series.  The Yankees are the worst possible matchup for them, though, and if they get the type of pitching they got in September, this is an even matchup.  However, I don't see the Yankees beating Corey Kluber twice, which would mean they'd need to win each of the other three games.  I'm just not sure that happens.  And, with Kluber pitching Game 5 in Cleveland, I'm going to say Indians in five.

Houston and Boston just played each other.  They ended the series with a four-game set at Fenway, and the Astros won three of those games.  Both teams went all out since the Astros were playing for home field and Boston was playing for the division.  And, frankly, Houston was simply the better team.  In fact, the Astros once again look like they did in April and May.  Especially now that they have Justin Verlander.  Ever since the trade, Houston has gotten its mojo back.  Boston may take one game, but I don't see them beating the Astros three times, especially since Sale's going against Verlander, and Houston has the pitching advantage in every other matchup.  I'll give the Red Sox one, but I think it'll be Houston in four.

As dominant as the Dodgers were for most of the season, there were two teams that ended up with a winning record against them--Arizona and Colorado.  Which means the Dodgers have to worry about whichever NL West rival they end up playing.  It's not going to be the walkover many would've expected.  However, with that being said, it seems highly unlikely the Dodgers will lose this series.  They seem to have straightened themselves out after that really bad string in early September, and they've had a singular focus all season.  They didn't care about the wins record.  They care about getting to the World Series.  Now is when it really matters.  And let's not forget they've got Clayton Kershaw, and he'll get to start at home twice, which is something he's never done in a playoff series.  Arizona, meanwhile, would only be able to use Greinke once.  That's too much for Arizona to overcome.  Dodgers in four.

Nationals-Cubs.  Oh man, this one just got a lot more interesting.  Max Scherzer says he's fine to start Game 2, which would keep him on normal rest to start Game 5.  Washington's backup Game 1 option of Stephen Strasburg isn't exactly a bad one, either.  But their success really depends on the health of both Scherzer and Bryce Harper.  And let's not forget, the Nationals have never won a playoff series, something they badly want to change.  Let's not forget something else, though.  The Cubs are the defending World Series Champions, and they played like it over the second half of the season.  Yet they're the underdogs heading into the playoffs, and they're embracing that role.  Are they as good as they were last year?  Probably not.  Does that matter?  Also probably not.  They used their pitching depth to win the World Series last year, and that depth could carry them again in this series.  But if Scherzer's healthy, I'm not sure they beat him twice.  Nationals in five.

We'll revisit things once we move on to the LCS, but my matchups are the predictable ones--Indians vs. Astros and Dodgers vs. Nationals.  I think Houston beats Cleveland for the AL pennant, and somebody has to win Dodgers-Nationals and finally get to the World Series.  I'll say that's the Dodgers, who then finish the job and beat the Astros in a great World Series.