What to Watch From Now Until Tokyo

The Winter-to-Summer Olympic gap always feels really long.  So what do we have to look forward to in the next two and a half years until the Tokyo Games?  A lot actually.  From the World Cup to all of the pre-Olympic-year World Championships, the worldwide sporting calendar will be far from empty from now until July 24, 2020.

Let's start with the big event coming up this summer.  The one that's just as big as the Olympics.  The 2018 World Cup.  Of course, the United States won't be one of the 32 teams in Russia.  But that's not gonna take anything away from what we're gonna see.  The World Cup is always tremendous, and the 2018 edition promises to be more of the same.

One World Cup that we don't need to stress over is the 2019 Women's World Cup.  Qualification only just started, but the chances of the American women meeting the same fate as their male counterparts seems unlikely.  Not only is the United States the defending champions, they should be one of the favorites to win it again when 24 teams convene in France next June.

That's just one of three World Cups in store for us next year.  As a bit of a prelude to the Tokyo Olympics, the 2019 Rugby World Cup will also take place in Japan.  This is a long one too, it goes for six weeks from Sept. 20-Nov. 2.  They originally wanted to use Tokyo's Olympic Stadium for the Rugby World Cup, too, but they're taking too long rebuilding it (they haven't even started yet!), so the final will instead be in Yokohama, the same site as the 2002 World Cup Final.  Oh, and as for American qualifying, that's already taken care of.  The United States finished as the top team in the Americas region for the first time.

Then there's the 2019 Basketball World Cup, the first one not in the same year as the soccer World Cup.  FIBA rescheduled it from 2018 until 2019 so that they wouldn't be in the same year anymore.  It's in China and not until September, which means they expect the NBA guys to play a ridiculously long 2019-20 season that will begin and end in Asia.  Or, more likely, it means we're gonna see two completely different American teams at the World Cup and the Olympics.  The good news is that you can qualify directly for the Olympics at the World Cup, so there's no extra tournament to worry about.

Before I get off the World Cup kick, there's one other soccer tournament worth mentioning.  UEFA Euro 2020 will be different than previous Euros, too.  It's the 60th anniversary, so they're doing a continent-wide tournament with no official host.  The semifinals and final will be in London, but the group stage will be held in 12 cities in 12 different countries (including London).

If Olympic-style multi-sport events are more your thing, there's one right around the corner.  The 2018 Commonwealth Games are in Australia, so they're early.  The United States isn't part of the Commonwealth (although Canada is), and they're in April, so it'll be easy to overlook the Commonwealth Games.  But they are a worthwhile thing to check out.

Speaking of events worth checking out, the 2019 Pan Am Games are in Lima, Peru.  I had a blast at the last Pan Am Games in Toronto, so I'm really looking forward to this next edition.  The Pan Am Games are a much bigger deal in the rest of the Americas than they are here, but they actually serve as the Americas Olympic qualifier in a number of sports, and they start almost a year to the day of the Tokyo Games.

About a month before the Pan Am Games will be the 2019 European Games in Minsk.  The inaugural European Games in 2015 were a bit of a work-in-progress.  And you could definitely tell.  They had trouble getting the different sporting federations to buy in, and some nations certainly seemed a bit disinterested too.  They even had trouble finding a host for this edition, which was originally supposed to be in the Netherlands.  So, there's nowhere to go but up.  Right?

And let's not forget that Olympic sports have their World Championships in odd years, and the intensity is always ratcheted up a notch in the pre-Olympic year.  That will especially be the case in the 2019 IAAF World Championships, which are in Doha, so they'll be really late in the season.  Not until the end of September.  The 2019 FINA World Aquatics Championships, meanwhile, will be in their traditional mid-summer timeframe.  And we've been talking about the Olympics' little Asian swing, but the swimmers will have the same thing in an even shorter window.  This one's in Korea, and the 2021 World Championships are in Fukuoka, Japan, which means three straight trips in three consecutive years for them.

Lastly, we've got the Youth Olympics.  Two editions, in fact.  The IOC puts the Youth Olympics for the opposite season in the regular Olympic years, so that means we've got the Summer Youth Olympics coming up later this year in Buenos Aires, followed by the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics in Lausanne, Switzerland.  The Youth Olympics still haven't really quite caught on in the mainstream, but the IOC loves them.  And they are where they try out new sports and events before moving them up to the regular Olympics, so some of the stuff you see in Buenos Aires and Lausanne could very well be previews of events that you'll see in Beijing and Paris.

So, don't worry, kids.  There's still plenty to keep us occupied between now and the start of the Tokyo Olympics.  Let's not forget, we'll have two full seasons of pro and college sports in the interim, too.  In other words, we'll be fine.  There definitely won't be a void.  And if you are feeling one, you can always check out the Olympic Channel, which will be showing PyeongChang replays all week.

NBC's New Announcers Make the Grade

One last Olympic post before catching up on what I've missed over the last two and a half weeks.  And this time it's to give NBC a certain amount of credit for their Olympic coverage.  Don't get me wrong, while it improved in week two, the coverage was still as disappointing overall as I thought it was early in the Games.  But...the quality of the production had nothing to do with the quality of the analysts, who, for the most part, were excellent.

I can't remember another Olympics that saw so many new analysts debut, which was actually a smart decision on NBC's part.  They saw that the reaction Will & Grace (my nickname for Tara & Johnny) got in Sochi.  They were so good and so relatable that they were promoted to the main crew and Scott Hamilton, who's called Olympic figure skating since God knows when, was relegated to the "Olympic Ice" show on NBCSN.

Speaking of "Olympic Ice," Tanith White proved to be just as solid as Will & Grace.  She was great.  She clearly knows her stuff, but she made it so that we could understand it too, without treating us like morons who knew nothing.  And, considering how over-the-top and borderline annoying Will & Grace (especially Will) got at times, it was a nice change of pace to have her call the ice dancing.

Tanith is the first of the new broadcasters to get an "A."  Mike Tirico also gets one.  Taking over as the primetime host, especially for a legend like Bob Costas, wasn't the easiest of tasks.  But he was up for the challenge.  And you could tell he was more comfortable in the role as the Games went on (again, I think the improved production and them actually letting him do things in the second week helped, too).  Not having Bob Costas there will still take some getting used to.  We're definitely in good hands, though.

Another newcomer to the NBC Olympic stable this year was Joey Cheek.  If you only watched NBC's primetime coverage, you didn't see much of Joey Cheek.  But his commentary during speed skating was smart, insightful and a massive improvement over Dan Jansen.

The third recent U.S. Olympian who made his debut as an NBC analyst in PyeongChang was Bode Miller.  I actually liked Bode Miller.  I, frankly, was refreshed to have somebody new calling alpine skiing alongside Dan Hicks, and I was a big fan of the little anecdotes he gave about the different skiers.  He actually knows these guys from competing alongside them for so long, and I though that first-hand knowledge added something to the broadcast.

But, apparently, Bode Miller wasn't as popular with some critics as he was with me.  There have even been predictions (already) that, come Beijing, he'll be replaced by Lindsey Vonn.  I wouldn't be totally surprised if that happens.  (You know NBC's gonna find a way to work her in somehow.)  I wouldn't be completely upset to see Bode return, though.

Then there's former Canadian Olympian Kevin Martin.  This might just be evidence that I watched way too much curling during the Games.  But I feel like I know more about the sport now from listening to him.  Sure, some of the terms he used were way over my head.  But, especially during the gold medal match, it was incredibly helpful to have him breaking down the strategy and how to execute each shot.

They didn't just stick with new people, though.  When you've already got analysts like John Morgan, Apolo Oho and, especially Chad Salmela, why would you need to? 

Rowdy Gaines is synonymous with Olympic swimming in the Summer.  And with good reason.  He's the best, and everybody knows it.  Same thing with Ato Boldon.  Well, the Winter Olympic equivalent of Rowdy Gaines and Ato Boldon is John Morgan.  They call him "Mr. Bobsled" for a reason.  I don't know the last time he didn't call an Olympic bobsled competition.  And it's clear why.  He knows his stuff.  He's not the best at play-by-play, but he did a serviceable job in that role (although, I missed the English guy saying "run breaker" over and over again during the final runs of four-man).

However, it's clear who takes the cake as the best analyst in PyeongChang.  Chad Salmela.  Like John Morgan, he's a staple of the Winter Olympics.  We only get him every four years, but when we get him, we get a lot of him.  Salmela calls both bobsled and cross country skiing, and he gets equally over-excited for both. 

Which is why his call of the finish of the women's team sprint will be the most memorable call of the Olympics for me.  Steve Shlanger, the play-by-play guy, didn't even need to be there.  Chad gets excited when a French biathlete misses a shot.  I couldn't wait to see how excited he'd get with the U.S. winning a gold medal in cross country for the first time.  And it was everything I thought it would be and more.  I just hope they had medical personnel on hand in Connecticut.  Because I seriously thought he was going to have a heart attack.  He was that excited!

Sadly, we have to wait four more years until we get Chad Salmela again (he also works for the Olympic Channel, though, so we can always go there to avoid Chad withdrawal).  And hopefully we'll get Doc Emrick back in Beijing, too.  Because the hockey coverage was definitely missing something without him there (even if it was all of the guys you regularly see on NBC's NHL broadcasts). 

Maybe NBC will throw us a bone and have Doc call water polo in Tokyo.  I just have one question, though.  If that happens, can Chad Salmela be the color analyst?

Let's Reassess the Winter Priorities

We saw the United States win nine gold medals in PyeongChang.  It's a remarkable display of consistency.  This is the fourth straight Winter Olympics where the U.S. won nine golds (after winning 10 in Salt Lake City).  The nine golds is not the problem.  But that total number of 23 is a little concerning and requires the USOC taking a deeper look.

There were some projections that had the U.S. finishing in the 30s (although, I must say I came pretty close with my 25, and I nailed the 39 for Norway).  They obviously didn't come anywhere close to that number.  To be fair, there were a lot of fourth- and fifth-place finishes, so there easily could've been a few more.  But the fact remains that despite having the largest team (by any country) in Winter Olympic history, the United States took home its fewest medals since 1998.

Here's the concerning part, though.  Nearly half of those came in either snowboarding or freestyle skiing, events that have been added in bulk to the Winter Games lately and have done a pretty good job of inflating the American medal total.  If you take out those two sports, the totals drop to 12 medals overall (one fewer than Nagano) and just four gold (Mikaela Shiffrin, cross country, curling and women's hockey).

Meanwhile, the U.S. won a grand total of three medals in alpine skiing, all courtesy of Mikaela Shiffrin and Lindsey Vonn.  The men were shut out.  Speed skating?  One medal.  A bronze.  The first by U.S. women since 2002 (more on that in a second).  Even in figure skating, the one winter sport America is perhaps best known for, the American medal count was two bronzes, one of which came in the team event.

So, while the United States might be snagging medals left and right in the X Games events, the traditional Winter Olympic sports are getting left behind.  And that's why a reassessment might be necessary.

Leading into the Vancouver Games, Canada started an "Own the Podium" campagin.  The Canadians had an incredible showing at their home Games, and it's continued at the last two Winter Games.  Great Britain did something similar prior to the London Games.  And they're still reaping the benefits six years later.

Both of those nations wanted to have a good showing at home, but they also wanted to use their home Games as a springboard to long-term Olympic success.  All of the facilities built for the Olympics became high-performance training centers for the national teams, which has been a huge boon to both the Canadian and British Olympic teams.

I bring this up because the Salt Lake City Games were supposed to have the same effect on the U.S. Winter Olympic team.  Part of Salt Lake's Olympic legacy is the world-class facilities.  Salt Lake City has one of two bobsled tracks and one of the few speed skating ovals in the U.S.  (That was the most hilarious part of NBC's "Do you want to get started in Nordic combined?" ads, since, you know, there's a ski jump around every corner.)  This means American winter athletes don't need to go somewhere in Europe to train.  And, by extension, make the United States competitive in the Winter Olympics across the board.

It's been 16 years since Salt Lake City, which means we're onto a new generation of winter athletes.  The athletes who competed in the Salt Lake City Games are long since retired (for the most part) and have been replaced by those who watched them on TV.  And have had the benefit of training at those facilities throughout their entire careers as elite athletes.

Why then, did it take 16 years for the U.S. to win an Olympic medal in women's speed skating?  Why then, were the only two alpine skiers you've ever heard of the only ones who brought medals home from PyeongChang?  (And there are ski resorts all over the U.S.)  Same thing with figure skating.  There are rinks everywhere, yet the U.S. hasn't won an Olympic singles medal since Evan Lysacek's gold in 2010.

Yes, there have consistently been bobsled and luge medals since the Salt Lake Olympic track opened, and the U.S. has won Olympic medals in Nordic combined and, now, cross country at recent Games.  But that doesn't change the fact that the American Winter Olympic medal tally has really become dependent on two sports--snowboarding and freestyle skiing.

Is it working?  For now.  But other nations are eventually going to start winning medals in those sports, too.  And what will happen when they do?  We'll go back to seeing American medal totals in the teens (which I'm sure NBC would love).  That is, unless the USOC commits to developing the entire winter sports program.  Not just snowboarding and freestyle skiing. 

Then maybe the American dominance of the Summer Gmaes will carryover to the winter.  Or at least put the U.S. in the conversation with Norway, Germany and Canada.  Because there's no reason why it shouldn't.

A Golden Finish

Team USA was in a little bit of a holding pattern there for a while.  After all the X Games events ended, we went like a week between American gold medals.  Now, the Winter Games will never be the gold medal factory that the Summer Games are (the USA won more medals at last year's track & field World Championships than at these Olympics), but that mid-Games lull was definitely a little unexpected.

Well, the last few days have more than made up for it.  The USA is going to end up leaving PyeongChang with nine gold medals, and going out with a bang.  Because there were three memorable (and historic) gold medals over the final few days of the Games that will make people forget about that gap in the middle.

Let's start with the one that's perhaps the most significant.  The one that snapped the gold medal drought.  Jessie Diggins and Kikkan Randall's victory in the cross country skiing team sprint.

Coming into these Games, the United State had won a grand total of one cross country skiing medals in its Olympic history, Bill Koch's silver in 1976.  That was expected to change here.  Jessie Diggins has become one of the best in the world, and she had two fifths and a sixth in her first three individual events.  So, the team sprint ended up being her last chance to get that elusive Olympic medal (at least in PyeongChang).  And Diggins didn't just win a medal.  She won gold!

It wasn't just the second American medal ever in cross country.  It was the first cross country medal for a woman.  And the first gold! 

The best part for me, though, was that Diggins shared it with Kikkan Randall.  My sister actually lives in Anchorage and has seen Kikkan Randall around skiing.  She's arguably the greatest American cross country skier in history, and she's really the one who first made the US relevant in cross country skiing in the first place.  This was her fifth and final Olympics.  And it was so fitting that in her final Olympic race, she was given the Michael Strahan/Ray Lewis/Peyton Manning sendoff.  Randall deserved to win an Olympic medal.  So did Diggins.  The fact that they won a gold together makes that much more special.

Speaking of teams that deserved to win a gold...I saw an article about Lindsey Vonn after she won her bronze arguing that she was a disappointment because she didn't win gold.  Any Olympic medal is an accomplishment you should be proud of.  Anyway, my point is there's only one silver/bronze medal that would've been considered a disappointment.  And that would've been one in women's hockey.

They dedicated four years to one game.  They were tired of losing to Canada, and gold was the only option.  After all, it had been 20 years.  And as that incredible game progressed into overtime and then the shootout, it became increasingly clear that yet another silver would be the most painful of them all.  So, when Jocelyn Lamoureux scored that ridiculous shootout goal, and Maddie Rooney made that save on the other end, those women were probably running a gamut of emotions.  Elation and "We did it!" sure.  But probably some relief and "Finally!" too.

Like the 1999 soccer team, that 1998 gold medal hockey team inspired a generation.  Most of the players on this team have said that they started playing hockey because of that 1998 team.  And much like the current version of the soccer team, they want to pay it forward and inspire a new generation the way they were inspired by Cammi Granato and Co.  (How great was it that Angela Ruggerio presented their medals, BTW?) 

I'd say this gold medal will go a long way towards achieving that goal.  Women's hockey in this country is only going to get better.  And names like Lamoureux (both of them) and Knight and Coyne and Duggan will be right up there with Granato and Ruggerio.  (And, by the way, NHL, thanks for keeping your players home and giving us even more of a reason to celebrate this team of incredible women.  P.S.-the men's tournament went on perfectly fine without you.)

Lastly, we've got America's darlings.  And I'm, of course, talking about the men's curling team.  Every four years, curling is this fascination that enthralls us during the Olympics (much like water polo in the Summer).  But this time, we were more enthralled than ever before.  And the reason why was obvious.

Most people didn't jump on the curling bandwagon until later on.  But their journey was incredible.  John Shuster was the skip of team that finished last in Vancouver and ninth (out of 10) in Sochi.  And it looked like it might be the same thing again here.  They lost four out of five in the middle of the tournament and were languishing near the bottom of the standings with a matchup against Canada, the dominant power in the sport, looming.  And they won!  That was the turning point, and they ended up making the semifinals, where they played Canada again.  And sure enough, they beat them again. 

Suddenly, they were guaranteed a medal.  By that point, they had nothing to lose.  Shuster had an incredible hit to get five points in the eighth end, which made gold all but a certainty.  Once it was official, this Cinderella story was complete.  They completely rewrote the story.  John Shuster went from an Olympic career (which also included bronze in 2006) known mainly for disappointment to one where he captained his team to a gold medal.

Is this going to lead to some sort of renaissance where curling suddenly becomes more popular?  I doubt it.  There almost certainly are people who've been introduced to the game and will start to play.  But I think this was more a case of national pride overtaking everyone.  Which isn't a bad thing.

These guys are easy to root for, too.  They have an every man appeal, which may actually inspire some people into thinking they can do it too.  They look like the guys you'd hang out and go have a beer with.  And the fact that they were winning at a sport people generally find somewhat goofy only added to the fun.

So, for an Olympics that started with a flurry of gold medals (which were all mainly expected), the flourish at the end was much more satisfying.  Because those three may be far more transformative.  And they'll certainly be much more memorable.  We'll remember PyeongChang as the Olympics where the U.S. won gold medals in curling and cross country skiing.  And the one where the women's hockey team won for the first time in 20 years.

Not a Fan of Backloading

Last night we saw a tremendous battle between two rivals who were head-and-shoulders above their competition.  Russian Alina Zagitova ended up winning the gold medal in ladies figure skating by a little more than a point over teammate Evgenia Medvedeva.  In fact, the two tied the free skate, but it was Zagitova's small lead after the short program that proved to be the difference.

I personally preferred Medvedeva's performance, but it's not like she was cheated out of the gold.  They both deserved to win.  And the difference that led to Zagitova's victory can be attributed almost completely to her technical elements.  She's an outstanding jumper (that sequence they showed of her doing five triples in a row at practice was ridiculous).  And the points she got for her jumps provided that extra little bit that put her over the top.  More specifically, the bonus points she got for her jumps.

In figure skating, you get extra points for doing a jump in the second half of your program.  The theory behind this makes sense to a degree.  Jumps are harder when you're legs are tired.  But, as we also saw, skaters are able to manipulate this system for maximum points, often backloading their program with jumps just to get the bonus points.  

That's exactly what Zagitova did.  She basically did two completely different programs.  The first half was ballet on ice.  The second half was nothing but jumps.  I think that's why I liked Medvedeva better.  She did her jumps throughout the program, and it seemed much more complete.

Now, Zagitova didn't do anything against the rules.  In fact, a lot of skaters do this.  But I'm not a fan of it.  And there really is a simple fix.  You require them to attempt at least one jump in the first half of the program.  This way, you don't have them just skating around for two minutes waiting to start jumping.  And this way they don't get bonus points for every jump they take.

Johnny Weir mentioned this repeatedly throughout the Olympics, and I agree with him.  He lamented that there's more math involved in figure skating than ever before.  Skaters are trying to figure out how to get every last point out of each element, and it's become more about finding ways to get more points than anything else.  And, as a result, those who are more artistic and not necessarily the best jumpers are getting left behind.

He also brought up another flaw in the current scoring system that seems to defy logic.  You get more points for simply attempting a harder jump and falling than you do for cleanly landing an easier jump.  (The funny thing is Yevgeny Plushenko was upset for the exact opposite reason when he lost to Evan Lysacek eight years ago in Vancouver.)  That shouldn't be.  A fall is a fall.  Just because you fell trying to do something harder doesn't change the fact that you fell.  And the fact that you can fall, but still get more points than someone else who didn't fall doesn't really make much sense.  

Again, there's an easy solution.  If you fall, you only get credit for the next-lowest value of the jump.  Say you fall on a triple.  Even if you complete the rotations, you only get credit for doing a double.  And you still get the one-point deduction for falling.  That way you don't end up getting rewarded for falling, which is what it sometimes seems like to the untrained eye.

Most people only watch figure skating during the Olympics.  We aren't experts by any means.  We only know what we see.  Which is why fans are often confused by the scores when comparing one skater to another.  It shouldn't be harder for people to understand.  We don't know the difference between a triple salchow and a triple lutz (the axel has that extra half-turn, so it's the only easy one to identify).  But we do know when somebody falls and when somebody doesn't.

Likewise, we know what we like and what we don't.  The ice dancing competition was extremely close.  The judges really seemed to like the French couple, while the fans clearly preferred Virtue & Moir.  It's different styles, I understand, but that arena would NOT have been happy if Tessa & Scott's scores weren't high enough to give them the win.  Just like I preferred watching Evgenia Medvedeva perform for four minutes over Alina Zagitova jumping for two.

Is the current scoring system better than the old 6.0 method?  Yes.  Does it have flaws and need to be improved?  Definitely.  Does it diminish what we saw in PyeongChang?  Absolutely not.

Zagitova and Medvedeva were both brilliant.  They both deserved to win.  It almost makes you wish there were two gold medals so they could each get one.  But, of course, only one could win it.  And that gold medal went to Alina Zagitova.

Russian OAR Not?

It's not like I can really blame NBC's broadcasters for being confused, but I've heard the Russian team called about five different things during these Olympics.  Officially, of course, Russia isn't competing in PyeongChang, and the individuals are referred to as "Olympic Athletes from Russia."  But there have been plenty of variations of that name.

"Olympic Athlete Representing Russia" has been a common one, even though that is 100 percent incorrect since they technically aren't representing Russia at all.  Terry Gannon is among those who are just calling a spade a spade and saying "Russia."  What are they gonna do anyway?  Nothing!  Then there are the announcers who've given up entirely and just say "OAR" (which Kenny Albert might be doing just because it's quicker).

We all knew when the IOC came up with this compromise allowing Russians to compete in PyeongChang that is was going to sound weird and be a little awkward.  But it's been even more awkward than anyone anticipated.  Even the stadium PA announcers are having a hard time with what to call them.  (They also need to decide if it's singular or plural, although the hockey team consists of multiple people, so it has to be Athletes there.)

The IOC is responsible for most, if not all, of this confusion.  When they suspended the Russian Olympic Committee in December, they also threw them a bit of a bone by including the word "Russia" in the name of the team that the approved athletes would be on.  They just as easily could've been "Independent Olympic Athletes" like the Kuwaitis were in Rio.

But to act like there's no "Russian" team here is ridiculous, especially when you consider OAR is the fourth-largest team, which means everyone is going to have to talk about it throughout the Olympics.  And, frankly, that's where the "OAR" designation is kinda stupid.  Everyone knows that they're Russian.  And everyone knows the situation.  So there's no use in pretending it's anything else.

When the IOC announced Russia's suspension and this OAR compromise, I was actually on board with it.  Punishing the country for its doping problem was definitely warranted, but it would've been unfair to clean athletes to take away their ability to compete.  I know it wasn't the most popular decision, especially among some high-ranking Olympic officials.  They would've preferred a complete suspension, with the clean athletes as collateral damage.  That doesn't sit well with me, and it doesn't sit well with IOC President Thomas Bach either, so he decided against that.

Instead, the IOC invited individual Russians to be a part of the OAR team.  Most people expected that would mean a handful of Russian athletes, not an entire team.  That rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and I can see their point.  What was the point of the suspension then?  The only difference is that they can't wear Russian uniforms or wave Russian flags.  Although, it was generally understood that the suspension would be lifted in time for the Russians to march under their own flag at the Closing Ceremony.

There were certain conditions placed on the OAR team that most assumed, if met, would lead to that reinstatement in time for the Closing Ceremony.  None of these restrictions seemed particularly harsh, which is why the assumption was the Closing Ceremony would be Russia's grand return.  That may be in jeopardy now, though.  Because the IOC's nightmare scenario may, in fact, be playing out.

One of the requirements placed on the Russian athletes was signing an anti-doping pledge, especially important considering the reason for Russia's suspension in the first place.  Well, that took a big hit when it was announced that Aleksandr Krushelnitskiy, who won a bronze medal in mixed doubles curling, had failed a doping test.  Any other country would've been bad.  But OAR?  Catastrophic.  Both for Russia and the IOC.

Now, I'm not going to get into why a curler would feel the need to take a performance-enhancing substance.  But for it to be a Russian is devastating in a number of ways.  For starters, the IOC extended invitations to those Russian athletes it deemed "clean."  Now they've got mud all over their faces.  And the Russian athletes had to know that they would be subjected to increased testing because their every movement in PyeongChang was going to be intensely scrutinized.

Details are still emerging in the Krsuhelnitskiy case, so I don't want to pass judgment just yet.  But this is a bad look for the IOC.  A guy they deemed "clean" in the country they suspended for doping gets busted.  Whatever the reason (some are saying meldonium, the same drug that prompted Maria Sharapova's suspension), it's definitely a black mark.  And it's got a lot of people saying "I told you so."

Whether or not Russia is reinstated at the end of the Games, it'll still be two and a half years until Tokyo, so you'd have to think they'll be back competing under their own flag in Tokyo.  Which, whether you think they should be there or not, you've gotta agree is better than "OAR."  A compromise name that just didn't work.

Disappointing So Far

You wouldn't know it if you've been watching NBC over the past week, but there are more than three sports in the Winter X-Games...sorry, I mean Winter Olympics.  So, if you were tuning in to watch something other than snowboarding, figure skating or a weather delay at alpine skiing, you would've been better off watching NBCSN.  Because the coverage on the broadcast network has definitely left something to be desired.

This is an odd position for me to be in.  I'm usually the one defending NBC for their programming decisions during the Olympics.  And they have done some things that I like (more on that later).  But, overall, their coverage of the PyeongChang Games has been incredibly disappointing.  At least in prime time.

Prior to the Games, NBC wouldn't shut up about the fact that they were going to have live coverage every night and that the entire nation would see the prime time show at once.  That decision was a good one.  It's 2018.  We've reached a point where they were no longer able to get away with making the West Coast wait three hours to watch stuff on TV, especially when those events are live.  It also didn't make much sense to make them wait when they're used to the early start times for the Super Bowl, World Series, etc.

As for the live thing, that wasn't particularly difficult to achieve.  South Korea is 14 hours ahead of the East Coast, so NBC was able to use its incredible influence within the Olympic Movement to get certain events scheduled for the morning local time, which is prime time the night before in the U.S.  They did this 10 years ago in Beijing, and they'll likely do it again at the next two Olympics as this tour of the Far East continues.  I don't particularly blame them for their choice of events, either.  The picked the ones where they thought there was a chance at an American gold medal (where, for the most part, they've been right) or they know people are going to watch regardless (figure skating).

But, they've been a bit preoccupied with the live thing, which I think is my biggest problem with the coverage.  Nothing but live events means a lot of down time, and, for some reason, NBC has struggled with filler.  Instead, we get extra commercials or nonsensical pieces/interviews (cough, Adam Rippon, cough) that serve no purpose other than to kill time.  And, the weather delays at alpine skiing have been a double whammy for NBC.  They've forced them to find a way to fill all the time they'd allotted for skiing while also screwing up their plans for the days when those events were rescheduled.

It's also felt like the broadcasts have been catered towards West Coast viewers.  Not only is the prime time show live coast-to-coast, the Pacific time zone ends up getting an extra half hour while the rest of us are sent to local news.  And the late night show, which has been renamed "Primetime Plus", is essentially just an extension of prime time coverage.  The nice thing about the late night show, though, was that it was always a bit lighter and a good way to wind down at the end of the day.  If you missed it, big deal.  Now they essentially have prime time coverage going until 1:30-2:00 in the morning...and people have to go to work the next day!

NBC has shown some tape-delayed events in prime time (as well as on the entire daytime show), mainly as filler before the live events start.  However, sometimes the taped events they plan on showing end up getting bumped by skiing or figure skating or snowboarding that runs long.  And, if an American didn't win, good luck seeing them.  Case in point, the other day, they showed the quarterfinals of a women's event in short track because of Maame Biney.  Just the quarterfinals.  Not the semis.  Not the final.  Only Mike Tiricio going "by the way, the Italian won the gold medal" after they kicked it back to the studio.  Or yesterday, when they left Nordic Combined in the middle to got to NBC News coverage of the shooting (which obviously was the right call), and just left us hanging regarding what happened in the event.

In past Games, complaining about NBC's coverage seemed to be an unofficial Olympic event (although, sometimes that was complaining for the sake of complaining, I think).  I think the "problem" people had wasn't so much the taped events (in London and Sochi, for example, there wasn't much NBC could do about that since prime time here is the middle of the night there) as it was their inability to watch them live and not having a choice about it.  Which, in hindsight, was a legitimate gripe.

For years, NBC resisted streaming events live if they planned on showing them later on TV.  It wasn't until London 2012 that they started showing every event live online.  In Rio, they added prime time coverage on NBCSN opposite the prime time coverage on NBC, obviously showing different events.  But, oh, how times have changed.  Now, they're actively encouraging people to watch stuff online and on cable.

The coverage on NBCSN has been a stark contrast to the coverage on NBC.  And by that I mean it's been tremendous.  They've had several days of 24-hour coverage on NBCSN, which obviously can't all be live (and nobody seems to have a problem with that).  The NBCSN coverage hasn't just featured sports like cross country and biathlon and short track, either.  They've shown entire events, not just edited portions.

My favorite thing about NBC's use of NBCSN, though, is that it's essentially their overflow channel during prime time when there are multiple live events taking place (another benefit of time-shifting your coverage).  That's also where the stuff that gets bumped off NBC ends up being shown and where coverage picks up if they run out of time on NBC (which happened during women's snowboard qualifying).

And the decision to have full coverage of the figure skating on NBCSN was very smart.  They started this in Sochi, which is when Tara & Johnny were unleashed on the world, so that people could watch it live in the afternoon before NBC's delayed coverage at night.  By doing it again in PyeongChang, they've been able to appease the figure skating audience by showing them every skater, but still show another marquee event (also live) on NBC.

That decision was a good one.  So was Mike Tirico.  When he was hired by NBC, it was pretty clear he was the heir apparent as Olympic host whenever Bob Costas decided to step away.  And that transition has been incredibly smooth.  He has a different style than Costas, but is a perfectly capable host and will only get better as time goes on (and he gets more to do beyond throwing it from one event to another).

Has NBC's coverage of the PyeongChang Olympics been serviceable?  Yes.  Has it been great?  No.  Are the higher-ups at the Peacock Network satisfied?  Most likely.  I just personally wish the nightly show on the broadcast network was a little bit better.  Because, the cable coverage, like the PyeongChang winds, has been blowing it away.

Olympic-Sized Idiocy

It's been an incredible opening weekend of the PyeongChang Games!  And I'm glad that the competition in Korea has been the story.  Because there were a pair of stories just prior to the start of the Olympics that had the chance to overshadow the competition.  Fortunately, that hasn't happened, mainly because people quickly dismissed the comments for the idiocy that they were.

I wish it was as easy for me to overlook such ignorance.  I can't, though.  Because they both really bothered me.  The first was Shani Davis throwing a temper tantrum that he wasn't chosen as the American flag bearer for the Opening Ceremony.  The other was much more disturbing.  The Fox News executive who, rather than celebrating Team USA for its diversity, was critical of it instead.

The Shani Davis thing is a lot more straight forward and much easier to tackle, so we'll start there.  Luger Erin Hamlin was announced as the Team USA flag bearer on Thursday night, a tremendous honor for any Olympian.  But leave it to Shani Davis to take that moment from Erin Hamlin and make it all about himself.

Selecting the flag bearer is actually a pretty meticulous process.  Each team chooses a captain, and that captain chooses a nominee from their sport.  The captains then all get together and vote on a flag bearer from those candidates.  If there's a tie, there's a coin toss.  Those were the rules set forth by the USOC.  So, when Hamlin and Davis each got four votes, it went to a coin toss.  They didn't arbitrarily decide to have one.  Everyone knew going in that was the process.  Hamlin won the coin flip and was named the USA flag bearer.

How this process is at all controversial I have no idea, but evidently Shani Davis didn't like the idea of letting a coin toss decide it, and he took to Twitter to whine.  He spewed off all of his stats, implying that alone should've made him the selection.  I'm not going to disagree with his athletic credentials.  That's why he was the speed skating nominee.  But there's also much more that goes into it than just your athletic credentials.

If Davis had left it at that, it wouldn't have been an issue.  But he took it to a complete other level by ending it with #blackhistorymonth, implying that there was some sort of racial motivation for his losing a coin toss.  That's not only the furthest thing from the truth, it's a totally asinine thing to even think.  It's also an incredibly immature and disrespectful reaction.  And it only served to make Shani Davis look bad.  He came off as an incredibly sore loser.  Nothing else.

He took Erin Hamlin's moment and made it all about himself.  Fortunately, NBC didn't mention Shani Davis at all during the Opening Ceremony.  Davis, by the way, stayed back at the Village and pouted instead of marching in the Opening Ceremony, although he claimed he was never planning on going and only reconsidered when he found out he was in the running to be flag bearer.  Sure, Shani.

And just when I though Shani Davis would provide us with the most idiotic, ignorant comments in the pre-Olympic build up, I was proven wrong.  The Fox News guy (whose name I don't know and I don't care to know) absolutely takes the cake in that department.

This year's U.S. Olympic team is one of the most diverse in history.  The USOC is proud of that diversity, and rightfully so.  (That is, after all, one of the basic principles of this country, that everyone is created equal.)  But the Fox News guy evidently has a problem with this for some reason.  He even went so far as to suggest the USOC had some sort of quota system and even recommended a new motto: "Darker, Gayer, Different."

Now, you don't need me to tell you how wrong his views are, in a number of ways.  But I'll start with the easiest counterpoint.  The U.S. Olympic Team is the hardest in the world to make.  In order to make it, you have to make it.  Maame Biney made the team.  She wasn't put on it because she's black.  Adam Rippon was selected to the team because was one of the three best skaters, not because he's gay.  Chloe Kim's on the team because she's the best in the world at women's halfpipe snowboarding.  And, to go back to Rio, Ibtihaj Muhammad fencing in a hijab made for a nice story, but it had nothing to do with why she was on the team.

To imply that the USOC has some sort of diversity quota is an insult to all those athletes who make the team.  It totally disregards all the work they put in, all the hours of training, to achieve their goal of representing their country at the Olympics.  Likewise, to suggest that the USOC cares more about having a diverse team than a competitive one shows how little he understands the Olympic mindset.  The first thing everyone looks at is the medal count.  The USOC chooses the team capable of bringing home the most medals.  Plain and simple.  The ethnicity, sexuality, age, etc., of the athletes are irrelevant.

Although, the Fox News guy did make one good point in his (since deleted) article.  So I'll let him use his own words to contradict his entire point: "In the Olympics, let's focus on the winner of the race -- not the race of the winner."  I couldn't agree more.  They're all members of Team USA.  That's all that matters to me.

Olympic Medal Picks

The PyeongChang Olympics have started, and we're just hours away from the first medals being awarded.  For the first time, there are more than 100 events in a Winter Games (102 to be exact), and many of the new events are in freestyle skiing and snowboarding, so you'd figure that'll help to increase the medal total for the United States.

I do think the U.S. will come away with quite a haul in the new events, but I'm not going overboard with my expectations.  I'd rather undersell my prediction for American success than oversell it.  There are the easy gold medals to predict like the ones from Chloe Kim and Mikaela Shiffrin, but I'm seeing a lot of silver and bronze, too.  The American total will be well over 20, and it may even approach 30.  Top five?  Yes.  Number one?  Probably not.

They mentioned during the Opening Ceremony that the last time the Winter Olympics were in Asia, the United States won 13 medals in Nagano, then jumped all the way to 34 four years later in Salt Lake City.  There were several reasons for that, one of which was the new training facilities now available to American athletes.  Another was that the new events are ones Americans do well at.

That host country boost is something that you always consider at an Olympics, and it'll be no different here.  We know South Korea is going to do well in short track speed skating, but where else?  Well, they've got the top ranked athlete in men's skeleton, so I think that's a real possibility.  We could see some Korean medals in long track, too.  Should we see any in another sport, that would be a real surprise.

Meanwhile, I think there's a real chance that both New Zealand and Belgium could come away with gold medals.  We could also see Hungary win its first Winter medal since 1980 and Spain take its first since 1992.  Liechtenstein is the only country to have won medals in the Winter Games but not the Summer Games.  Their last was in 1988, but we could see them get one in alpine skiing.

Russia's technically not in PyeongChang, but still has the fourth-largest team.  As a result, OAR will still come away with plenty of medals.  I predict somewhere in the 15-20 range, which would easily put them in the top 10 of the medal standings.

As for who's going to end up atop the table, you've gotta look towards the usual suspects.  And by that I mean Norway and Germany.  Canada has established itself as a powerhouse, too.  In fact, the Canadians could be right up there with the Norwegians and Germans not only for the most overall medals, but for the most golds, too.

My top 10 medals standings includes everyone you'd expect.  You know the Dutch will clean up in speed skating (although probably not to the extent they did in Sochi), and traditional powers like Austria, France, Italy and Switzerland will get their regular share of medals.  The interesting thing to watch will be where the Asian countries end up.  I'm not just talking about our current Korean hosts.  I'm talking about the Chinese, the hosts of our next Games, too.  I see both of them just outside the top 10.  Same with Japan.  Although I do see the Japanese winning a bunch of golds.

Overall, I've got 31 countries ending up with places on the Olympic podium.  Norway finishes in the top spot in both total and gold medals, with Germany and Canada right behind.  I've got the United States in fourth, with the Russians rounding out the top five.  Here's my full top 10:

1. Norway                     14-14-11          (39)
2. Germany                   13-12-9           (34)           
3. Canada                     12-10-12         (34)
4. United States             6-12-7            (25)
5. Russia                        4-7-7              (18)
6. France                       8-4-4              (16)
7. Sweden                      4-9-2              (15)
8. Austria                      4-5-5              (14)
9. Italy                          3-5-6              (14)
10. Switzerland              4-4-4              (12)

South Korea I've got just outside the top 10.  I have the hosts finishing with 11 total medals, although eight golds would tie France for fourth in that category.  Japan is the only other country I have reaching double-figures in total medals.  I've got 10 Japanese medals, six of them gold.

PyeongChang Preview

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm watching downhill skiing training runs right now and I'm loving it!  Yes, my two weeks of extreme sleep deprivation have begun.  I still don't understand why they need an extra day for the Winter Olympics than they do for the Summer, even though it's a third of the events, but I'll take this little taste before the cauldron is lit on Friday.  It's kinda like the soccer games in the Summer.

Anyway, I decided to break my Olympic preview up into two parts.  This first part will be about each of the different sports.  But I'm saving my medal picks for part two, which will come your way either before or after (but definitely not during) the Opening Ceremony.

There are 102 events in PyeongChang, which is a Winter Olympic record.  As a result, the USA has the largest Winter Olympic team ever for any nation.  And the USA is expected to challenge for the top of the medals table.  At the very least, Team USA should surpass the 28 medals (that's the current total, which is still subject to change) won in Sochi.

Alpine Skiing
Two of the top female alpine skiers in the world are American.  Mikaela Shiffrin won giant slalom gold as an 18-year-old in Sochi.  Now she's an all-around skier and a medal contender in at least three events.  Lindsey Vonn, meanwhile, is arguably the greatest female alpine skier ever.  And she's back after missing the Sochi Games due to injury.  Vonn and Shiffrin should bring home quite a haul.  As for the men, veteran Ted Ligety looks like the best medal shot in his fourth Olympics.

Cross Country Skiing
We could see some history in cross country skiing.  The United States has won a grand total of one Olympic medal in the sport--a silver in 1976.  That could definitely change in PyeongChang.  There are actually two Americans who are medal contenders.  Jessie Diggins and Kikkan Randall are both capable of ending up on the podium, and that first-ever American gold in cross country isn't completely out of the question.  Although, that would require Marit Bjoergen not winning one.  The 10-time Olympic champion has a chance to become the most decorated Winter Olympian ever if she wins four medals here.

Biathlon
That silver 42 years ago is still one more medal than the USA's entire all-time haul in the sport of biathlon.  That could change, too.  Lowell Bailey won the 20 kilometer event at the 2017 World Championships.  His Olympic results haven't been great.  But he wasn't a defending World Champion in either of his previous Olympic appearances.

Ski Jumping
The only American Olympic medal in ski jumping was a bronze in 1924 (which wasn't even awarded until 50 years later).  Don't expect that to change.  Poland's Kamil Stoch is the top ski jumper in the world, while Germany and Norway have the top teams.

Nordic Combined
Likewise, Germans and Norwegians are favored in Nordic combined, the marriage of ski jumping and cross country.  The U.S. has been successful at Nordic combined in recent Olympics (Bill DeMong won a gold and Johnny Spillane won three silvers in Vancouver).  Norway and Germany won seven of the nine medals awarded in the sport four years ago, though.  It probably won't be much different here.

Freestyle Skiing
New events in freestyle skiing means more medal opportunities for the United States.  Of the 10 freestyle events, there's at least one American medal contender in about seven of them.  The only real exception is aerials, which is dominated by China and Belarus.  The other freestyle skiing event where an American medal would be a surprise is men's moguls.  Mikael Kingsbury of Canada is the overwhelming favorite, but Korea could grab a medal from Choi Jae Woo.

Snowboarding
As the IOC continues in its quest to turn the Winter Olympics into the Winter X Games, they've added still more snowboarding events to the program.  (There are now 20 events, or 20 percent of the entire Winter Olympic program, between freestyle skiing and snowboarding.)  And since the USA is really good at snowboarding, those added events should serve to increase the American medal haul.  There are familiar names like Shaun White and Jamie Anderson back for more, while Chloe Kim, who many think is the next big thing, will make her Olympic debut as the favorite in women's halfpipe.

Speed Skating
Calling the Sochi Games a disappointment for USA Speed Skating would be an incredible understatement.  Not a single medal (well, yeah, the Dutch won literally all of them).  They think they've solved the problems that plagued the team four years ago, so a return to form seems likely.  Brittany Bowe and Heather Bergsma both look like solid medal contenders (although, Bergsma is married to a Dutch skater and lives in the Netherlands).  The US could also win a medal in the new mass start event, which is kinda like a cross between short track and track cycling.

Short Track
NBC did the Olympic organizers a huge favor by getting the figure skating competition put in the morning PyeongChang time.  Because that meant short track got bumped to the evenings.  And short track happens to be South Korea's national sport.  Expect the atmosphere to be great and the crowds to be raucous, as South Korea will likely pick up a whole bunch of medals in short track.  Although, it's a little disappointing that Viktor Ahn wasn't one of the approved Russian athletes (for reasons that are still somewhat unclear).  Because it would've made for quite a story (and scene) to see him competing in South Korea after unceremoniously being cut from the Korean team.

Figure Skating
This has the makings of a fascinating figure skating competition.  Russia could easily go 1-2 in the ladies' event, but the bronze medal is definitely up for grabs.  The pairs competition, meanwhile, is wide open between China and Germany.  In the men's event, though, we could see quite a battle between defending Olympic champion Yuzuru Hanyu of Japan and American Nathan Chen, who dazzles with his arsenal of quadruple jumps.  The ice dancing competition is really the one to watch, though.  Canadians Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir, the gold medalists in 2010 and silver medalists in 2014, are again the gold medal favorites.  That is, unless you think the French team of Papadakis and Cizeron is.  Then there's that bronze medal.  Which could go to any of the three American teams. 

Russia, Canada, USA was the order of finish in the inaugural team competition four years ago.  That should be the case again here.  Although, I wouldn't be shocked if Canada and Russia swapped places.

Luge
Erin Hamlin will be the U.S. flag bearer in the Opening Ceremony.  She won a bronze in Sochi, becoming the first American ever to win an individual Olympic medal in luge.  Hamlin will end her career in PyeongChang, where she could end up on the podium again.  The favorites, of course, are German.  Germany won all four gold medals in Sochi and could sweep again.  They're that good.

Bobsled
Since women's bobsledding was added to the Olympics in Salt Lake City, the U.S. has been one of the dominant countries.  And they're once again medal contenders, along with the Canadians and (surprise, surprise) the Germans.  The women's competition will also see Nigeria make its debut, and we'll also see a women's sled from Jamaica for the first time (although, sadly, no Jamaican men's sled).  Speaking of the men, the USA is still recovering from the devastating death of No. 1 driver Steve Holcomb, the gold medalist in Vancouver.  Russia won gold on home ice in Sochi, but that's one of the many Russian medals from Sochi that's since been taken away.  Canada and Germany should battle for gold.

Skeleton
A Korean is ranked No. 1 in the world in men's skeleton, so you know the home fans will be into this one.  You've also got the Dukurs brothers from Latvia and American Matt Antoine.  We've seen medalists from all over in women's skeleton throughout its Olympic history.  But this time, it's looking like the traditional sliding powers.  And I'm, of course, talking about the Germans and Canadians.

Curling
Mixed doubles curling is kinda fun, I've gotta admit it.  It's a much quicker game than the traditional version.  The American team in mixed doubles is the brother-sister duo of Matt and Becca Hamilton.  They're also on the regular four-person American teams, which means they'll be incredibly busy in PyeongChang.  Once the regular tournament starts, it'll be everybody's quadrennial obsession once again.  From Norway's pants to Britain's skip (trust me) to the people screaming "Sweep!" in all different languages.  And, most likely, we'll see Canada atop the podium once again.

Hockey
Last but not least, we have hockey.  A hockey tournament that will look very different.  The first one in 24 years that doesn't include NHL players.  I'm not gonna get into the NHL's lack of an Olympic break (I think I've made my feelings about that pretty well known).  Instead we'll have mainly European-based players, which bodes well for Russia.  (Imagine the irony of Russia finally winning the hockey tournament at the Olympics where they're not even allowed to call themselves "Russia.")  Sweden and Canada met in the final in Sochi and, even without their NHL guys, look like they should be in the medal mix again.  The USA, I think, is a fringe medal contender.  On the men's side at least. 

On the women's side, it'll once again come down to the USA and Canada.  The USA is tired of seeing Canada win and desperate to reclaim the gold for the first time since the inaugural tournament 20 years ago.  If it's not another USA-Canada women's hockey final, that would be one of the biggest shocks of the Games.

Crediting the Assistants

Bill Belichick's staff is being dismantled piece by piece.  NFL teams can't hire assistants from other teams until they're eliminated from the playoffs, which means all of the head coaching jobs are usually taken by the time the Patriots are done.  Except that's beginning to change.  Two teams waited until after the Super Bowl to make their coaching announcements so that they could hire New England assistants. 

Matt Patricia has officially been named Head Coach of the Detroit Lions, and Josh McDaniels will take over as head coach of the Colts by the end of the week.  We have no idea how they'll do as head coaches (McDaniels was fired after less than two seasons in Denver).  And we'll also have to wait and see if the Patriots' run of dominance continues without both of their coordinators.

Last week, in all the pre-Super Bowl hype, I saw an article asking whether Brady or Belichick deserved more credit for the dynasty.  I'm not taking anything away from either of those future Hall of Famers (or owner Robert Kraft).  But I'm not saying they deserve all the credit, either.  Because Belichick has surrounded himself with some pretty good assistants over the years.  And that's been the real secret to the Patriots' success.

It's easy to forget because they've won three of the last four AFC titles and are in the AFC Championship Game every freakin' year.  But the Patriots went 10 years without winning the Super Bowl between their runs of three in four seasons (2001-04) and two in three (2014-16).  During that time, a lot of Belichick's top assistants left to become head coaches elsewhere.

Let's look at the early years of the Patriots dynasty.  They won their first Super Bowl in the 2001 season.  Assistants on that New England staff included Charlie Weis, Romeo Crennel, Rob Ryan, Eric Mangini and Josh McDaniels.  They were joined in 2003 (the second title) by John Hufnagel, with Patricia replacing Rob Ryan on the staff in 2004.

Rob Ryan never became a head coach, but all of the others did.  In 2005, Weis left to take over at Notre Dame, Crennel became head coach of the Browns, and Hufnagel went to the Giants as their offensive coordinator.  He left for Canada in 2008 and won two Grey Cups in eight seasons with the Calgary Stampeders, including one in his first season.  Mangini, meanwhile, spent one more season with the Patriots before being hired as head coach of the Jets in 2006, where he made the playoffs in his first season.

The only two guys left once Mangini departed were McDaniels and Patricia, and McDaniels got the Broncos job in 2009.  After he got fired in Denver, he came back in 2011.  McDaniels' return coincided with the Patriots' second Super Bowl loss to the Giants, and, of course, the latest run of three in four years (he was there for all eight Bradicheck Super Bowl appearances, and Belichick's never been to one without him).  Now he's once again leaving to become a head coach, while Patricia is the seventh different former Belichick assistant to get a major head coaching job.

To review, here's a list of the Belichick assistants on the 2001-04 Super Bowl teams who moved on to head coaching jobs (four of whom have been the head coach of two different teams):

• Romeo Crennel: Patriots Assistant (2001-04), Browns Head Coach (2005-08), Chiefs Head Coach (2011-12)
• Charlie Weis: Patriots Assistant (2000-04), Notre Dame Head Coach (2005-09), Kansas Head Coach (2012-14)
• Eric Mangini: Patriots Assistant (2000-05), Jets Head Coach (2006-08), Browns Head Coach (2009-10)
• John Hufnagel: Patriots Assistant (2003), Stampeders Head Coach (2008-15)
• Josh McDaniels: Patriots Assistant (2001-08, 2012-17), Broncos Head Coach (2009-10), Colts Head Coach (2018-)
• Matt Patricia: Patriots Assistant (2004-17), Lions Head Coach (2018-)

And, while he wasn't on one of his Super Bowl staffs, Texans Head Coach Bill O'Brien is also a former Belichick assistant.

Sure, Belichick gets a lot of credit (and deservedly so) for grooming McDaniels and Patricia, while Weis and Crennel were Bill Parcells assistants with him.  But I don't think its a coincidence that when all of his top assistants left, Belichick stopped making the Super Bowl every year. 

So, I wouldn't be surprised if they "struggle" (by Patriots standards) with two new coordinators next year.  Because as brilliant as Bill Belichick is, a good football coach is only as good as his assistants.  He would know.  After all, that's what everyone was saying about Belichick when he won two Super Bowls as Giants defensive coordinator under Bill Parcells.

The Super Bowl Pick

Before getting into the game itself, a fun fact about the Super Bowl that's just too good not to share.  As NBC has repeatedly reminded us, they have both the Super Bowl and the Olympics this year.  This is the third time that the Super Bowl and Winter Olympics are on the same network in the same year.  It also happened in 1988 (ABC) and 1992 (CBS)...which was also the only other time the game was in Minnesota!

But before NBC's fun in Korea starts, there's some business to take care of in Minneapolis.  And we've got a rematch of Super Bowl XXXIX, with a situation very similar to the one we had 13 years ago.  The Patriots looking for their third title in four years against an underdog Eagles team looking for its first Super Bowl (and first NFL championship since 1960).

You can't help but be impressed with what the Eagles have done in their first two playoff games.  Even though they were the 1-seed, they were the underdog in both games.  Then they went and completely shut down the Atlanta offense before totally dominating Minnesota in the NFC Championship Game.

Of course, the Patriots present a far different challenge than either the Falcons or Vikings.  But Philadelphia has proven that we can't take them lightly.  They've also embraced the underdog role, so I don't think it bothers them at all that nobody thinks they're going to win.

It'd be a mistake to count them out, too.  They looked lost in the final couple games of the regular season, which is why nobody had any confidence in them heading into the playoffs.  But, they took advantage of their bye week and revamped their offense to suit Nick Foles' strengths.  And it worked!  Now, they're gonna need to adjust again.  Except this time, the adjustments will need to be on the defensive side.  Because Matt Ryan and Case Keenum aren't Tom Brady.

New England actually fell behind 20-10 in the AFC Championship Game.  As soon as Jacksonville kicked that field goal to go up 20-10, I said to myself, "The Patriots are going to win 24-20."  Sure enough, that was the final score.  Which is why it drove me nuts when everyone was acting so surprised that they won.  "Can you believe they did it again?"  Yes!  They do it all the freakin' time!  Why would you expect it to be any different?

Last year, of course, Brady once again showed his brilliance, leading that comeback from 28-3 down against Atlanta.  And that game, as well as the Jacksonville game, are prime examples of why it's so hard to beat the Patriots.  If you get a lead, you need to keep doing what you were doing.  You can't take your foot off the gas pedal.  Otherwise, you're playing right into Brady's hands.  Meanwhile, if they get ahead of you, your chances of coming back are slim to none.

Which puts the Eagles in a real catch-22 situation.  Their defense will have the unenviable task of trying to contain Brady, while their offense will be tasked both with keeping him off the field and putting up enough points to give Philly a fighting chance.  And the Eagles likely can't rely on too many points coming from the defense.  Not when the QB on the other side is a three-time Super Bowl MVP who's playing in his eighth Super Bowl and looking for his sixth ring.

To say Brady's been here before would be a tremendous understatement.  The Patriots's five Super Bowl titles have come by a combined total of 19 points (and the two losses to the Giants were by a combined seven).  Last year was their largest margin of victory...and that game went to overtime!  So, what we know is that it's likely going to be a close game, and it's likely going to finish the same way as the others (except the two against the Giants).

So, my pick is the obvious one.  Eli Manning and Tom Coughlin aren't on the other sideline.  They're the only ones who've figured out how to beat the Patriots on Super Bowl Sunday.  And, let's not forget how New England has won its last two titles.  The Seahawks made a dumb decision at the 1-yard line that led to a game-clinching interception, and the Falcons stupidly took a sack that knocked them out of field goal range and allowed Brady to march down for the tying score.

Philadelphia needs to play the perfect game to win.  And they need to play it for 60 minutes.  That's where the Patriots get you.  They never stop, so you can't either.

Bottom line, as sick as all of us are of seeing the Patriots win, we've also come to expect it.  So why would anyone think this year would be any different?  Thirteen years ago, they beat the Eagles for their third Super Bowl title in four seasons.  More than a decade later, they'll become the second team with six Lombardi Trophies by beating the Eagles for their third Super Bowl title in four seasons.  And, for the sake of symmetry, let's say it'll be the same score, too.  Patriots 24, Eagles 21.

Football Hall of Fame, Class of 2018

Ray Lewis is a lock to be elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.  He'll be the head of the class, and will likely be the last one introduced during the NFL Honors.  As for the remaining four Modern Era honorees, that's anybody's guess.  Voting for the Pro Football Hall of Fame is so exclusive and so secretive that, unless you have a sure-fire candidate like Lewis, it's anybody's guess who the selectors are thinking.

ESPN's people picked their class, but I think it's safe to say that there's no way their five will actually be the ones selected.  For starters, both wide receivers aren't getting in.  It's just not going to happen.  It's more likely that neither one gets in than both of them do.  Likewise, ESPN didn't have any offensive linemen.  With the number of offensive linemen among the finalists and the voters' obsession with the position, you know we're getting at least one (not including Jerry Kramer), and maybe even two.

Likewise, they need to start putting the safeties in before they create a serious backlog.  If they don't put Brian Dawkins and John Lynch in before Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu are eligible, you could make a legitimate argument for a Hall of Fame class consisting entirely of safeties at that point (Charles Woodson played some safety during his career, too).  I think they realize that and start rectifying the situation with one of the safeties being elected to Canton.

It's gotten to the point where I'm surprised by at least one of the selections every year.  So I'm not going to say who I think will be elected.  I'm not even going to try.  Instead, here's who I would vote for out of the 15 Modern Era finalists.  As usual, I expect the three Senior/Contributor finalists to be overwhelmingly elected (which, for Jerry Kramer, should've happened a long time ago).

Ray Lewis, Linebacker (1996-2012 Ravens): The obvious first-ballot inductee.  And he should be.  A two-time Defensive Player of the Year, two-time Super Bowl champion and Super Bowl MVP.  The heart and soul of that ridiculous Baltimore defense and, without a doubt, the premier middle linebacker of the 2000s.  The greatest player in Ravens history, he went out a champion, retiring immediately after Baltimore won Super Bowl XLVII.

Brian Dawkins, Safety (1996-2008 Eagles, 2009-11 Broncos): With the Eagles back in the Super Bowl, it would be fitting to see the defensive star of their last Super Bowl team honored with a Hall of Fame selection.  He was a nine-time Pro Bowl selection and five-time All-Pro.  And, he was one of the best of all-time at a position that's criminally underrepresented in Canton.  Dawkins was better than the also-deserving Lynch, so he should be inducted first.

Randy Moss, Wide Receiver (1998-2004 Vikings, 2005-06 Raiders, 2007-10 Patriots, 2010 Titans, 2010 Vikings, 2012 49ers): Sorry, TO fans, but you're gonna have to wait at least another year for your boy to get elected.  And his attitude/personality will again be the reason why.  Anyway, my wide receiver vote goes to Moss, who's nowhere near the first-ballot guarantee that Lewis is (especially since they're hesitant to elect wide receivers not named Jerry Rice on the first go-round).  But I do think Moss is one of the five best players on the ballot, so he gets the nod from me.  A four-time All-Pro and a member of the All-Decade Team for the 2000s, he made an instant impact as a rookie on that ridiculous 1998 Vikings team, and he set an NFL record with 23 TD catches in his first year with the Patriots (the 18-1 season).

Kevin Mawae, Center (1994-97 Seahawks, 1998-2005 Jets, 2006-09 Titans): Personally, I'd love to see Joe Jacoby get elected in his final year before moving to the Senior ballot.  But my offensive lineman vote goes to Kevin Mawae.  This guy was so good for so long that you just took it for granted he'd be playing in the Pro Bowl.  He was in the lineup every freakin' week, too, playing 241 games in 16 seasons.  And 13 times in those 16 years, his team had a 1,000-yard rusher.  Mawae won't get any bonus points for this, but he was a longtime leader in the players' union, too.

Brian Urlacher, Linebacker (2000-12 Bears): I know, I know.  I've been doing all this talking about having a diverse class, then I go and vote for two middle linebackers in their first year on the ballot.  But who doesn't think Brian Urlacher is a Hall of Famer?  You knew it when he was playing, and you still know it now.  He followed in that long line of great Bears middle linebackers, and he should join Dick Butkus and Mike Singletary in Canton.  He was a Defensive Rookie of the Year and Defensive Player of the Year who led Chicago to two division titles and a Super Bowl appearance.  When you're the all-time leading tackler for a franchise as prestigious as the Chicago Bears, you know you've had a pretty good career.

And now for the Senior and Contributor candidates, two I think are extremely worthy of enshrinement.  I don't know much about the third, but once you get to this point as a Senior nominee, you're getting in.

Jerry Kramer, Guard (1958-68 Packers): He should've been delivering a speech in Canton about 30 years ago.  Instead, he'll deliver one in August.  Forrest Gregg's been a Hall of Famer forever, and Kramer was just as good, if not better.  He was the anchor of Vince Lombardi's offensive line.  Who was it that made the block on the winning touchdown in the Ice Bowl?  Jerry Kramer.  Who was named to numerous NFL all-time teams?  Jerry Kramer.  Who has been overlooked by the Hall of Fame for far too long?  Jerry Kramer.  The Lombardi-era Packers will add another one to their list of Hall of Famers.  It's about time, too.

Robert Brazile, Linebacker (1975-84 Oilers): Along with Hall of Famer Elvin Bethea, Brazile was a part of the defense that changed the Houston Oilers' fortunes in the late 70s.  He went to seven straight Pro Bowls, was named All-Pro five straight times, and was on the All-Decade Team of the 70s.  Brazile played in 147 straight games for the Oilers, including a bunch in the playoffs.  Alas, Houston never made it to the Super Bowl, always running into the Steelers (or the Raiders or the Dolphins).

Bobby Beathard, Contributor (1966-67 Chiefs, 1968-71 Falcons, 1972-77 Dolphins, 1978-88 Redskins, 1990-99 Chargers): When they created the Contributor category a couple years ago, it was with guys like Bobby Beathard in mind.  He worked for five teams, four of which went to the Super Bowl while he was there.  Overall, Beathard's teams went to seven Super Bowls and won four.  He was the Redskins' GM for the first two of their Super Bowl titles under Joe Gibbs, and he put together the team that won another one shortly after he left for San Diego...where he took the Chargers to their only Super Bowl in 1994.

So, there you have it.  That's my class.  Lewis, Dawkins, Moss, Mawae and Urlacher, along with Kramer, Brazile and Beathard.  As for who'll join Lewis in the actual class, I have no idea.

2017 NFL Awards

And now it's time for football weekend to commence.  Super Bowl Week is always chock-full of blog-worthy events, so I'm gonna be busy over the next couple days.  Let's get this thing started, then.  And what better way to do it than with the NFL awards.  After all, they've built an entire two-hour primetime telecast around them.

MVP: Tom Brady, Patriots-Carson Wentz was the clear MVP front runner until he tore his ACL against the Rams in Week 14.  Which turned this into a two-horse race between Tom Brady and Todd Gurley.  Except you know Brady's going to end up winning it.  Brady didn't really do anything out of the ordinary this season.  He basically just had a typical season.  A typical Brady season.  Which is something far different than the typical season for a mere mortal.

Offensive Player: Todd Gurley, Rams-Personally, I've never quite seen the point of having both an MVP and an Offensive Player of the Year, seeing as they generally go to the same person.  But this year, I actually do think they'll go to different guys.  Because how could the Offensive Player of the Year be anyone but Todd Gurley?!  Over 2,000 yards from scrimmage, 19 touchdowns, big play after big play.  He was the best player on the best offense all year.

Defensive Player: Aaron Donald, Rams-Defensive Player of the Year figures to be one of the closest votes of them all.  Because deciding between Jacksonville sack master Calais Campbell, one of the biggest reasons for the Jaguars' change in fortunes this season, and Aaron Donald, the scary, scary man in the middle of the Rams' defensive line.  Campbell had better numbers, but that's because he's a pure pass rusher.  Donald was disruptive in all areas, tallying 11 sacks and also forcing five fumbles.  And the Rams' defense wasn't nearly diverse as the Jaguars', meaning teams had to focus more on Donald.  And, more often than not, he still got the better of them.

Offensive Rookie: Alvin Kamara, Saints-Last year's Offensive Rookie of the Year vote came down to a pair of teammates, and it still blows my mind that they gave it to Dak Prescott instead of the clearly superior Ezekiel Elliott.  But I digress.  Anyway, this year it comes down to a pair of running backs.  And this time, you can't really go wrong, as you have NFL rushing leader Kareem Hunt of the Chiefs and the Saints' Mr. Everything Alvin Kamara.  Kamara gets the nod because of his overall versatility.  He wasn't just a threat out of the backfield.  He could catch the ball and was a dynamic return man, too.

Defensive Rookie: Marcel Lattimore, Saints-Perhaps the easiest vote of them all.  Lattimore was the top defensive rookie in football by a wide margin.  As good as the New Orleans offense was, it was the defense that made the difference in the Saints' turnaround this season (the final play against Minnesota not withstanding).  I'd imagine this was likely a unanimous vote, as the Saints complete the Rookie of the Year sweep.

Coach: Doug Marrone, Jaguars-There were eight new playoff teams this season, which means there are plenty of viable candidates for Coach of the Year.  The Rams' Sean McVay is gonna get a ton of support, but there was another playoff team that was even more out of left field.  And that was the Jacksonville Jaguars.  The longtime punchline ended up in the AFC Championship Game.  It'll probably get Tom Coughlin Executive of the Year honors, but I think Marroe deserves a lot of the credit, too.  He'd get my vote.

Comeback: Case Keenum, Vikings-As usual, you really couldn't go wrong with any number of players who returned to All-Pro form after missing a good portion of last season with an injury.  From the Chargers' Keenan Allen to the Patriots' Rob Gronkowski or the Cardinals' Tyrann Mathieu, who all fit into the category.  Or, you could also give it to a guy who came out of nowhere.  Which is exactly what happened with Case Keenum, who went from third string to NFC Championship Game starter for the Vikings during his career year.

Man of the Year: J.J. Watt, Texans-It's cute how the NFL has been acting like anyone else has a chance of winning this award.  No offense to the other 31 candidates, but how many of them raised $1 billion for hurricane relief in a day and a half?  The best defensive player in the game made more of an impact in a year when he missed pretty much the entire season after that gruesome injury than he ever has on the field.  It's why J.J. Watt was the SI Co-Sportsperson of the Year.  And it's why the Walter Payton Man of the Year could've been given to him back in October.  Houston Strong.

So there you have it.  The NFL is going to hand out eight awards on Saturday night.  And if you were to ask me, these are the eight who'd be getting them.