It only took Jason Witten a few months and tons of criticism to realize he was better at playing football than talking about it. So, he has done us all a favor by unretiring and resuming his future Hall of Fame career with the Cowboys. As a result, we'll mercifully be spared any more of his painful Monday Night Football "commentary."
Which also means ESPN once again has to rejuggle the MNF booth. Hopefully this time they do it a little better. Because everyone knows the whole Witten and Booger McFarland thing didn't work. They were probably going to make a change anyway. And I can't help but think that, even though Witten said the decision to return to the Cowboys was 100 percent his own, he received a gentle nudge out the door.
They could always just go back to a two-man crew and move Booger up to the booth. That also seemed like it was going to happen regardless. Because as bad as Witten was, Booger's stupid bunker-thingy on the field was just as terrible. It was obtrusive and it made Lisa Salters (the best member of that crew) completely unnecessary.
Anyway, it's not like Booger being on the field added anything. So I think he moves to the booth regardless. But Booger, while much better than Witten, isn't exactly a great analyst either. Besides, he doesn't have the name recognition or Wow! factor to be the solo (or lead) analyst on one of the NFL's signature properties.
Especially after CBS hit a home run with Tony Romo, they need to hit their own with Jason Witten's replacement. With that in mind, here are some ideas for possible replacements...
Peyton Manning -- Ever since he retired, he's been the Holy Grail. All of the networks want him, and Peyton will have his choice when and if he ever decides to begin his broadcasting career. ESPN made the call last year, but Peyton turned them down and they hired Witten instead. Will he change his mind when they call him again? If he wants it, the job is his.
Steve Young -- He already works for ESPN, so it would be easy to move him from Monday Night Countdown to the booth. Although, Young's been a studio analyst for so long, I wonder if he'd want to make the switch. Because I'm not sure if he's ever been a game analyst before, and there's definitely a difference. Plus, he might not be a splashy enough name for them. I think he'd do a good job if given the chance, though.
Charles Woodson -- Like Young, Woodson already works for ESPN. He's new enough to the Monday Night Countdown crew that it would be easy to move him to the booth. He's also not that far removed from his playing career, so he's still a familiar name for the fans.
Rex Ryan -- Another in-house candidate, he could be their new Gruden. Coaches see the game differently than players, and it's always interesting to hear that perspective. It's what made Gruden so good on MNF for all those years. He's done the other game of that Week 1 doubleheader pretty much since joining ESPN, so we've already seen him in action.
Jay Feely -- Hiring a former kicker as a lead game analyst would be unorthodox for sure. But Feely has proven capable. He does like the No. 7 game when CBS has one, but he spends most of his time on the main crew as the "kicking game analyst" talking about wind conditions, etc. It's definitely an interesting approach. He probably wouldn't be the lead candidate for the MNF gig. But he shouldn't be discounted for being a kicker, either.
Joe Thomas -- I would've suggested Andrew Whitworth had he not decided to play another year with the Rams. So instead I'll go with another offensive tackle...future Hall of Famer Joe Thomas. He missed most of 2017, then retired, so he's essentially two years removed from playing. You could tell throughout his career that Thomas was destined to become either a coach or a broadcaster, so here's the opportunity to kick-start that broadcasting career.
Tony Gonzalez -- Other than Peyton, he's probably the biggest name they can get. And, unlike the last tight end they hired, Gonzalez actually has broadcasting experience. He was on The NFL Today for three years before leaving CBS for FOX's pre-pregame show. I have no idea what his contract status is, but if there's a clause that lets him move, it could be worth the risk for ESPN.
Kurt Warner -- If they can't get Peyton Manning, I think Kurt Warner would be the best possible alternative. He currently works for NFL Network, so his contract status might prevent it, but Warner would be great. When he does those December Saturday games with Mike Tirico, it leaves you wondering what if? What if Warner was a full-time game analyst instead of spending so much time in the studio?
Whatever ESPN ends up doing, they know they have to find someone better than new/old Dallas Cowboy Jason Witten. Although, seeing as the bar has been set incredibly low, that shouldn't be too hard.
Thursday, February 28, 2019
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
The NFL Needs to Come Down, and Come Down Hard
I know I'm supposed to be shocked by Robert Kraft getting busted for solicitation, but I'm really not. There's nothing about this story that shocks me. In this day and age, that's become virtually impossible. So, I'm not at all surprised by what happened. Just like I'm not at all surprised that a 70-something-year-old billionaire would engage in that sort of behavior.
And, to all the Patriots fans who I'm sure are choosing to view this as yet another example of the NFL being "out to get" the Patriots, that couldn't be further from the truth. For starters, the sting was run by the FBI, not the NFL. And it was designed to bust anyone who frequented one of those parlors. Robert Kraft wasn't the target. But there's no way he was there accidentally, either.
Our legal system is based entirely on the presumption of innocence. So it's unfair to judge him before the legal process plays out. But the details don't exactly look good for him. For starters, he was seen on surveillance video. Second, he was in and out in 15 minutes, which seems to indicate they knew he was coming, he did what was going to do, and he left. And third, he definitely had the means to be in Florida at 1:30 in the afternoon, then fly to Kansas City for the AFC Championship Game that night.
It's things like this that make people hate the Patriots. Yes, we're sick of the winning and how arrogant they are about it and how they make up situations where they're "disrespected" as a means of motivating themselves. But it's more than that. First there was Spygate. Then there was Deflategate. Now this. Granted this one has nothing to do with football, but it doesn't help the perception that the Patriots (despite already being better than everybody) can't help themselves when it comes to cheating.
After both of those scandals, the NFL effectively gave the Patriots a slap on the wrist. But if the allegations against Kraft prove to be true, they need to come down hard. I'm not saying they need to drop the hammer. But this would be three strikes. And the league would need to make a statement. No franchise, no matter how successful, is above the league. Especially when that franchise has now been involved in not one, not two, but three separate incidents.
Too many players have been suspended for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy. But it isn't just players who are subject to the personal conduct policy. It's all league personnel, including coaches and owners. Which means the Commissioner would be well within his rights to suspend Robert Kraft, whether he's found guilty or not.
Owners and players are held to the same standard, but I'd argue that the standard should be even higher for the owners. They're the adults in the room. And they're the ones who drive the multi-billion dollar business...and benefit the most from it. Which is why a fine wouldn't work.
A million dollars is nothing for someone like Robert Kraft. And what message would that really send anyway? It would say that an owner can commit a crime and essentially go unpunished, but if a player does the same thing, a four-game suspension (or longer) is a virtual certainty. Talk about a double standard! And you can bet that's something the players would be sure to point out when the next round of CBA negotiations begin.
Some people have suggested that the NFL could/should even force Kraft to sell the Patriots, but that step would be a bit drastic to say the least. This isn't the NBA forcing Donald Sterling to sell the Clippers or even a year ago with Jerry Richardson and Carolina. In both of those situations, the owner's actions forced the league's hand. They had no other choice. There was no place for either Sterling or Richardson after what happened.
This is far different. This would be merely holding someone accountable for his actions. And there's precedent for it. Major League Baseball suspended George Steinbrenner in the early 90s, and then-49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo was suspended by the NFL in 1999 after pleading guilty to a felony. Solicitation is a misdemeanor. But it's still a crime. Which means a suspension would be reasonable.
The Patriots would be just fine without him, too. His son, Jonathan, is the team president and already runs a lot of the football operations. He figures to inherit the team upon Robert's death, so it'd be natural to assume he'd take on those duties for however long his father is suspended. They'd still have Bradicheck, too.
Regardless of how the legal process pays out, you have to figure there'll be some sort of repercussions for Robert Kraft. Whether it's a massive fine (which would accomplish nothing) or a suspension or the loss of draft picks (where it'll hit the hardest), Kraft should be held accountable. Otherwise, the NFL will be sending absolutely the wrong message.
Not doing anything would effectively be condoning his actions. What's worse, the next person who's suspended under the personal conduct policy would then be able to point to that as the example of the NFL having a double standard. And they wouldn't exactly be wrong.
Although, on second thought, maybe they shouldn't suspend him. The last thing we need is another reason for the Patriots and their fans to get all fired up about the "conspiracy" against them and use it as motivation for another run to the Patriots Game.
And, to all the Patriots fans who I'm sure are choosing to view this as yet another example of the NFL being "out to get" the Patriots, that couldn't be further from the truth. For starters, the sting was run by the FBI, not the NFL. And it was designed to bust anyone who frequented one of those parlors. Robert Kraft wasn't the target. But there's no way he was there accidentally, either.
Our legal system is based entirely on the presumption of innocence. So it's unfair to judge him before the legal process plays out. But the details don't exactly look good for him. For starters, he was seen on surveillance video. Second, he was in and out in 15 minutes, which seems to indicate they knew he was coming, he did what was going to do, and he left. And third, he definitely had the means to be in Florida at 1:30 in the afternoon, then fly to Kansas City for the AFC Championship Game that night.
It's things like this that make people hate the Patriots. Yes, we're sick of the winning and how arrogant they are about it and how they make up situations where they're "disrespected" as a means of motivating themselves. But it's more than that. First there was Spygate. Then there was Deflategate. Now this. Granted this one has nothing to do with football, but it doesn't help the perception that the Patriots (despite already being better than everybody) can't help themselves when it comes to cheating.
After both of those scandals, the NFL effectively gave the Patriots a slap on the wrist. But if the allegations against Kraft prove to be true, they need to come down hard. I'm not saying they need to drop the hammer. But this would be three strikes. And the league would need to make a statement. No franchise, no matter how successful, is above the league. Especially when that franchise has now been involved in not one, not two, but three separate incidents.
Too many players have been suspended for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy. But it isn't just players who are subject to the personal conduct policy. It's all league personnel, including coaches and owners. Which means the Commissioner would be well within his rights to suspend Robert Kraft, whether he's found guilty or not.
Owners and players are held to the same standard, but I'd argue that the standard should be even higher for the owners. They're the adults in the room. And they're the ones who drive the multi-billion dollar business...and benefit the most from it. Which is why a fine wouldn't work.
A million dollars is nothing for someone like Robert Kraft. And what message would that really send anyway? It would say that an owner can commit a crime and essentially go unpunished, but if a player does the same thing, a four-game suspension (or longer) is a virtual certainty. Talk about a double standard! And you can bet that's something the players would be sure to point out when the next round of CBA negotiations begin.
Some people have suggested that the NFL could/should even force Kraft to sell the Patriots, but that step would be a bit drastic to say the least. This isn't the NBA forcing Donald Sterling to sell the Clippers or even a year ago with Jerry Richardson and Carolina. In both of those situations, the owner's actions forced the league's hand. They had no other choice. There was no place for either Sterling or Richardson after what happened.
This is far different. This would be merely holding someone accountable for his actions. And there's precedent for it. Major League Baseball suspended George Steinbrenner in the early 90s, and then-49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo was suspended by the NFL in 1999 after pleading guilty to a felony. Solicitation is a misdemeanor. But it's still a crime. Which means a suspension would be reasonable.
The Patriots would be just fine without him, too. His son, Jonathan, is the team president and already runs a lot of the football operations. He figures to inherit the team upon Robert's death, so it'd be natural to assume he'd take on those duties for however long his father is suspended. They'd still have Bradicheck, too.
Regardless of how the legal process pays out, you have to figure there'll be some sort of repercussions for Robert Kraft. Whether it's a massive fine (which would accomplish nothing) or a suspension or the loss of draft picks (where it'll hit the hardest), Kraft should be held accountable. Otherwise, the NFL will be sending absolutely the wrong message.
Not doing anything would effectively be condoning his actions. What's worse, the next person who's suspended under the personal conduct policy would then be able to point to that as the example of the NFL having a double standard. And they wouldn't exactly be wrong.
Although, on second thought, maybe they shouldn't suspend him. The last thing we need is another reason for the Patriots and their fans to get all fired up about the "conspiracy" against them and use it as motivation for another run to the Patriots Game.
Monday, February 25, 2019
Let's Go Back to Adding Sports the Old Way
Can the IOC be any more obvious in its desire to turn the Olympics into the X Games? Paris 2024 has unveiled the list of additional sports it has recommended for Olympic inclusion. Three of them--sport climbing, skateboarding and surfing--will already be part of the Olympic program next year in Tokyo. The fourth is, and I can't believe I'm saying this because it's so ridiculous...break dancing. But, hey, at least e "sports" didn't make the cut (at least not officially, more on that in a bit)!
All of this is in a blantant attempt to make the Olympics "more relevant to youth." And apparently they were successful in that objective. They did a survey right after the announcement and 79 percent of French people approved of the new sports, with that jumping to 89 percent favorable among 15-25 year-olds.
It was rumored that they'd also be proposing e "sports," but that seems to be off the table for now. At least as a medal event. Although, they're evidently planning on having some sort of offshore racing event in sailing, which would include some interactive elements. And sailing isn't the only sport to have that idea, either. Word is they're considering it in rowing and cycling, too.
The IOC has been obsessed with appealing to younger generations for a while now. That's why they created the Youth Olympics, the beast which unleashed break dancing on the world in the first place. Break dancing (or "breaking") was one of the most popular sports at the 2018 Youth Olympics in Buenos Aires. And evidently that's all you need to be included in the regular Olympics now.
I'd like to see the results of that same survey among fans/viewers of the traditional Olympic sports. Because that's the risk the IOC runs by adding all of these X Games sports to the Olympics. You want more youth to watch, but they aren't your core audience. And you risk alienating your core audience by catering to younger fans/athletes at their expense.
Not to mention the federations of the 26 core Olympic sports, who the IOC is basically telling, "We don't care about you." They're so concerned with appealing to youth that the traditional Olympic sports--the ones that are guaranteed places on the program--are forced to play second fiddle to these potential one-off sports that are guaranteed nothing beyond the one Olympics that the host has decided to include them in.
Another thing that can't sit well with the international federations is the 10,500-athlete cap that the IOC insists it wants to maintain, even with the addition of new sports. The only way to add new events/sports and have the same number of athletes is to take quota places away from existing sports. So, they're all directly impacted by the new sports. Because even if you have just a men's and women's event with 20 competitors each in those four sports, that's still 160 athletes (at a minimum). Which means you're taking 160 athletes away from other sports.
And how do you think golf and rugby must feel? They go through this rigorous process that required years of trying and multiple attempts before finally getting (deserved) Olympic inclusion in Rio. Only to see the process totally overhauled where all a sport needs to do is be popular in the host country of a given Games. Which, frankly, isn't fair to those that have been fighting for inclusion for so long, only to be rejected over and over again (seriously, what does squash have to do?).
After the addition of golf and rugby, they completely changed their own rules (which, granted, is their prerogative). Instead of a sport-based program, Tokyo will be the first Olympics to feature an event-based program. As a result, we have the five additional sports, bringing the total to a record 33, and a record 339 events. (Apparently the irony is lost on them that at a time they're having trouble finding bidders because of rising costs, the added sports will result in the largest Olympics ever.)
Meanwhile, there's no guarantee that these sports will even stay on the program. Sport climbing, surfing and skateboarding all retained their places for Paris 2024, but karate (which is an unnecessary addition in the first place) will be a one-and-done, and baseball/softball, after fighting 12 years to get back in, will return to the Olympics for one edition before being skipped again, even though you know they'll be back again in LA.
Tokyo didn't have the same restriction on working the new sports into the 10,500-athlete limit that Paris does. Which left virtually no room to add a team sport. So baseball and softball were screwed before the process even started. They aren't popular sports in France to begin with. Then that artificial athlete cap essentially sealed their fate. Because they're not allotting 150 athletes (and taking them away from other sports) to a sport that will only award one gold medal!
That's my biggest problem with the "event-based" program that has resulted in the addition of these sports. Either a sport is part of the Olympics or it's not. All of this back-and-forth, on-and-off doesn't benefit either the sport or the Olympics.
Which is why I preferred the old process. Deciding what sports are on the Olympic program should be up to the IOC. Not the organizers of the individual Games. Because the IOC knows what sports will provide the most benefit to the Olympic movement as a whole. I'm not a fan of their arbitrary (and now gone) 28-sport limit. But they shouldn't be adding and removing sports on a whim, either.
There's a massive difference between being an Olympic sport and not being an Olympic sport. That's why so many sports on the outside are desperate to get in. And that's why the competition is intense when there's an available spot (or two). Yet, by letting the host countries (who may have their own motivations) decide, they're dangling that carrot, only to potentially pull it away and make them do the whole thing all over again.
This isn't even about the sports that Paris selected. Although, that is a part of it. The Olympics got along for decades long before the X Games even existed. And, for much of its history, the X Games and fans of extreme sports took great pride in the fact that they were considered "alternative." Olympic recognition, while it would legitimize them, goes almost completely against that "alternative" culture.
As much as they might try to convince themselves otherwise, they don't need each other, either. They draw two completely different audiences. People who watch the X Games aren't going to watch the Olympics and vice versa. Combining the two isn't going to change that. In fact, it could very well end up having the opposite effect. Which doesn't benefit anybody.
All of this is in a blantant attempt to make the Olympics "more relevant to youth." And apparently they were successful in that objective. They did a survey right after the announcement and 79 percent of French people approved of the new sports, with that jumping to 89 percent favorable among 15-25 year-olds.
It was rumored that they'd also be proposing e "sports," but that seems to be off the table for now. At least as a medal event. Although, they're evidently planning on having some sort of offshore racing event in sailing, which would include some interactive elements. And sailing isn't the only sport to have that idea, either. Word is they're considering it in rowing and cycling, too.
The IOC has been obsessed with appealing to younger generations for a while now. That's why they created the Youth Olympics, the beast which unleashed break dancing on the world in the first place. Break dancing (or "breaking") was one of the most popular sports at the 2018 Youth Olympics in Buenos Aires. And evidently that's all you need to be included in the regular Olympics now.
I'd like to see the results of that same survey among fans/viewers of the traditional Olympic sports. Because that's the risk the IOC runs by adding all of these X Games sports to the Olympics. You want more youth to watch, but they aren't your core audience. And you risk alienating your core audience by catering to younger fans/athletes at their expense.
Not to mention the federations of the 26 core Olympic sports, who the IOC is basically telling, "We don't care about you." They're so concerned with appealing to youth that the traditional Olympic sports--the ones that are guaranteed places on the program--are forced to play second fiddle to these potential one-off sports that are guaranteed nothing beyond the one Olympics that the host has decided to include them in.
Another thing that can't sit well with the international federations is the 10,500-athlete cap that the IOC insists it wants to maintain, even with the addition of new sports. The only way to add new events/sports and have the same number of athletes is to take quota places away from existing sports. So, they're all directly impacted by the new sports. Because even if you have just a men's and women's event with 20 competitors each in those four sports, that's still 160 athletes (at a minimum). Which means you're taking 160 athletes away from other sports.
And how do you think golf and rugby must feel? They go through this rigorous process that required years of trying and multiple attempts before finally getting (deserved) Olympic inclusion in Rio. Only to see the process totally overhauled where all a sport needs to do is be popular in the host country of a given Games. Which, frankly, isn't fair to those that have been fighting for inclusion for so long, only to be rejected over and over again (seriously, what does squash have to do?).
After the addition of golf and rugby, they completely changed their own rules (which, granted, is their prerogative). Instead of a sport-based program, Tokyo will be the first Olympics to feature an event-based program. As a result, we have the five additional sports, bringing the total to a record 33, and a record 339 events. (Apparently the irony is lost on them that at a time they're having trouble finding bidders because of rising costs, the added sports will result in the largest Olympics ever.)
Meanwhile, there's no guarantee that these sports will even stay on the program. Sport climbing, surfing and skateboarding all retained their places for Paris 2024, but karate (which is an unnecessary addition in the first place) will be a one-and-done, and baseball/softball, after fighting 12 years to get back in, will return to the Olympics for one edition before being skipped again, even though you know they'll be back again in LA.
Tokyo didn't have the same restriction on working the new sports into the 10,500-athlete limit that Paris does. Which left virtually no room to add a team sport. So baseball and softball were screwed before the process even started. They aren't popular sports in France to begin with. Then that artificial athlete cap essentially sealed their fate. Because they're not allotting 150 athletes (and taking them away from other sports) to a sport that will only award one gold medal!
That's my biggest problem with the "event-based" program that has resulted in the addition of these sports. Either a sport is part of the Olympics or it's not. All of this back-and-forth, on-and-off doesn't benefit either the sport or the Olympics.
Which is why I preferred the old process. Deciding what sports are on the Olympic program should be up to the IOC. Not the organizers of the individual Games. Because the IOC knows what sports will provide the most benefit to the Olympic movement as a whole. I'm not a fan of their arbitrary (and now gone) 28-sport limit. But they shouldn't be adding and removing sports on a whim, either.
There's a massive difference between being an Olympic sport and not being an Olympic sport. That's why so many sports on the outside are desperate to get in. And that's why the competition is intense when there's an available spot (or two). Yet, by letting the host countries (who may have their own motivations) decide, they're dangling that carrot, only to potentially pull it away and make them do the whole thing all over again.
This isn't even about the sports that Paris selected. Although, that is a part of it. The Olympics got along for decades long before the X Games even existed. And, for much of its history, the X Games and fans of extreme sports took great pride in the fact that they were considered "alternative." Olympic recognition, while it would legitimize them, goes almost completely against that "alternative" culture.
As much as they might try to convince themselves otherwise, they don't need each other, either. They draw two completely different audiences. People who watch the X Games aren't going to watch the Olympics and vice versa. Combining the two isn't going to change that. In fact, it could very well end up having the opposite effect. Which doesn't benefit anybody.
Sunday, February 24, 2019
Sporting Oscars
As I sit here watching the Oscars, it makes me think of all the great sports movies out there. Only a handful of sports movies have actually won Oscars (including three Best Pictures), but there are so many others that are rewarded with nothing more than cult status. So, I decided to have some fun and present my own Sports Oscars.
I don't have awards for things like acting or directing or writing. Rather, my I'm putting baseball movies against baseball movies, football movies against football movies, etc. The only exception is the documentary category.
Documentary: O.J. Made In America-There have been some really great sports documentaries that have won Oscars. When We Were Kings and One Day In September were both extraordinary. But they pale in comparison to O.J. Made In America. An exquisite piece of film making, it packs a lot into five parts and 10 hours. And I don't think there's a single moment during those 10 hours that drags. Every award it received was well-deserved.
Baseball Drama: Eight Men Out-The baseball movie is a cinematic staple, so I'm dividing it into two categories (I could even do three if I wanted to have a Kevin Costner baseball movie subcategory). And for Drama, I'm going with what's still one of my favorite all-time movies. The true story of the 1919 Black Sox throwing the World Series. What I love so much about this movie is how it succeeds in putting the players (at least some of them) in a sympathetic light, even if their actions were reprehensible.
Baseball Comedy: A League of Their Own-This was a tight battle with Bull Durham and Major League. But A League of Their Own gets the nod here. This movie was originally intended to be a tribute to the women who played in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League. It's turned into a beloved classic full of oft-repeated Tom Hanks one-liners.
Basketball: Hoosiers-Is there really any other choice? There have been some other quality basketball pictures through the years (Glory Road and The Basketball Diaries come to mind), but none are on the level of Hoosiers. It's the standard by which all basketball movies are measured for a reason.
Boxing: Raging Bull-Both Rocky and Million Dollar Baby both won Best Picture, but I'd argue that Raging Bull was the superior film of the three. DeNiro won Best Actor for his portrayal of Jake LaMotta in the signature role of his career. Rocky is great and has spawned a franchise that is now eight movies strong (and counting). But Raging Bull is widely considered one of the greatest films ever made, and it's hard to disagree.
Football: Remember the Titans-Another sport that can be divided into subcategories. It could be drama/comedy. It could be college/high school/pro. But I decided to just stick with one category. And my choice in the football category is Remember the Titans. There are plenty of other worthwhile football selections going all the way back to Knute Rockne: All-American. I'm partial to Remember the Titans, though.
Golf: Caddyshack-Three great golf comedies. Any one of them could've been selected here. And you wouldn't be wrong to go with Happy Gilmore or Tin Cup. Neither one of them is Caddyshack, though. That was the original. And just take a second to think about that cast full of comedy legends. All in an incredibly stupid movie with such a dumb premise. Which is what makes it great. Cinderella Story!
Hockey: Miracle-Like Hoosiers, this one is a no-brainer. In any list of the greatest sports movies ever across all sports and all genres, Miracle is right there at the top. Everything about this movie is perfect. The casting they got exactly right. They told a true story with nearly every detail historically accurate. And they captured the emotion that everyone felt in that moment. Which, by the way, is one of the greatest moments in American sports history.
Horse Racing: Seabiscuit-Pardon the pun, but this one is really a two-horse race. Which is funny, because Seabiscuit and Secreteriat came out right around the same time. Secreteriat gets the sappy Disney treatment, though, so that brings it down a notch. Seabiscuit is the better picture regardless. That's why it got a Best Picture nomination, which, as we've already established, is rare for a sports movie.
Olympics: Chariots of Fire-An Olympic movie is tough. Which is why there haven't been many great ones over the years. Race has recently entered the conversation, but Chariots of Fire is still the gold standard in the genre. It was just the second sports movie after Rocky to win Best Picture. This movie has its critics (there are plenty of people who hate it and think it's boring), but there are plenty of others who think it's a masterpiece. Put me in that category. Plus, that iconic music.
Auto Racing: Days of Thunder-Let's be honest, most movies featuring auto racing are really stupid, not very good, or both. Take all 35 Fast and the Furious movies, for example. Days of Thunder is neither of those things, So, it rises to the top of what is really a pretty shallow candidate pool. It gets bonus points for being the only good Tom Cruise & Nicole Kidman movie, and more bonus point for bringing NASCAR into the mainstream.
International Sports: Invictus-Bringing it full circle to the documentary thing, we have Invictus, a movie that you'd be forgiven for thinking IS a documentary. It's the story of Nelson Mandela, aka Morgan Freeman, and his role in using the 1995 Rugby World Cup to unite black and white South Africans. It's so much more than just a sports movie. And it sends a beautiful message about how sports can bring people together.
Note that there are several sports missing from this list. There's a reason for that. Can you name a tennis movie or a soccer movie? Any tennis or soccer movie! It doesn't need to be good. Wimbledon. That's all I've got. So, there's still plenty of room for a filmmaker who wants to do a sports movie to make his mark on the genre.
I don't have awards for things like acting or directing or writing. Rather, my I'm putting baseball movies against baseball movies, football movies against football movies, etc. The only exception is the documentary category.
Documentary: O.J. Made In America-There have been some really great sports documentaries that have won Oscars. When We Were Kings and One Day In September were both extraordinary. But they pale in comparison to O.J. Made In America. An exquisite piece of film making, it packs a lot into five parts and 10 hours. And I don't think there's a single moment during those 10 hours that drags. Every award it received was well-deserved.
Baseball Drama: Eight Men Out-The baseball movie is a cinematic staple, so I'm dividing it into two categories (I could even do three if I wanted to have a Kevin Costner baseball movie subcategory). And for Drama, I'm going with what's still one of my favorite all-time movies. The true story of the 1919 Black Sox throwing the World Series. What I love so much about this movie is how it succeeds in putting the players (at least some of them) in a sympathetic light, even if their actions were reprehensible.
Baseball Comedy: A League of Their Own-This was a tight battle with Bull Durham and Major League. But A League of Their Own gets the nod here. This movie was originally intended to be a tribute to the women who played in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League. It's turned into a beloved classic full of oft-repeated Tom Hanks one-liners.
Basketball: Hoosiers-Is there really any other choice? There have been some other quality basketball pictures through the years (Glory Road and The Basketball Diaries come to mind), but none are on the level of Hoosiers. It's the standard by which all basketball movies are measured for a reason.
Boxing: Raging Bull-Both Rocky and Million Dollar Baby both won Best Picture, but I'd argue that Raging Bull was the superior film of the three. DeNiro won Best Actor for his portrayal of Jake LaMotta in the signature role of his career. Rocky is great and has spawned a franchise that is now eight movies strong (and counting). But Raging Bull is widely considered one of the greatest films ever made, and it's hard to disagree.
Football: Remember the Titans-Another sport that can be divided into subcategories. It could be drama/comedy. It could be college/high school/pro. But I decided to just stick with one category. And my choice in the football category is Remember the Titans. There are plenty of other worthwhile football selections going all the way back to Knute Rockne: All-American. I'm partial to Remember the Titans, though.
Golf: Caddyshack-Three great golf comedies. Any one of them could've been selected here. And you wouldn't be wrong to go with Happy Gilmore or Tin Cup. Neither one of them is Caddyshack, though. That was the original. And just take a second to think about that cast full of comedy legends. All in an incredibly stupid movie with such a dumb premise. Which is what makes it great. Cinderella Story!
Hockey: Miracle-Like Hoosiers, this one is a no-brainer. In any list of the greatest sports movies ever across all sports and all genres, Miracle is right there at the top. Everything about this movie is perfect. The casting they got exactly right. They told a true story with nearly every detail historically accurate. And they captured the emotion that everyone felt in that moment. Which, by the way, is one of the greatest moments in American sports history.
Horse Racing: Seabiscuit-Pardon the pun, but this one is really a two-horse race. Which is funny, because Seabiscuit and Secreteriat came out right around the same time. Secreteriat gets the sappy Disney treatment, though, so that brings it down a notch. Seabiscuit is the better picture regardless. That's why it got a Best Picture nomination, which, as we've already established, is rare for a sports movie.
Olympics: Chariots of Fire-An Olympic movie is tough. Which is why there haven't been many great ones over the years. Race has recently entered the conversation, but Chariots of Fire is still the gold standard in the genre. It was just the second sports movie after Rocky to win Best Picture. This movie has its critics (there are plenty of people who hate it and think it's boring), but there are plenty of others who think it's a masterpiece. Put me in that category. Plus, that iconic music.
Auto Racing: Days of Thunder-Let's be honest, most movies featuring auto racing are really stupid, not very good, or both. Take all 35 Fast and the Furious movies, for example. Days of Thunder is neither of those things, So, it rises to the top of what is really a pretty shallow candidate pool. It gets bonus points for being the only good Tom Cruise & Nicole Kidman movie, and more bonus point for bringing NASCAR into the mainstream.
International Sports: Invictus-Bringing it full circle to the documentary thing, we have Invictus, a movie that you'd be forgiven for thinking IS a documentary. It's the story of Nelson Mandela, aka Morgan Freeman, and his role in using the 1995 Rugby World Cup to unite black and white South Africans. It's so much more than just a sports movie. And it sends a beautiful message about how sports can bring people together.
Note that there are several sports missing from this list. There's a reason for that. Can you name a tennis movie or a soccer movie? Any tennis or soccer movie! It doesn't need to be good. Wimbledon. That's all I've got. So, there's still plenty of room for a filmmaker who wants to do a sports movie to make his mark on the genre.
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Setting the Yankees' Opening Day Roster
Spring Training is here! Even though more than 100 free agents (including Bryce Harper) remain unsigned, every player that is on a team has reported to camp, and Spring Training games get started over the weekend.
With so many big names still out there, it's nearly impossible to predict what teams' Opening Day rosters are going to look like. But that doesn't mean I'm not gonna give it a try anyway.
Brian Cashman said about a month ago that the Yankees weren't going to make anymore major moves and that the roster was pretty much set. You can never say never with this team, though. They were linked with Machado right up until he finally inked that 10-year, $300 million deal with the Padres, and the Harper talk will continue until he signs somewhere. Even Aaron Judge has said that if the Yankees were to sign Harper, they'd make the outfield situation work (and they could badly use his lefty bat in a heavily right-handed lineup).
But, assuming Cashman's statement was accurate (and, barring an injury, there's no reason to think otherwise), there are only a handful of Opening Day roster spots that aren't already accounted for. I could be way off, of course, but the way I see it, we already know 22 of the 25 players who'll be wearing Yankee pinstripes on Opening Day against Baltimore. The rotation and catcher are set, with one spot available in the bullpen, the outfield and the infield.
As the Red Sox made abundantly clear in the Division Series, the Yankees needed to upgrade their starting rotation. And Cashman did that by trading for James Paxton and re-signing J.A. Happ for two years. Now, Paxton really only had half of one season in Seattle, and there's no guarantee Happ will replicate what he did after he was traded to the Yankees at the deadline last season. But, a rotation of Severino, Paxton, Tanaka, Happ and Sabathia is definitely better than last year's Opening Day rotation of Severino, Tanaka, Sabathia, Gray and Montgomery.
The starters don't need to go much beyond six innings on this team anyway. Because the bullpen (while often overused) is the best in baseball. And it only got better with the addition of Adam Ottavino. They have three guys who could be closers, which doesn't even include their actual closer Aroldis Chapman. So, they could use any combination of Ottavino, Green, Britton and Betances to get to Chapman.
Aaron Boone likes to carry 12 pitchers, which gives him a seven-man bullpen. Chapman will close. Betances, Britton, Ottavino, Green and Jonathan Holder will occupy five of the other six spots. But who fills that seventh will perhaps be the most interesting Yankees position battle of the spring.
Tommy Kahnle spent most of 2018 in Scranton, but was lights out after they got him in 2017. He's already on the 40-man roster, so if he has a good spring, you'd have to figure he's a good bet to make the team. If he doesn't, don't be surprised to see Kahnle released so that he can sign somewhere else. Stephen Tarpley, meanwhile, made the playoff roster, and would give Boone a situational lefty that he otherwise wouldn't have (I don't expect them to ask Britton to fill that role).
Then there's Luis Cessa. On paper, he looks like a longshot to make the team. After all, he's a starter and would only be on the roster as the long man. BUT...he's out of Minor League options, so he either has to make the team or be designated for assignment. And you can bet a bunch of teams would be ready to pounce if Cessa became available. So, that's a decision Cashman and Boone will have to weigh.
Which says nothing about non-roster invitee Danny Farquhar, which would be a remarkable story. He pitched in eight games for the White Sox last season before suffering a brain aneurysm when he was hit by a comebacker in late April. The fact that he's back on the mound less than a year later is amazing. My bet is he starts the year in Scranton, but he definitely seems like a candidate to get called up at some point during the season. And the reaction he gets when he does will be incredible.
Sanchez and Romine are the catchers. If one of them gets hurt during Spring Training, the other will start and Kyle Higashioka will be the backup. No controversy there at all.
Troy Tulowitzi was signed to play shortstop while Didi Gregorius recovers from Tommy John surgery. That's quite a risk, considering Tulo hasn't played in a Major League game since 2017. But, if he can't go or struggles, Gleyber Torres can always move over to shortstop. In which case, DJ LeMahieu, who was signed to basically fill the Neil Walker role, will be inserted as the starting second baseman.
Had the Yankees signed Machado, he probably would've played third, with Miguel Andujar moving across the diamond (which seems inevitable at some point). Andujar isn't a good defensive third baseman. But he also needs to play there to keep his bat in the lineup, so there's no dispute over who'll man the hot corner.
First base is a little bit of a concern, though. Luke Voit caught lightning in a bottle last season, to the point that he was the only first baseman on the roster in the playoffs. I'm worried the rest of the league has caught up to him. Voit rightfully enters Spring Training as the starter, though. Mainly because Greg Bird sucks. If Bird actually makes it through Spring Training without hurting himself (a big IF), I'm not 100 percent sure he makes the team. He strikes out all the time and can only play first base. And does a left-handed hitting backup first baseman really bring a team that much value? You do need a backup first baseman, though, and none of the other candidates (Tyler Wade) have any experience there.
There's no question about who's starting in the outfield. Aaron Hicks will play center, Aaron Judge will be in right and Giancarlo Stanton will DH. Brett Gardner was relegated to the bench in the playoffs last season, be he re-signed for one year and, assuming they don't become a surprise player in the Harper sweepstakes, will be back in left field. More importantly, Gardner is the only left-handed hitter in the lineup until Didi gets back (Hicks is a switch-hitter).
Clint Frazier has publicly said that he plans on challenging Gardner for the left field job, but the incumbent should have the edge for the reason I just mentioned. Frazier will battle Jacoby Ellsbury for the backup outfield spot. Ellsbury is still being paid an awful lot of money, and the Yankees would love to rid themselves of that contract. However, he has a full no-trade clause, so he's difficult to move. They've been trying for two years. Assuming Ellsbury is healthy, that prohibitive contract should make him the favorite to snag the other outfield spot.
So, barring anything unforeseen happening during the spring, this is what I envision for the Yankees' roster on Opening Day:
Starting Pitchers: Luis Severino, James Paxton, Masahiro Tanaka, JA Happ, CC Sabathia
Bullpen: Aroldis Chapman, Dellin Betances, Zack Britton, Adam Ottavino, Chad Green, Jonathan Holder, Tommy Kahnle
Catcher: Gary Sanchez, Austin Romine
Infield: Luke Voit, Gleyber Torres, Troy Tulowitzki, Miguel Andujar, DJ LeMahieu, Greg Bird
Outfield: Brett Gardner, Aaron Hicks, Aaron Judge, Giancarlo Stanton, Jacoby Ellsbury
With so many big names still out there, it's nearly impossible to predict what teams' Opening Day rosters are going to look like. But that doesn't mean I'm not gonna give it a try anyway.
Brian Cashman said about a month ago that the Yankees weren't going to make anymore major moves and that the roster was pretty much set. You can never say never with this team, though. They were linked with Machado right up until he finally inked that 10-year, $300 million deal with the Padres, and the Harper talk will continue until he signs somewhere. Even Aaron Judge has said that if the Yankees were to sign Harper, they'd make the outfield situation work (and they could badly use his lefty bat in a heavily right-handed lineup).
But, assuming Cashman's statement was accurate (and, barring an injury, there's no reason to think otherwise), there are only a handful of Opening Day roster spots that aren't already accounted for. I could be way off, of course, but the way I see it, we already know 22 of the 25 players who'll be wearing Yankee pinstripes on Opening Day against Baltimore. The rotation and catcher are set, with one spot available in the bullpen, the outfield and the infield.
As the Red Sox made abundantly clear in the Division Series, the Yankees needed to upgrade their starting rotation. And Cashman did that by trading for James Paxton and re-signing J.A. Happ for two years. Now, Paxton really only had half of one season in Seattle, and there's no guarantee Happ will replicate what he did after he was traded to the Yankees at the deadline last season. But, a rotation of Severino, Paxton, Tanaka, Happ and Sabathia is definitely better than last year's Opening Day rotation of Severino, Tanaka, Sabathia, Gray and Montgomery.
The starters don't need to go much beyond six innings on this team anyway. Because the bullpen (while often overused) is the best in baseball. And it only got better with the addition of Adam Ottavino. They have three guys who could be closers, which doesn't even include their actual closer Aroldis Chapman. So, they could use any combination of Ottavino, Green, Britton and Betances to get to Chapman.
Aaron Boone likes to carry 12 pitchers, which gives him a seven-man bullpen. Chapman will close. Betances, Britton, Ottavino, Green and Jonathan Holder will occupy five of the other six spots. But who fills that seventh will perhaps be the most interesting Yankees position battle of the spring.
Tommy Kahnle spent most of 2018 in Scranton, but was lights out after they got him in 2017. He's already on the 40-man roster, so if he has a good spring, you'd have to figure he's a good bet to make the team. If he doesn't, don't be surprised to see Kahnle released so that he can sign somewhere else. Stephen Tarpley, meanwhile, made the playoff roster, and would give Boone a situational lefty that he otherwise wouldn't have (I don't expect them to ask Britton to fill that role).
Then there's Luis Cessa. On paper, he looks like a longshot to make the team. After all, he's a starter and would only be on the roster as the long man. BUT...he's out of Minor League options, so he either has to make the team or be designated for assignment. And you can bet a bunch of teams would be ready to pounce if Cessa became available. So, that's a decision Cashman and Boone will have to weigh.
Which says nothing about non-roster invitee Danny Farquhar, which would be a remarkable story. He pitched in eight games for the White Sox last season before suffering a brain aneurysm when he was hit by a comebacker in late April. The fact that he's back on the mound less than a year later is amazing. My bet is he starts the year in Scranton, but he definitely seems like a candidate to get called up at some point during the season. And the reaction he gets when he does will be incredible.
Sanchez and Romine are the catchers. If one of them gets hurt during Spring Training, the other will start and Kyle Higashioka will be the backup. No controversy there at all.
Troy Tulowitzi was signed to play shortstop while Didi Gregorius recovers from Tommy John surgery. That's quite a risk, considering Tulo hasn't played in a Major League game since 2017. But, if he can't go or struggles, Gleyber Torres can always move over to shortstop. In which case, DJ LeMahieu, who was signed to basically fill the Neil Walker role, will be inserted as the starting second baseman.
Had the Yankees signed Machado, he probably would've played third, with Miguel Andujar moving across the diamond (which seems inevitable at some point). Andujar isn't a good defensive third baseman. But he also needs to play there to keep his bat in the lineup, so there's no dispute over who'll man the hot corner.
First base is a little bit of a concern, though. Luke Voit caught lightning in a bottle last season, to the point that he was the only first baseman on the roster in the playoffs. I'm worried the rest of the league has caught up to him. Voit rightfully enters Spring Training as the starter, though. Mainly because Greg Bird sucks. If Bird actually makes it through Spring Training without hurting himself (a big IF), I'm not 100 percent sure he makes the team. He strikes out all the time and can only play first base. And does a left-handed hitting backup first baseman really bring a team that much value? You do need a backup first baseman, though, and none of the other candidates (Tyler Wade) have any experience there.
There's no question about who's starting in the outfield. Aaron Hicks will play center, Aaron Judge will be in right and Giancarlo Stanton will DH. Brett Gardner was relegated to the bench in the playoffs last season, be he re-signed for one year and, assuming they don't become a surprise player in the Harper sweepstakes, will be back in left field. More importantly, Gardner is the only left-handed hitter in the lineup until Didi gets back (Hicks is a switch-hitter).
Clint Frazier has publicly said that he plans on challenging Gardner for the left field job, but the incumbent should have the edge for the reason I just mentioned. Frazier will battle Jacoby Ellsbury for the backup outfield spot. Ellsbury is still being paid an awful lot of money, and the Yankees would love to rid themselves of that contract. However, he has a full no-trade clause, so he's difficult to move. They've been trying for two years. Assuming Ellsbury is healthy, that prohibitive contract should make him the favorite to snag the other outfield spot.
So, barring anything unforeseen happening during the spring, this is what I envision for the Yankees' roster on Opening Day:
Starting Pitchers: Luis Severino, James Paxton, Masahiro Tanaka, JA Happ, CC Sabathia
Bullpen: Aroldis Chapman, Dellin Betances, Zack Britton, Adam Ottavino, Chad Green, Jonathan Holder, Tommy Kahnle
Catcher: Gary Sanchez, Austin Romine
Infield: Luke Voit, Gleyber Torres, Troy Tulowitzki, Miguel Andujar, DJ LeMahieu, Greg Bird
Outfield: Brett Gardner, Aaron Hicks, Aaron Judge, Giancarlo Stanton, Jacoby Ellsbury
Monday, February 18, 2019
Is It Really Settled?
On Friday, the NFL reached settlements with Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid in their collusion suits against the league. The terms are sealed, so we'll never know how much they settled for. But this seemed to be the inevitable conclusion to this all along.
Collusion is virtually impossible to prove. Kaepernick would've needed to provide evidence that all of the teams got together and actively decided, as a group, to keep him out of the league. Believe what you will about why teams that needed a quarterback last season opted for somebody else who may be viewed as "inferior" to Kaepernick. There's no way of knowing what those teams' reasons were. (Maybe they simply didn't want that kind of circus surrounding a backup/replacement quarterback.) And I think Kaepernick's lawyers knew that.
Besides, does anyone actually think the end game for Kaepernick was going to be landing back in the NFL? There's not a single judge out there who was going to order a team to sign him. So really, some sort of financial settlement was really the best he could hope for.
After the settlement was announced, Kaepernick's lawyer hinted that he was close to signing with a team, suggesting the Patriots and Panthers as possibilities. I think it's safe to say New England is highly unlikely, and Carolina is probably wishful thinking, too. Either way, he'd be a backup. And you know he's not going to sign for backup money. So, it's more likely than not that Kaepernick has played his final NFL down.
If this actually was about playing again, he had an opportunity to do just that. The AAF asked him to play, but he turned them down because of the money. Evidently, Kaepernick demanded $20 million when the standard AAF contract is for $250,000. Obviously he knew that demand wasn't going to be met. And, frankly, what does it do for Kaepernick's brand to be the best player in a minor league?
That's what Kaepernick has become. A brand. He can make much more money through his endorsement deal with Nike than he would as an NFL backup quarterback. And you know he wouldn't have settled with the NFL if it wasn't for a lucrative sum. Which lets him continue being a martyr for his cause. It lets his fans continue saying how "unfair" it is that he's being "persecuted" and lets his detractors continue speaking out the other way. If nothing else, we can all agree that Colin Kaepernick is polarizing.
Does the NFL want this to go away? Of course! But that doesn't really seem likely. Kaepernick started a movement that has given a lot of people a voice on either side of the argument. Those that agree with Kaepernick and support what he's doing aren't going to change their minds. They're not going to be happy until he's back in the NFL (which probably isn't going to happen). Likewise, those who disagree with Kaepernick aren't going to change their minds, either. In their eyes, the national anthem controversy (like the Russian doping scandal and the Mueller investigation) has dragged on long enough.
Kaepernick's settling is by no means a sign of defeat, either. The best he could've hoped for was a financial windfall. He likely ended up getting more than he would've had he gone to trial and won. And if he had lost at trial, Kaepernick probably would've gotten nothing. Plus, who knows how many appeals this would've gone through without a settlement?
For the NFL, a settlement was also best-case scenario. The amount of money they gave Kaepernick is peanuts for a $14 billion-a-year industry. And not having a lengthy, drawn-out legal process was certainly in the league's best interest, too. Would they have ultimately prevailed at trial? Probably. But why take that risk and face the inevitable appeals when there's no need to?
As a part of the settlement, both sides signed non-disclosure agreements. They're not allowed to say anything about the case beyond their initial statements to the media on Friday. So, the general public will never know the details since all court documents have been sealed.
However, had they gone through the legal process, they would've had to unseal all of it. Every piece of evidence on both sides. They would've been airing out all their dirty laundry in a very public forum. Which likely would've gotten very ugly. And probably wouldn't have ended well for either side, even though we would've ended up with the exact same solution. So, a settlement was in the best interest of all parties involved.
While the settlement brings some closure to this whole ordeal, it's far from "over." Will people view the NFL differently because of the settlement? Probably not. Does it mean Colin Kaepernick end up back in the NFL? No. Will the conversation that started as a result of his protest die down? What do you think? We're way past that point. But at least the legal process won't drag on. So maybe now the moving on can begin.
Collusion is virtually impossible to prove. Kaepernick would've needed to provide evidence that all of the teams got together and actively decided, as a group, to keep him out of the league. Believe what you will about why teams that needed a quarterback last season opted for somebody else who may be viewed as "inferior" to Kaepernick. There's no way of knowing what those teams' reasons were. (Maybe they simply didn't want that kind of circus surrounding a backup/replacement quarterback.) And I think Kaepernick's lawyers knew that.
Besides, does anyone actually think the end game for Kaepernick was going to be landing back in the NFL? There's not a single judge out there who was going to order a team to sign him. So really, some sort of financial settlement was really the best he could hope for.
After the settlement was announced, Kaepernick's lawyer hinted that he was close to signing with a team, suggesting the Patriots and Panthers as possibilities. I think it's safe to say New England is highly unlikely, and Carolina is probably wishful thinking, too. Either way, he'd be a backup. And you know he's not going to sign for backup money. So, it's more likely than not that Kaepernick has played his final NFL down.
If this actually was about playing again, he had an opportunity to do just that. The AAF asked him to play, but he turned them down because of the money. Evidently, Kaepernick demanded $20 million when the standard AAF contract is for $250,000. Obviously he knew that demand wasn't going to be met. And, frankly, what does it do for Kaepernick's brand to be the best player in a minor league?
That's what Kaepernick has become. A brand. He can make much more money through his endorsement deal with Nike than he would as an NFL backup quarterback. And you know he wouldn't have settled with the NFL if it wasn't for a lucrative sum. Which lets him continue being a martyr for his cause. It lets his fans continue saying how "unfair" it is that he's being "persecuted" and lets his detractors continue speaking out the other way. If nothing else, we can all agree that Colin Kaepernick is polarizing.
Does the NFL want this to go away? Of course! But that doesn't really seem likely. Kaepernick started a movement that has given a lot of people a voice on either side of the argument. Those that agree with Kaepernick and support what he's doing aren't going to change their minds. They're not going to be happy until he's back in the NFL (which probably isn't going to happen). Likewise, those who disagree with Kaepernick aren't going to change their minds, either. In their eyes, the national anthem controversy (like the Russian doping scandal and the Mueller investigation) has dragged on long enough.
Kaepernick's settling is by no means a sign of defeat, either. The best he could've hoped for was a financial windfall. He likely ended up getting more than he would've had he gone to trial and won. And if he had lost at trial, Kaepernick probably would've gotten nothing. Plus, who knows how many appeals this would've gone through without a settlement?
For the NFL, a settlement was also best-case scenario. The amount of money they gave Kaepernick is peanuts for a $14 billion-a-year industry. And not having a lengthy, drawn-out legal process was certainly in the league's best interest, too. Would they have ultimately prevailed at trial? Probably. But why take that risk and face the inevitable appeals when there's no need to?
As a part of the settlement, both sides signed non-disclosure agreements. They're not allowed to say anything about the case beyond their initial statements to the media on Friday. So, the general public will never know the details since all court documents have been sealed.
However, had they gone through the legal process, they would've had to unseal all of it. Every piece of evidence on both sides. They would've been airing out all their dirty laundry in a very public forum. Which likely would've gotten very ugly. And probably wouldn't have ended well for either side, even though we would've ended up with the exact same solution. So, a settlement was in the best interest of all parties involved.
While the settlement brings some closure to this whole ordeal, it's far from "over." Will people view the NFL differently because of the settlement? Probably not. Does it mean Colin Kaepernick end up back in the NFL? No. Will the conversation that started as a result of his protest die down? What do you think? We're way past that point. But at least the legal process won't drag on. So maybe now the moving on can begin.
Sunday, February 17, 2019
Not Getting a Kick Out of the AAF
The Alliance of American Football debuted last week with two Saturday night games shown regionally on CBS. They also have TV deals with CBS Sports Network and NFL Network, so, not surprisingly, they drew pretty good ratings that first weekend. For the record, so did XFL 1.0 in 2001, so whether the AAF can keep those viewers remains to be seen.
From the limited amount of it that I watched, I can't say that I was completely enamored with what I was seeing. For the most part, it resembled the second preseason game. And the quality of play was right about that level. Which makes sense, seeing as the majority of the players are NFL castoffs.
Of course, the most significant thing about the AAF is all of the different rules. And the rules changes are why I can't really get on board with the AAF. Some of them are either good or I'm indifferent to them. But there's one that I simply cannot get behind. Because the AAF is trying to basically eliminate kicking from the game of football entirely.
In the AAF, kickers exist for the sole purpose of attempting field goals. There are no kickoffs or extra points. They don't even have onside kicks! Sorry, but that's not football. It's a farce!
Is kicking the most exciting part of football? Absolutely not! But is it an integral part of the game? Yes it is. Yet, from moving extra points back because they were "too easy" to changing the kickoff rules to make the play "safer," they've been phasing it out of the NFL game for the past few years.
Taking the kickoff completely out of the game is just stupid, though. Yes, most kickoffs end in touchbacks. But a big kickoff return can also be one of the most exciting plays in any game.
Desmond Howard was the MVP of the Super Bowl because of a kickoff return. The Saints won their title because of a brilliant play call on an onside kick. In an otherwise miserable Super Bowl between the Ravens and Giants, there were touchdowns on three consecutive plays, two of which were kickoff returns. And Super Bowl XLI sure started with a bang when Devin Hester took the opening kickoff to the house.
That's four examples from the Super Bowl alone. We all know that kickoffs can be just as game-changing in the regular season. It took the Tampa Bay Buccaneers 30 years to get their first kickoff return TD, and it made headlines when they finally did. And how many kick returners are so dynamic that teams make it a point to keep the ball away from them?
Contrast that to the AAF. Instead of a kickoff, they start the game in a super-exciting way! They have someone walk out to the 25-yard line and place the ball on the field. Wow! That really gets me going! After a touchdown, it's whatever. But that's not how you start a football game. Sorry!
They don't have extra points either. Teams are required to go for two after every touchdown. So, say goodbye to the most common football score of them all--7. It also takes the decision-making process out of it. Instead of being strategic about when to go for two, coaches don't have a choice. I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing, but I am saying that there's absolutely no reason to go for two early in the first quarter. Or when you already have a 30-something point lead.
At least they haven't done anything with the field goal, which probably survived only because it's a way to score. Although, teams aren't allowed to attempt field goals in overtime, which further marginalizes the role of the kicker. (Frankly, I'd like to see them go the other way and implement the CFL rule where a field goal of 50-plus yards is worth four points instead of three.)
One of the main arguments always used to support getting rid of kickoffs is that they're "unsafe." The NFL has cited research saying that more concussions occur on kickoffs than any other type of play, which is why they've made so many rule changes aimed at addressing those concerns. The AAF has also brought up the safety issues regarding the kickoff (or lack thereof). Bill Polian even said he wouldn't have taken a job with the league had these new rules not been in place. But I think that's a bit of a cop-out. Bottom line is I think they find it boring, and they want the AAF to be more "exciting."
Well, hate to break it to you AAF, but kickoffs can, indeed, be exciting. And, frankly, whether your games have them or not isn't going to determine whether or not the league is ultimately successful. Kickoffs don't make games any more or less watchable. And, through two weeks, I haven't found the AAF games very watchable.
Should the AAF survive, their ultimate goal is to serve as a sort of NFL minor league. At least that's what they've said. And so far, that's all it seems to be. At least in terms of quality. Second-rate football played by guys who either aren't good enough to play in the NFL or saw their NFL careers fizzle out. It's like football in mid-August. And I don't watch that, either.
From the limited amount of it that I watched, I can't say that I was completely enamored with what I was seeing. For the most part, it resembled the second preseason game. And the quality of play was right about that level. Which makes sense, seeing as the majority of the players are NFL castoffs.
Of course, the most significant thing about the AAF is all of the different rules. And the rules changes are why I can't really get on board with the AAF. Some of them are either good or I'm indifferent to them. But there's one that I simply cannot get behind. Because the AAF is trying to basically eliminate kicking from the game of football entirely.
In the AAF, kickers exist for the sole purpose of attempting field goals. There are no kickoffs or extra points. They don't even have onside kicks! Sorry, but that's not football. It's a farce!
Is kicking the most exciting part of football? Absolutely not! But is it an integral part of the game? Yes it is. Yet, from moving extra points back because they were "too easy" to changing the kickoff rules to make the play "safer," they've been phasing it out of the NFL game for the past few years.
Taking the kickoff completely out of the game is just stupid, though. Yes, most kickoffs end in touchbacks. But a big kickoff return can also be one of the most exciting plays in any game.
Desmond Howard was the MVP of the Super Bowl because of a kickoff return. The Saints won their title because of a brilliant play call on an onside kick. In an otherwise miserable Super Bowl between the Ravens and Giants, there were touchdowns on three consecutive plays, two of which were kickoff returns. And Super Bowl XLI sure started with a bang when Devin Hester took the opening kickoff to the house.
That's four examples from the Super Bowl alone. We all know that kickoffs can be just as game-changing in the regular season. It took the Tampa Bay Buccaneers 30 years to get their first kickoff return TD, and it made headlines when they finally did. And how many kick returners are so dynamic that teams make it a point to keep the ball away from them?
Contrast that to the AAF. Instead of a kickoff, they start the game in a super-exciting way! They have someone walk out to the 25-yard line and place the ball on the field. Wow! That really gets me going! After a touchdown, it's whatever. But that's not how you start a football game. Sorry!
They don't have extra points either. Teams are required to go for two after every touchdown. So, say goodbye to the most common football score of them all--7. It also takes the decision-making process out of it. Instead of being strategic about when to go for two, coaches don't have a choice. I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing, but I am saying that there's absolutely no reason to go for two early in the first quarter. Or when you already have a 30-something point lead.
At least they haven't done anything with the field goal, which probably survived only because it's a way to score. Although, teams aren't allowed to attempt field goals in overtime, which further marginalizes the role of the kicker. (Frankly, I'd like to see them go the other way and implement the CFL rule where a field goal of 50-plus yards is worth four points instead of three.)
One of the main arguments always used to support getting rid of kickoffs is that they're "unsafe." The NFL has cited research saying that more concussions occur on kickoffs than any other type of play, which is why they've made so many rule changes aimed at addressing those concerns. The AAF has also brought up the safety issues regarding the kickoff (or lack thereof). Bill Polian even said he wouldn't have taken a job with the league had these new rules not been in place. But I think that's a bit of a cop-out. Bottom line is I think they find it boring, and they want the AAF to be more "exciting."
Well, hate to break it to you AAF, but kickoffs can, indeed, be exciting. And, frankly, whether your games have them or not isn't going to determine whether or not the league is ultimately successful. Kickoffs don't make games any more or less watchable. And, through two weeks, I haven't found the AAF games very watchable.
Should the AAF survive, their ultimate goal is to serve as a sort of NFL minor league. At least that's what they've said. And so far, that's all it seems to be. At least in terms of quality. Second-rate football played by guys who either aren't good enough to play in the NFL or saw their NFL careers fizzle out. It's like football in mid-August. And I don't watch that, either.
Friday, February 15, 2019
Pick Me Paris
When the IOC allowed the Tokyo Olympic organizers to add new sports to the program, they made it clear that it was for 2020 only. Those sports must reapply for inclusion at subsequent Olympics, where they'll face stiff competition from other sports that are also looking for their Olympic moment.
It's probably a safe bet that not all five of the sports being added for the Tokyo Games will be back in Paris (which is the main reason why I'm not a fan of this system). The whole point of it is to increase local interest by featuring sports that are popular in the host nation. And, I know this next part will be shocking, but the sports that are popular in Japan aren't the same as the sports that are popular in France!
Of the five, skateboarding seems the least likely to return in 2024. There are all kinds of issues with who's responsible for the governance of the sport, but that's only a small factor affecting skateboarding's chances to be included in the 2024 Games. More significantly, it has virtually no appeal in Europe, let alone France.
I'd also be surprised if surfing remained on the program in five years, but that seems less unlikely than skateboarding. Surfing's real issue would be finding a suitable venue, although I'm sure a Mediterranean beach in the South of France could generate sufficient waves if the organizers did decide to keep surfing. I'm not sure how popular it is in France, though.
Sport climbing odds seem 50-50 at best. The Japanese added it because they're very good at it. There were at least two Japanese finalists in all eight events at last year's World Championships. France did win one silver medal, but, overall, sport climbing's popularity is still limited (despite being added to the Olympics, it wasn't added to the Pan Am Games because not enough countries in the Americas have national federations). One thing sport climbing has in its favor, though, is that you don't need to build a venue. You can set it up pretty much anywhere.
Karate has been very strategic in its approach. They've added two French board members, and I think we all know the purpose for doing that. While adding a third martial art and fifth hand-to-hand combat sport seemed like unnecessary overkill, karate is a big enough sport worldwide to warrant sticking around. In fact, karate and sport climbing are the only ones of the five featured at the World Games.
Baseball and softball, meanwhile, is also taking a very smart approach, starting several grassroots programs to grow the game in France. The reason for that is just as obvious. There's no question that they'll be included in LA 2028, so it makes more sense for their long-term viability as Olympic sports to be on the program at all three Games instead of on-off-on. I think the French understand the benefit of keeping baseball and softball on the program, as well.
But if all five of Tokyo's added sports won't be on the Olympic program in Paris, what will replace them? We're already starting to get some idea, as different sport federations have announced their intentions to bid for a place at the 2024 Games. Which already has me thinking. How many sports will Paris add to the 28 core sports? And what sports will those be?
So far, we know chess, motorcycling, snooker and squash are in the running. Presumably the five sports being added for Tokyo will be considered, as well. And I'd be willing to bet that some others will be added before Paris 2024 makes its final recommendations next month. How many they ultimately recommend is completely up to them.
Squash is long overdue for Olympic inclusion. It was among the finalists when they were considering new sports for 2012, 2016 and 2020, but wasn't selected each time. Squash really should be included, though. It's the only sport in the world where four different continents are represented among the top 10 in the world rankings (on both the men's and women's side). It's included in virtually every other major multi-sport games you can think of other than the Olympics. And a squash court can be set up anywhere (they held an international tournament in the middle of Grand Central Station one time!).
And, frankly, squash is the only candidate that makes any sense at all. Chess is touting its global popularity and would feature a faster-paced format than traditional chess. Regardless, I can't see an international TV audience (which is a big factor in these decisions) sitting there watching two people playing chess and not wanting to change the channel. Which is the exact opposite of what the IOC wants. (They do have a cool logo, though.)
You can say almost the same thing about snooker. Billiards used to be on ESPN all the time (I think it's still shown on ESPN 8: The Ocho), but that was standard 9-ball pool. Snooker, meanwhile, is a completely different type of billiards. It, along with other types of billiards, is included in the World Games. I can't say snooker would add anything to the Olympics, though.
Motorcycling is an interesting one. Even they've admitted they have virtually no chance. In fact, it states in the IOC charter that no sports relying on machine-power will be included in the program. That eliminates motor sports and, presumably, air sports, as well. But motorcycling is proposing the Trial-E event, which uses an electric motorcycle in a competition that's very similar to mountain biking. Frankly, I see no chance of motorcycling even making the cut to sports that will ultimately be considered.
Another thing worth considering is that the IOC wants any new sports for Paris to fit into its target number of 10,500 athletes. The five additional sports for Tokyo aren't included in that number, so we'll likely see well over 11,000 athletes next summer. But how hard is it to add 64 squash players (32 men, 32 women)? No matter how many sports Paris 2024 proposes to include in its Olympic Games, squash should be one of them.
It's probably a safe bet that not all five of the sports being added for the Tokyo Games will be back in Paris (which is the main reason why I'm not a fan of this system). The whole point of it is to increase local interest by featuring sports that are popular in the host nation. And, I know this next part will be shocking, but the sports that are popular in Japan aren't the same as the sports that are popular in France!
Of the five, skateboarding seems the least likely to return in 2024. There are all kinds of issues with who's responsible for the governance of the sport, but that's only a small factor affecting skateboarding's chances to be included in the 2024 Games. More significantly, it has virtually no appeal in Europe, let alone France.
I'd also be surprised if surfing remained on the program in five years, but that seems less unlikely than skateboarding. Surfing's real issue would be finding a suitable venue, although I'm sure a Mediterranean beach in the South of France could generate sufficient waves if the organizers did decide to keep surfing. I'm not sure how popular it is in France, though.
Sport climbing odds seem 50-50 at best. The Japanese added it because they're very good at it. There were at least two Japanese finalists in all eight events at last year's World Championships. France did win one silver medal, but, overall, sport climbing's popularity is still limited (despite being added to the Olympics, it wasn't added to the Pan Am Games because not enough countries in the Americas have national federations). One thing sport climbing has in its favor, though, is that you don't need to build a venue. You can set it up pretty much anywhere.
Karate has been very strategic in its approach. They've added two French board members, and I think we all know the purpose for doing that. While adding a third martial art and fifth hand-to-hand combat sport seemed like unnecessary overkill, karate is a big enough sport worldwide to warrant sticking around. In fact, karate and sport climbing are the only ones of the five featured at the World Games.
Baseball and softball, meanwhile, is also taking a very smart approach, starting several grassroots programs to grow the game in France. The reason for that is just as obvious. There's no question that they'll be included in LA 2028, so it makes more sense for their long-term viability as Olympic sports to be on the program at all three Games instead of on-off-on. I think the French understand the benefit of keeping baseball and softball on the program, as well.
But if all five of Tokyo's added sports won't be on the Olympic program in Paris, what will replace them? We're already starting to get some idea, as different sport federations have announced their intentions to bid for a place at the 2024 Games. Which already has me thinking. How many sports will Paris add to the 28 core sports? And what sports will those be?
So far, we know chess, motorcycling, snooker and squash are in the running. Presumably the five sports being added for Tokyo will be considered, as well. And I'd be willing to bet that some others will be added before Paris 2024 makes its final recommendations next month. How many they ultimately recommend is completely up to them.
Squash is long overdue for Olympic inclusion. It was among the finalists when they were considering new sports for 2012, 2016 and 2020, but wasn't selected each time. Squash really should be included, though. It's the only sport in the world where four different continents are represented among the top 10 in the world rankings (on both the men's and women's side). It's included in virtually every other major multi-sport games you can think of other than the Olympics. And a squash court can be set up anywhere (they held an international tournament in the middle of Grand Central Station one time!).
And, frankly, squash is the only candidate that makes any sense at all. Chess is touting its global popularity and would feature a faster-paced format than traditional chess. Regardless, I can't see an international TV audience (which is a big factor in these decisions) sitting there watching two people playing chess and not wanting to change the channel. Which is the exact opposite of what the IOC wants. (They do have a cool logo, though.)
You can say almost the same thing about snooker. Billiards used to be on ESPN all the time (I think it's still shown on ESPN 8: The Ocho), but that was standard 9-ball pool. Snooker, meanwhile, is a completely different type of billiards. It, along with other types of billiards, is included in the World Games. I can't say snooker would add anything to the Olympics, though.
Motorcycling is an interesting one. Even they've admitted they have virtually no chance. In fact, it states in the IOC charter that no sports relying on machine-power will be included in the program. That eliminates motor sports and, presumably, air sports, as well. But motorcycling is proposing the Trial-E event, which uses an electric motorcycle in a competition that's very similar to mountain biking. Frankly, I see no chance of motorcycling even making the cut to sports that will ultimately be considered.
Another thing worth considering is that the IOC wants any new sports for Paris to fit into its target number of 10,500 athletes. The five additional sports for Tokyo aren't included in that number, so we'll likely see well over 11,000 athletes next summer. But how hard is it to add 64 squash players (32 men, 32 women)? No matter how many sports Paris 2024 proposes to include in its Olympic Games, squash should be one of them.
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
Let's Fix the Broken System
Spring Training is less than a week away, and more than 100 free agents remain unsigned, including the two biggest free agent names in quite some time--Bryce Harper and Manny Machado. This is the second straight offseason that has featured a tepid market for even the top available players. And Astros ace Justin Verlander has had just about enough of it. He went off on Twitter yesterday, calling it "BS" and saying the system is "broken." And it's hard not to agree with him.
Here's the exact text of Verlander's Tweet: "100 or so free agents left unsigned. System is broken. They blame 'rebuilding' but that's BS. You're telling me you couldn't sign Bryce or Manny for 10 years and go from there? Seems like a good place to start a rebuild to me. 26-36 is a great performance window too."
Last year, J.D. Martinez was the top free agent available, and he didn't sign with the Red Sox until February 20 (even though everyone knew he was going to Boston in like December). At the time, a lot of people thought teams were simply waiting until this offseason, knowing that Harper and Machado would be available and command big contracts. But now that it's happening again, in an offseason that features two marquee, in-their-prime superstars, it illustrates a collective problem. If this is baseball's new reality, it's not a good one. Not for the players, at least.
Verlander is 100 percent right. Harper and Machado were supposed to set the market for everyone else. But we've gone from wondering whether one (or both) of them might get a 10-year, $300 million deal to wondering what they're going to end up settling for (and how late into Spring Training it'll go until they do sign). Meanwhile, everyone else has to sit around and wait, too. Because Harper and Machado are still setting the market. As a result, players like Dallas Keuchel, Craig Kimbrel and Mike Moustakas remain unsigned, as well.
Yes, Harper and Machado have received offers. The Nationals made their bid to keep Harper towards the end of last season, knowing he would turn it down. As far as we know, that's the best offer he's gotten. Machado has one offer on the table from the White Sox. And that's it. Two marquee players who would would immediately make an impact on any team. Yet nobody wants them? It doesn't make any sense!
The excuse that many teams have used is that they're "rebuilding", which is code for they're trying to keep their payroll down. Which, as Verlander said, is "BS." Because they're getting money from revenue sharing and just pocketing it instead of investing it back into their team. And, if you consider that half the teams in Major League Baseball are currently "rebuilding," that limits the selection, those franchises that are willing to spend the money and actually have the desire to win, even more.
Considering all that, and given their limited options, you can see where the system is indeed broken. The best offer they receive could very well come from one of these rebuilding teams. The whole point of free agency is giving the players the opportunity to choose where they play! So why would they want to go somewhere and play for a team that has no shot at being competitive? But yet that's what they might both have to settle for. Because no one else is stepping up to the plate!
What was seen as an anomaly last year is now viewed completely differently. The players and their agents called the owners out for collusion last year. Now that it's happening again, you've really gotta think they've got a point. For their part, teams are claiming that their decisions are based on "fiscal responsibility." As Justin Verlander said, that's BS.
This led to a heated exchange between NL MVP Christian Yelich and former Marlins President David Samson, who was notorious for shipping out stars for prospects during his time in Miami. Samson argued that, rather than complaining about a "broken system," players and their agents need to adjust to this "new reality." Yelich's response, basically, was that blaming the players for the problem isn't the solution either.
"Collusion" is defined as "a secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage." Sure seems to me like that's what's going on. And it wouldn't be the first time either. Remember what happened to Andre Dawson in 1987?
There are only 30 teams. Which means they control market the market value. Even if a player is, in his opinion, worth a certain amount, whether or not he gets that contract is completely out of his hands. And what's to stop a team from offering said player a contract well below fair market value, knowing that his only choices are to accept it or not play at all?
If this continues, which it almost certainly will, you can bet it's going to be one of the central issues in the next CBA negotiation. Because the players are not happy about it. And rightfully so! Free agency is the one time a player is able to have any sort of say in where he plays. Not only do they feel like that right is being taken away from them, it's becoming contentious.
To be clear, we're not talking about every free agent here. There are plenty of players who've signed with new teams this offseason. But it's mostly mid-level, low-risk guys who've signed two- or three-year deals that aren't going to break the bank. There hasn't been a single mega-contract, though. Which has left the guys who deserve them sitting in limbo.
Teams are leery of those long-term big-money contracts. The Yankees pushed A-Rod into retirement with a year and a half left on his 10-year deal, and the Angels can't wait for Albert Pujols' contract to expire (which isn't until 2021). And Bryce Harper and Manny Machado have to suffer as a result.
Is there a middle ground to be found? Probably. One solution might be a salary floor. Everyone makes big deal about the luxury tax, but there's no deterrent on the other end. Teams can keep their payrolls as low as they want, and one way of doing that is shedding high-priced free agents for prospects. Small-market clubs should be required to reinvest their revenue sharing dollars into their teams. And a salary floor (say $100 million) is the best way to do that. If a team doesn't meet that minimum, they're penalized, either by losing draft picks or not receiving their revenue sharing money.
Regardless, Justin Verlander is right about one thing. The system is definitely broken. The last two Lukewarm Stove Leagues have proven that. It's not on one side or the other to fix it, though. It's on both of them. Because the owners might control the money, but they wouldn't have a product to sell if not for the players, who deserve their fair share, too.
Here's the exact text of Verlander's Tweet: "100 or so free agents left unsigned. System is broken. They blame 'rebuilding' but that's BS. You're telling me you couldn't sign Bryce or Manny for 10 years and go from there? Seems like a good place to start a rebuild to me. 26-36 is a great performance window too."
Last year, J.D. Martinez was the top free agent available, and he didn't sign with the Red Sox until February 20 (even though everyone knew he was going to Boston in like December). At the time, a lot of people thought teams were simply waiting until this offseason, knowing that Harper and Machado would be available and command big contracts. But now that it's happening again, in an offseason that features two marquee, in-their-prime superstars, it illustrates a collective problem. If this is baseball's new reality, it's not a good one. Not for the players, at least.
Verlander is 100 percent right. Harper and Machado were supposed to set the market for everyone else. But we've gone from wondering whether one (or both) of them might get a 10-year, $300 million deal to wondering what they're going to end up settling for (and how late into Spring Training it'll go until they do sign). Meanwhile, everyone else has to sit around and wait, too. Because Harper and Machado are still setting the market. As a result, players like Dallas Keuchel, Craig Kimbrel and Mike Moustakas remain unsigned, as well.
Yes, Harper and Machado have received offers. The Nationals made their bid to keep Harper towards the end of last season, knowing he would turn it down. As far as we know, that's the best offer he's gotten. Machado has one offer on the table from the White Sox. And that's it. Two marquee players who would would immediately make an impact on any team. Yet nobody wants them? It doesn't make any sense!
The excuse that many teams have used is that they're "rebuilding", which is code for they're trying to keep their payroll down. Which, as Verlander said, is "BS." Because they're getting money from revenue sharing and just pocketing it instead of investing it back into their team. And, if you consider that half the teams in Major League Baseball are currently "rebuilding," that limits the selection, those franchises that are willing to spend the money and actually have the desire to win, even more.
Considering all that, and given their limited options, you can see where the system is indeed broken. The best offer they receive could very well come from one of these rebuilding teams. The whole point of free agency is giving the players the opportunity to choose where they play! So why would they want to go somewhere and play for a team that has no shot at being competitive? But yet that's what they might both have to settle for. Because no one else is stepping up to the plate!
What was seen as an anomaly last year is now viewed completely differently. The players and their agents called the owners out for collusion last year. Now that it's happening again, you've really gotta think they've got a point. For their part, teams are claiming that their decisions are based on "fiscal responsibility." As Justin Verlander said, that's BS.
This led to a heated exchange between NL MVP Christian Yelich and former Marlins President David Samson, who was notorious for shipping out stars for prospects during his time in Miami. Samson argued that, rather than complaining about a "broken system," players and their agents need to adjust to this "new reality." Yelich's response, basically, was that blaming the players for the problem isn't the solution either.
"Collusion" is defined as "a secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage." Sure seems to me like that's what's going on. And it wouldn't be the first time either. Remember what happened to Andre Dawson in 1987?
There are only 30 teams. Which means they control market the market value. Even if a player is, in his opinion, worth a certain amount, whether or not he gets that contract is completely out of his hands. And what's to stop a team from offering said player a contract well below fair market value, knowing that his only choices are to accept it or not play at all?
If this continues, which it almost certainly will, you can bet it's going to be one of the central issues in the next CBA negotiation. Because the players are not happy about it. And rightfully so! Free agency is the one time a player is able to have any sort of say in where he plays. Not only do they feel like that right is being taken away from them, it's becoming contentious.
To be clear, we're not talking about every free agent here. There are plenty of players who've signed with new teams this offseason. But it's mostly mid-level, low-risk guys who've signed two- or three-year deals that aren't going to break the bank. There hasn't been a single mega-contract, though. Which has left the guys who deserve them sitting in limbo.
Teams are leery of those long-term big-money contracts. The Yankees pushed A-Rod into retirement with a year and a half left on his 10-year deal, and the Angels can't wait for Albert Pujols' contract to expire (which isn't until 2021). And Bryce Harper and Manny Machado have to suffer as a result.
Is there a middle ground to be found? Probably. One solution might be a salary floor. Everyone makes big deal about the luxury tax, but there's no deterrent on the other end. Teams can keep their payrolls as low as they want, and one way of doing that is shedding high-priced free agents for prospects. Small-market clubs should be required to reinvest their revenue sharing dollars into their teams. And a salary floor (say $100 million) is the best way to do that. If a team doesn't meet that minimum, they're penalized, either by losing draft picks or not receiving their revenue sharing money.
Regardless, Justin Verlander is right about one thing. The system is definitely broken. The last two Lukewarm Stove Leagues have proven that. It's not on one side or the other to fix it, though. It's on both of them. Because the owners might control the money, but they wouldn't have a product to sell if not for the players, who deserve their fair share, too.
Sunday, February 10, 2019
Happy Anniversary PyeongChang
This weekend marked the one-year anniversary since the start of the PyeongChang Olympics. Hard to believe, isn't it? It really does seem like yesterday that we were enjoying the exploits of the world's winter athletes in Korea.
A lot has happened in the year since, and most of those winter sports are currently in the midst of their World Championships. (How about Lindsey Vonn getting the bronze in the final race of her career?) But that doesn't make the PyeongChang Games any less unforgettable. For me, these are some of the most memorable stories/moments:
A lot has happened in the year since, and most of those winter sports are currently in the midst of their World Championships. (How about Lindsey Vonn getting the bronze in the final race of her career?) But that doesn't make the PyeongChang Games any less unforgettable. For me, these are some of the most memorable stories/moments:
The Koreas march/compete together: I'm not going to get into the recent attempts to form combined Korean teams in a number of sports (they're two separate countries with completely different ideologies, so having them compete together, which is definitely politically-motivated, makes about as much sense as a combined USA-Canada team). But watching them march into the stadium together at the Opening Ceremony was definitely a poignant moment. And it was definitely cool watching the joint women's hockey team take the ice.
American gold in cross country, curling: After NBC confused the first week of the Olympics with the X Games and gave me more than enough snowboarding to cover me until Beijing 2022, Olympic coverage actually broke out during Week 2. And Week 2 featured two wonderful, unexpected American gold medals. Jessie Diggins and Kikkan Randall won the women's team sprint in cross country skiing, then the men's curling squad upset Sweden and capped their incredible run with a gold medal. It was the first for the U.S. in each sport.
Russia "suspended", but not really: Russia had been in the IOC's cross-hairs for its doping issues for more than two years, and when the damning McLaren Report was issued, it was clear they had to do something regarding Russia's participation in PyeongChang. Their solution was to suspend the Russian Olympic Committee, but still allow their athletes to compete as "Olympic Athletes From Russia." Despite that "punishment" (which ended at the Closing Ceremony, even though Russian athletes failed drug tests during the Olympics), they still fielded a full team and won their first hockey gold since 1992 (although technically, it wasn't Russia that won the hockey tournament).
An NHL-less hockey tournament: Speaking of the hockey tournament, we didn't quite know what to expect after the NHL, IIHF and IOC failed to reach an agreement to send NHL players to PyeongChang. So, perhaps, it shouldn't be surprising that there were upsets throughout, capped by Germany's run to the gold medal game that included wins over Canada and Sweden. Was the level of play the same as it would've been had the NHL guys been there? No. Did the tournament's quality suffer? Probably not as much as many of us initially thought.
Oops, I did it again: Unlike the men's tournament, the women's hockey tournament went exactly the way everyone thought it would. With the USA and Canada meeting in the gold medal game for the third straight Olympics (and the fifth time in six all-time tournaments). That final was an absolute classic, though. It went to a shootout, where Jocelyn Lamoureux won it with a sick move she called "Oops, I did it again," giving the Americans their first women's hockey gold in 20 years.
Alina Zagitova vs. Yevgenia Medvedeva: Our latest Russian figure skating rivalry featured Alina Zagitova and Yevgenia Medvedeva. Both were technically brilliant. Medvedeva had the artistry, while Zagitova's jumps were ridiculous (they showed video of her practice where she did five triples in a row like it was nothing). Personally, I preferred Medvedeva. But it was Zagitova who got the gold.
Marit Bjoergen becomes the all-time winningest Winter Olympian: Bjoergen won five medals at the PyeongChang Games, bringing her career total to 15. She took a bronze behind Diggins & Randall in the team sprint, which was her record-breaking 14th. Bjoergen then tied the record for career Winter Olympic gold medals with eight by winning the 30 km on the final day of the Games.
New events leave their mark: For the first time, the Winter Olympics featured more than 100 events. That was because of the addition of new disciplines such as big air snowboarding (which I found to be incredibly dumb), the alpine skiing team event, and mixed doubles curling, which was the first sport to get underway the day before the Opening Ceremony. And, unlike most of the new events/sports for Tokyo 2020 that seem unnecessary and/or forced, they were natural fits that seamlessly blended into the Winter Olympic program.
Home team success: Prior to their turn as hosts, all of South Korea's Winter Olympic medals had come in either speed skating (primarily short track, but also long track) or figure skating. In PyeongChang, though, South Korea's 17 medals included a gold in skeleton and silvers in bobsled, curling and snowboarding, all of which were the nation's first in that sport.
Two golds in two different sports: There have been two-sport Winter Olympians before. Ole Einar Bjoerndahlen did both cross country and biathlon in Salt Lake City, and there was a Dutch speed skater who did both short track and long track on the same day in Sochi. But what Ester Ledecka did still defies belief. A snowboarder by trade, she entered the Super G in alpine skiing and ended up winning a gold medal that was so unexpected, NBC had already left the event, assuming the medals had been decided. Then it was time for her "regular" event, the snowboarding giant slalom. She won that, too, becoming the first Winter Olympian to win gold medals in two different sports at the same Games.
Friday, February 8, 2019
Baseball's Proposed Rule Changes
It's been a busy few days in Major League Baseball. Not regarding free agents sadly (because why would Bryce Harper and Manny Machado be signed two weeks before Spring Training starts?). Rather, we found out that the owners and Union are discussing several rule changes that, if passed, would be significant.
Perhaps the most significant changed proposed is the universal DH. They toss this idea around every few years and it never goes anywhere, and I'd be shocked if National League owners actually budged on the issue. The DH debate is never going to end. But, I think even the anti-DH camp acknowledges that the NL is eventually going to adopt the DH at some point.
You know the players would be all for it. It would create 15 additional jobs and guys like Nelson Cruz or Albert Pujols would be able to play anywhere instead of limiting themselves to half the teams.
Evidently, the MLBPA wants the universal DH put in place for the 2019 season, which seems unlikely. National League teams have been setting their rosters with the understanding that they'll only need DHs for interleague road games. It's February. That's not enough time for the owners and GMs to completely rethink their roster construction for the upcoming season. Maybe use it in all interleague games, regardless of ballpark, as a compromise. But I don't think there's any way this would be implemented this season.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the universal DH. I actually like the fact that the style of play in the two leagues is completely different and the different strategies that go with it. That's one of the few proposed changes I don't like, though. I'm in favor of most of the others. They wouldn't just improve the game, they'd be easy to implement.
There are two proposed changes in particular that I really like. The first is a three-batter minimum for pitchers. Especially in the American League, this is what absolutely kills the pace of a game. They can play six innings in 90 minutes, then you look up and the top of the seventh takes 25 minutes on its own because they made four pitching changes to get three outs. All because of the overmanaging involved looking for those lefty-on-lefty matchups, but also wanting to make sure their relievers don't throw too many pitches and are available again tomorrow.
Under the proposal, relievers would be required to pitch to at least three hitters unless the inning ends or they're injured (I'm assuming being ejected also applies here). You pitch to one guy and get out of the inning, great. Your closer's free to come in for the ninth. Likewise, pitcher's due up third, you can still pinch hit. The point is you can't have a pitcher come in, walk the only guy he faces, then make a pitching change, and keep doing this over and over. That's not a bad thing (even if it would eliminate the term LOOGY from the baseball vernacular).
Another element of the proposal that I really like is the expansion of the roster from 25 to 26 (thus creating 30 more Major League jobs), with a maximum of 12 pitchers. Don't make a mistake. This is related to the current overuse of relief pitching. Since teams carry eight relievers, they only have a three-man bench, which is really two when you consider one is the backup catcher. Which really limits managers in what they're able to do.
Setting a cap on the number of pitchers, though, also means that you'll have at least four position players available at the start of the game. So, teams will end up swapping their extra reliever for an extra bench guy. I have no issue with that. And since most teams carry 12 pitchers already, all the pitcher limit would do is make them use the 26th roster spot on a position player instead of an eighth reliever.
Speaking of that, ever since a DL stint (they know people are still going to call the "injured list" the DL, right?) was reduced to 10 days, teams have (legally) manipulated it to get an extra reliever on the roster when the fifth starter wasn't needed. With the name change, they're looking at ways to eliminate that loophole. Perhaps the best solution I've seen is keeping DL stints at 10 days for position players, but bringing it back to 15 for pitchers. (I'd also like to see something like the postseason rule where a pitcher can only replace a pitcher and a position player can only replace a position player on the roster.)
They also suggested a 28-man roster cap in September, which I think everyone can agree is long overdue. It makes no sense that you're limited to 25 players for the first five months of the season, then in the final month, when the games matter most (or least), you can have as many as 40. Especially since some teams choose to call up more players than others.
Players are concerned about service time, and they should be. Kris Bryant spent three weeks in the Minors for no reason in April of his rookie year, and the same thing is going to happen to Vlad Guerrero, Jr., this season. It seems like there's a compromise to be had there, though. Whether it be counting postseason games as service time or giving players free agency a year earlier. And if the 28-player limit in September is put into place, you should still get service time for being on the Major League roster, even if you're not on the game roster that particular day.
Rob Manfred can apparently implement a 20-second pitch clock on his own, so it looks like that's probably going to happen whether the players (and fans) like it or not. The gimmicky international rule where a runner starts at second base in extra innings probably won't happen yet, at least in the Majors. I'm 100 percent against ever putting this rule into place in the Major Leagues. But they are talking about using it in Spring Training games this season, which would be fine (a lot of Spring Training games end in ties anyway).
The MLBPA has also proposed having a single trade deadline before the All-Star Break. I have no idea how that would work, and it seems incredibly early. I do think the idea of having the non-waiver deadline on July 31 and another for players who cleared waivers a month later is silly. But the solution is to just have one deadline in mid-August, not at the All-Star Break.
Among the other proposals was some sort of advantage/penalty system in the draft to prevent teams (*cough* Marlins *cough*) from being intentionally uncompetitive, yet still collecting their revenue sharing money and not doing anything with it. The whole idea is to not also reward these teams with high draft picks year after year. At the same time, low-revenue teams that succeed would benefit in the draft. There are definitely a number of elements that would need to be worked out, but the idea itself is interesting.
Are all of these changes going to happen? Of course not. This is all really just foreplay heading into the CBA negotiations. The CBA doesn't expire until December 2021, though, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some of them approved and put into place well before then. Which wouldn't necessarily be all bad.
Perhaps the most significant changed proposed is the universal DH. They toss this idea around every few years and it never goes anywhere, and I'd be shocked if National League owners actually budged on the issue. The DH debate is never going to end. But, I think even the anti-DH camp acknowledges that the NL is eventually going to adopt the DH at some point.
You know the players would be all for it. It would create 15 additional jobs and guys like Nelson Cruz or Albert Pujols would be able to play anywhere instead of limiting themselves to half the teams.
Evidently, the MLBPA wants the universal DH put in place for the 2019 season, which seems unlikely. National League teams have been setting their rosters with the understanding that they'll only need DHs for interleague road games. It's February. That's not enough time for the owners and GMs to completely rethink their roster construction for the upcoming season. Maybe use it in all interleague games, regardless of ballpark, as a compromise. But I don't think there's any way this would be implemented this season.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the universal DH. I actually like the fact that the style of play in the two leagues is completely different and the different strategies that go with it. That's one of the few proposed changes I don't like, though. I'm in favor of most of the others. They wouldn't just improve the game, they'd be easy to implement.
There are two proposed changes in particular that I really like. The first is a three-batter minimum for pitchers. Especially in the American League, this is what absolutely kills the pace of a game. They can play six innings in 90 minutes, then you look up and the top of the seventh takes 25 minutes on its own because they made four pitching changes to get three outs. All because of the overmanaging involved looking for those lefty-on-lefty matchups, but also wanting to make sure their relievers don't throw too many pitches and are available again tomorrow.
Under the proposal, relievers would be required to pitch to at least three hitters unless the inning ends or they're injured (I'm assuming being ejected also applies here). You pitch to one guy and get out of the inning, great. Your closer's free to come in for the ninth. Likewise, pitcher's due up third, you can still pinch hit. The point is you can't have a pitcher come in, walk the only guy he faces, then make a pitching change, and keep doing this over and over. That's not a bad thing (even if it would eliminate the term LOOGY from the baseball vernacular).
Another element of the proposal that I really like is the expansion of the roster from 25 to 26 (thus creating 30 more Major League jobs), with a maximum of 12 pitchers. Don't make a mistake. This is related to the current overuse of relief pitching. Since teams carry eight relievers, they only have a three-man bench, which is really two when you consider one is the backup catcher. Which really limits managers in what they're able to do.
Setting a cap on the number of pitchers, though, also means that you'll have at least four position players available at the start of the game. So, teams will end up swapping their extra reliever for an extra bench guy. I have no issue with that. And since most teams carry 12 pitchers already, all the pitcher limit would do is make them use the 26th roster spot on a position player instead of an eighth reliever.
Speaking of that, ever since a DL stint (they know people are still going to call the "injured list" the DL, right?) was reduced to 10 days, teams have (legally) manipulated it to get an extra reliever on the roster when the fifth starter wasn't needed. With the name change, they're looking at ways to eliminate that loophole. Perhaps the best solution I've seen is keeping DL stints at 10 days for position players, but bringing it back to 15 for pitchers. (I'd also like to see something like the postseason rule where a pitcher can only replace a pitcher and a position player can only replace a position player on the roster.)
They also suggested a 28-man roster cap in September, which I think everyone can agree is long overdue. It makes no sense that you're limited to 25 players for the first five months of the season, then in the final month, when the games matter most (or least), you can have as many as 40. Especially since some teams choose to call up more players than others.
Players are concerned about service time, and they should be. Kris Bryant spent three weeks in the Minors for no reason in April of his rookie year, and the same thing is going to happen to Vlad Guerrero, Jr., this season. It seems like there's a compromise to be had there, though. Whether it be counting postseason games as service time or giving players free agency a year earlier. And if the 28-player limit in September is put into place, you should still get service time for being on the Major League roster, even if you're not on the game roster that particular day.
Rob Manfred can apparently implement a 20-second pitch clock on his own, so it looks like that's probably going to happen whether the players (and fans) like it or not. The gimmicky international rule where a runner starts at second base in extra innings probably won't happen yet, at least in the Majors. I'm 100 percent against ever putting this rule into place in the Major Leagues. But they are talking about using it in Spring Training games this season, which would be fine (a lot of Spring Training games end in ties anyway).
The MLBPA has also proposed having a single trade deadline before the All-Star Break. I have no idea how that would work, and it seems incredibly early. I do think the idea of having the non-waiver deadline on July 31 and another for players who cleared waivers a month later is silly. But the solution is to just have one deadline in mid-August, not at the All-Star Break.
Among the other proposals was some sort of advantage/penalty system in the draft to prevent teams (*cough* Marlins *cough*) from being intentionally uncompetitive, yet still collecting their revenue sharing money and not doing anything with it. The whole idea is to not also reward these teams with high draft picks year after year. At the same time, low-revenue teams that succeed would benefit in the draft. There are definitely a number of elements that would need to be worked out, but the idea itself is interesting.
Are all of these changes going to happen? Of course not. This is all really just foreplay heading into the CBA negotiations. The CBA doesn't expire until December 2021, though, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some of them approved and put into place well before then. Which wouldn't necessarily be all bad.
Monday, February 4, 2019
Bears-Packers or Patriots-Someone?
It's been an NFL tradition for a while now that the Super Bowl champion begins their defense by hosting the first game of the season on Thursday night. So, immediately after the boringest Super Bowl in recent memory concluded, the speculation as to who would be the Patriots' Week 1 opponent began. But today a new wrinkle was thrown in. The NFL is evidently considering moving the Patriots game to Sunday night so that the opening game of the league's centennial season would be Bears-Packers instead.
This news doesn't exactly surprise me. I figured Bears-Packers would probably be the Week 1 Sunday night game for that very reason. They're going to go all out for the centennial, and Bears-Packers should be a big part of that. Their rivalry dates all the way back to the league's founding, and they've played each other more than any other opponents in NFL history. One of their games is usually in primetime anyway, so it makes complete sense that it'd be the Sunday night opener.
At least that's what I anticipated. Like most people, I was assuming Bears-Packers would be on Sunday night and the Super Bowl winner would be on Thursday night. And that still might be the case. After all, the Chicago-Green Bay thing might've just been a rumor. Or a backup plan in case the Rams won. I've seen that same thing posted and re-posted a lot of places, though, so it sounds like this might be more than just speculation. Sounds like it's a done deal. All they need is to get the Patriots to agree.
Whether they play on Thursday night or Sunday night, it really doesn't make that much of a difference. The Patriots will still go through their annual ritual of raising their Super Bowl banner before playing a marquee opponent in front of Al & Cris. There are plenty of intriguing options, too.
We can rule out a division game immediately. Why would the NFL subject us to the Patriots destroying a hapless AFC East foe in front of a national audience? Especially when there are so many better choices available? One of their games against Miami and new head coach Brian Flores, who was the Patriots' de facto defensive coordinator this season, will likely be on either a Thursday or Monday night. But there's absolutely no chance it'll be the opener.
They play the NFC East next year, which presents three great potential matchups. It would be easy to say Patriots-Eagles, the last two Super Bowl champions, is a worthwhile choice. But that game is in Philadelphia, which takes it out of the running. I still think it'll be on NBC. But obviously not in Week 1.
New England's NFC East home opponents are the Giants and Cowboys. The Giants, of course, are the one team that's managed to figure the Patriots out during this run. But, after two straight losing seasons, that one doesn't seem likely. Neither does Dallas. Don't get me wrong. Patriots-Cowboys is a great matchup that will draw a lot of eyeballs. Which is exactly why I don't think they'll pick it.
Both the Cowboys and Patriots always max out their primetime opportunities. That won't be any different in 2019. So why would the NFL waste one by having them play each other? They get three each, so why have that be five total games instead of six? Besides, you know that's one FOX would love to have as an exclusive Sunday afternoon late game sometime later in the season.
Which leaves us with three teams--the Browns, Steelers and Chiefs. Cleveland would be an interesting choice to say the least. A team that went 1-31 over two years suddenly became much more than relevant in 2018, and they figure to get a lot of exposure next season. It seems like a stretch to say they're worthy of playing the defending champs in the season opener, though.
So, that leaves us with Pittsburgh and Kansas City. It's logical to figure that New England's season-opening opponent will be one of those two teams.
The Patriots-Steelers games in each of the last two seasons were circled on the calendar. Both of those were late-season matchups in Pittsburgh, with each team winning once. They haven't played in Foxboro since the 2016 AFC Championship Game. Considering all that, as well as the fact that they've combined to represent the AFC in 12 of the last 18 Super Bowls, and that this could be the last time Brady and Roethlisberger face each other, and the Steelers make a lot of sense.
Kansas City makes more sense, though. For one, the NFL likes playoff rematches in the season opener. For two, the AFC Championship Game was great. For three, Patrick Mahomes is the league's next star, and they can do worse than showcasing him. Especially against Brady. The Chiefs figure to be just as good again next season, too, which adds to the appeal of this matchup.
For me, it's a pretty easy call. And I think it will be just as easy for the NFL. An AFC Championship Game rematch isn't just the best matchup possible when you consider the Patriots' eight home opponents next season. It also has plenty of storylines that NBC can play up. And let's not forget the memorable Sunday night game they played in Week 6, when the Patriots beat the then-undefeated Chiefs 43-40.
And if that matchup gets moved to Sunday night instead, so be it. Either way, the defending champs will get their banner-raising primetime opener. Besides, featuring two original teams and the league's oldest rivalry isn't exactly a bad way to kick off the NFL's 100th season. Patriots-Chiefs. Bears-Packers. It doesn't matter. Sign me up for either.
This news doesn't exactly surprise me. I figured Bears-Packers would probably be the Week 1 Sunday night game for that very reason. They're going to go all out for the centennial, and Bears-Packers should be a big part of that. Their rivalry dates all the way back to the league's founding, and they've played each other more than any other opponents in NFL history. One of their games is usually in primetime anyway, so it makes complete sense that it'd be the Sunday night opener.
At least that's what I anticipated. Like most people, I was assuming Bears-Packers would be on Sunday night and the Super Bowl winner would be on Thursday night. And that still might be the case. After all, the Chicago-Green Bay thing might've just been a rumor. Or a backup plan in case the Rams won. I've seen that same thing posted and re-posted a lot of places, though, so it sounds like this might be more than just speculation. Sounds like it's a done deal. All they need is to get the Patriots to agree.
Whether they play on Thursday night or Sunday night, it really doesn't make that much of a difference. The Patriots will still go through their annual ritual of raising their Super Bowl banner before playing a marquee opponent in front of Al & Cris. There are plenty of intriguing options, too.
We can rule out a division game immediately. Why would the NFL subject us to the Patriots destroying a hapless AFC East foe in front of a national audience? Especially when there are so many better choices available? One of their games against Miami and new head coach Brian Flores, who was the Patriots' de facto defensive coordinator this season, will likely be on either a Thursday or Monday night. But there's absolutely no chance it'll be the opener.
They play the NFC East next year, which presents three great potential matchups. It would be easy to say Patriots-Eagles, the last two Super Bowl champions, is a worthwhile choice. But that game is in Philadelphia, which takes it out of the running. I still think it'll be on NBC. But obviously not in Week 1.
New England's NFC East home opponents are the Giants and Cowboys. The Giants, of course, are the one team that's managed to figure the Patriots out during this run. But, after two straight losing seasons, that one doesn't seem likely. Neither does Dallas. Don't get me wrong. Patriots-Cowboys is a great matchup that will draw a lot of eyeballs. Which is exactly why I don't think they'll pick it.
Both the Cowboys and Patriots always max out their primetime opportunities. That won't be any different in 2019. So why would the NFL waste one by having them play each other? They get three each, so why have that be five total games instead of six? Besides, you know that's one FOX would love to have as an exclusive Sunday afternoon late game sometime later in the season.
Which leaves us with three teams--the Browns, Steelers and Chiefs. Cleveland would be an interesting choice to say the least. A team that went 1-31 over two years suddenly became much more than relevant in 2018, and they figure to get a lot of exposure next season. It seems like a stretch to say they're worthy of playing the defending champs in the season opener, though.
So, that leaves us with Pittsburgh and Kansas City. It's logical to figure that New England's season-opening opponent will be one of those two teams.
The Patriots-Steelers games in each of the last two seasons were circled on the calendar. Both of those were late-season matchups in Pittsburgh, with each team winning once. They haven't played in Foxboro since the 2016 AFC Championship Game. Considering all that, as well as the fact that they've combined to represent the AFC in 12 of the last 18 Super Bowls, and that this could be the last time Brady and Roethlisberger face each other, and the Steelers make a lot of sense.
Kansas City makes more sense, though. For one, the NFL likes playoff rematches in the season opener. For two, the AFC Championship Game was great. For three, Patrick Mahomes is the league's next star, and they can do worse than showcasing him. Especially against Brady. The Chiefs figure to be just as good again next season, too, which adds to the appeal of this matchup.
For me, it's a pretty easy call. And I think it will be just as easy for the NFL. An AFC Championship Game rematch isn't just the best matchup possible when you consider the Patriots' eight home opponents next season. It also has plenty of storylines that NBC can play up. And let's not forget the memorable Sunday night game they played in Week 6, when the Patriots beat the then-undefeated Chiefs 43-40.
And if that matchup gets moved to Sunday night instead, so be it. Either way, the defending champs will get their banner-raising primetime opener. Besides, featuring two original teams and the league's oldest rivalry isn't exactly a bad way to kick off the NFL's 100th season. Patriots-Chiefs. Bears-Packers. It doesn't matter. Sign me up for either.
Sunday, February 3, 2019
Rams vs. Patriots: Who Wins?
If the Rams win the coin toss, the should do themselves a favor and take the ball. Don't be cute. Don't give Brady an extra possession. That's a lesson the Chargers and Chiefs both learned the hard way. They both essentially outsmarted themselves...and they both found themselves down 7-0 midway through the first quarter before they'd even had the ball yet!
But that's not the only reason why it would make no sense for the Rams to kick off if given the choice. It's simple, really. Their offense is the strength of the team. So why would you not want to give Jared Goff the ball and see what he can do? At the very least, that's one less possession for Brady.
Don't put yourselves in a situation where you're playing from behind the entire game. That's what happened to both the Chargers and the Chiefs. New England dominated the first quarter in both of those games. The Chargers never made any adjustments. The Chiefs were able to and turned the AFC Championship Game into a shootout by the end, but you have to wonder how things might've been different had they not wasted eight minutes and spotted the Patriots a touchdown.
Of course, the Rams boast the two-time reigning NFL Defensive Player of the Year. But, even for Aaron Donald, stopping Tom Brady is easier said than done. Which is why trusting the defense is a risky proposition. New England's obviously been here before (they're in the game every freakin' year!), and, as was made evident in each of the Patriots' first two playoff games, Bradicheck always comes up with something different. So why give New England the chance to do that right away? Take the ball and give yourselves a chance to set the tone. At the very least, a three-and-out will get your offense on the field and delay Brady's entrance into the game.
We've also learned that pissing the Patriots off is not a good idea. And, yes, that is something we should've known already. They turn any perceived slight into motivation. This year everyone kept saying that they "weren't as good" and "couldn't win on the road." Yet here they are, back where they always are, looking for another Lombardi Trophy. After winning the AFC title on the road.
As I said, we should know better than to doubt them. So we shouldn't be surprised at all that New England is back for the third straight year and the ninth time in the Bradicheck era. And, if the other eight are any indication, we're gonna have another close one on our hands. And it likely won't be decided until the end.
Ball control will be key. Both teams are capable of scoring quickly, so this could easily turn into a shootout. But, as we saw in the Patriots' first two playoff games, Brady is perfectly capable of taking time off the clock if the situation warrants. The Rams, meanwhile, have the best running back in football (whether he's healthy or not is an entirely different question) and have the ability to control the clock that way.
Both approaches can drain a defense. You're either getting tired out because you can't get off the field. Or you're trying to keep up with the pace and not getting any rest when the offenses are scoring so quickly. That's how a lot of games turn into shootouts.
Even in those crazy shootouts, though, it's usually whichever defense comes through with the big play that makes the difference. Look at the last two years. After the Patriots had cut it to eight in Super Bowl LI, the Falcons drove into field goal range, only to be knocked out when Matt Ryan was sacked on third down, forcing a punt. Atlanta never had the ball again. Then last year, the Eagles kicked a field goal to go up eight, then batted down the Hail Mary that would've sent the game to overtime.
And on that front, the Rams have the advantage. LA's offense gets most of the credit, but that defense is solid...and it's a lot more than Aaron Donald. Don't forget, they essentially shut the Saints out for the final three-and-a-half quarters of the NFC Championship Game. They're equally capable against the run and against the pass. And you know that, unlike Kansas City, they'll make adjustments (if Tony Romo knew what was coming, you'd think the Chiefs should've been able to figure it out). That's what happens when you've got a great defensive mind like Wade Phillips. This really could turn into a battle of wits between Phillips and Brady.
Experience could be a factor, but if it is, it'll be a small one. The Rams won't be overwhelmed by the moment. In fact, they're ready for it. This team plays in Hollywood. They know all about the spotlight, and they embrace it (remember that Monday night game against the Chiefs?). They've had one mission all year--to get to the Super Bowl. Even after those losses to the Bears and Eagles, they knew they were good enough to make it this far. They feel they belong. Playing Tom Brady in February won't change that.
This all started 17 years ago (to the day) against the Rams. Now we've come full circle and it's Patriots-Rams again. Of course, things are a little different than last time. For starters, the Rams are back in Los Angeles. More significantly, though, New England won't be surprising anybody. If the Patriots win, they tie the Steelers' record with their sixth Lombardi Trophy (a Rams win, by the way, would give the Patriots the record for the most Super Bowl losses).
Which will it be? A sixth win or a sixth loss? I think there are two big factors that will determine that. First, the Rams' defense needs to get off the field on third down. If Brady's marching down the field and extending drives, it'll be a long day for those big guys up front. The second key is having a defensive game-changer of their own. Because you know New England's defense will have to step up and make a big play at some point. They can't simply rely on Brady to win.
Ultimately, though, it seems like a fool's errand picking against the New England Patriots in the Patriots Game. The Rams will give them a game. But we've said this before, and it usually ends the same way. Brady wins his fifth MVP (although, who we kidding? Tony Romo will be the real MVP), as the Patriots win it, 27-24.
But that's not the only reason why it would make no sense for the Rams to kick off if given the choice. It's simple, really. Their offense is the strength of the team. So why would you not want to give Jared Goff the ball and see what he can do? At the very least, that's one less possession for Brady.
Don't put yourselves in a situation where you're playing from behind the entire game. That's what happened to both the Chargers and the Chiefs. New England dominated the first quarter in both of those games. The Chargers never made any adjustments. The Chiefs were able to and turned the AFC Championship Game into a shootout by the end, but you have to wonder how things might've been different had they not wasted eight minutes and spotted the Patriots a touchdown.
Of course, the Rams boast the two-time reigning NFL Defensive Player of the Year. But, even for Aaron Donald, stopping Tom Brady is easier said than done. Which is why trusting the defense is a risky proposition. New England's obviously been here before (they're in the game every freakin' year!), and, as was made evident in each of the Patriots' first two playoff games, Bradicheck always comes up with something different. So why give New England the chance to do that right away? Take the ball and give yourselves a chance to set the tone. At the very least, a three-and-out will get your offense on the field and delay Brady's entrance into the game.
We've also learned that pissing the Patriots off is not a good idea. And, yes, that is something we should've known already. They turn any perceived slight into motivation. This year everyone kept saying that they "weren't as good" and "couldn't win on the road." Yet here they are, back where they always are, looking for another Lombardi Trophy. After winning the AFC title on the road.
As I said, we should know better than to doubt them. So we shouldn't be surprised at all that New England is back for the third straight year and the ninth time in the Bradicheck era. And, if the other eight are any indication, we're gonna have another close one on our hands. And it likely won't be decided until the end.
Ball control will be key. Both teams are capable of scoring quickly, so this could easily turn into a shootout. But, as we saw in the Patriots' first two playoff games, Brady is perfectly capable of taking time off the clock if the situation warrants. The Rams, meanwhile, have the best running back in football (whether he's healthy or not is an entirely different question) and have the ability to control the clock that way.
Both approaches can drain a defense. You're either getting tired out because you can't get off the field. Or you're trying to keep up with the pace and not getting any rest when the offenses are scoring so quickly. That's how a lot of games turn into shootouts.
Even in those crazy shootouts, though, it's usually whichever defense comes through with the big play that makes the difference. Look at the last two years. After the Patriots had cut it to eight in Super Bowl LI, the Falcons drove into field goal range, only to be knocked out when Matt Ryan was sacked on third down, forcing a punt. Atlanta never had the ball again. Then last year, the Eagles kicked a field goal to go up eight, then batted down the Hail Mary that would've sent the game to overtime.
And on that front, the Rams have the advantage. LA's offense gets most of the credit, but that defense is solid...and it's a lot more than Aaron Donald. Don't forget, they essentially shut the Saints out for the final three-and-a-half quarters of the NFC Championship Game. They're equally capable against the run and against the pass. And you know that, unlike Kansas City, they'll make adjustments (if Tony Romo knew what was coming, you'd think the Chiefs should've been able to figure it out). That's what happens when you've got a great defensive mind like Wade Phillips. This really could turn into a battle of wits between Phillips and Brady.
Experience could be a factor, but if it is, it'll be a small one. The Rams won't be overwhelmed by the moment. In fact, they're ready for it. This team plays in Hollywood. They know all about the spotlight, and they embrace it (remember that Monday night game against the Chiefs?). They've had one mission all year--to get to the Super Bowl. Even after those losses to the Bears and Eagles, they knew they were good enough to make it this far. They feel they belong. Playing Tom Brady in February won't change that.
This all started 17 years ago (to the day) against the Rams. Now we've come full circle and it's Patriots-Rams again. Of course, things are a little different than last time. For starters, the Rams are back in Los Angeles. More significantly, though, New England won't be surprising anybody. If the Patriots win, they tie the Steelers' record with their sixth Lombardi Trophy (a Rams win, by the way, would give the Patriots the record for the most Super Bowl losses).
Which will it be? A sixth win or a sixth loss? I think there are two big factors that will determine that. First, the Rams' defense needs to get off the field on third down. If Brady's marching down the field and extending drives, it'll be a long day for those big guys up front. The second key is having a defensive game-changer of their own. Because you know New England's defense will have to step up and make a big play at some point. They can't simply rely on Brady to win.
Ultimately, though, it seems like a fool's errand picking against the New England Patriots in the Patriots Game. The Rams will give them a game. But we've said this before, and it usually ends the same way. Brady wins his fifth MVP (although, who we kidding? Tony Romo will be the real MVP), as the Patriots win it, 27-24.
Saturday, February 2, 2019
Football Hall of Fame Saturday
Predicting who's going to get the call this afternoon after voting concludes and walk out onto the stage tonight as the newest members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame is never easy. There's only 40 guys in the room, and we have no idea what goes on behind those closed doors. Unlike baseball, they don't make the vote public. And unlike baseball, they have a set number of guys going in each year, so beyond the obvious first-ballot guys, there's really no way of knowing who else will make the cut.
That's why I was impressed last year that I actually went 4-for-5. The only one I missed was T.O., a decision that many of the voters immediately came to regret anyway. I feel pretty good about this year, too. There are two obvious first-ballot guys and a third that could very likely join them, which only leaves two or three spots available for everyone else.
Let's start with those obvious first-ballot guys...
Tony Gonzalez, Tight End (1997-2008 Chiefs, 2009-13 Falcons)-We knew the moment he retired that he'd be the headliner of this year's Hall of Fame class. Gonzalez is, quite simply, the greatest tight end in NFL history. He made 1,325 career catches. That's more than everybody but Jerry Rice. This pass-happy era was held against wide receivers for far too long, but Gonzalez wasn't a wide receiver. He was a tight end, which means he had to block and do all kinds of other dirty work too. He revolutionized the position and was a focal point of both teams' passing game. Perhaps the only bad thing you can say about Tony Gonzalez is that he never played in a Super Bowl.
Ed Reed, Safety (2002-12 Ravens, 2013 Texans, 2013 Jets)-Like Gonzalez, it was obvious Reed would be a member of this year's Hall of Fame class the second he retired. And like Gonzalez, he might've been the best ever to play his position. Reed was right there alongside Ray Lewis for a decade in that dominant Ravens defense. He was the Defensive Player of the Year in 2004 and had 64 career interceptions (two of which went for the longest returns in NFL history). A complete game-changer on the defensive side of the ball. They've done a good job of clearing out the wide receiver backlog. There's now a safety backlog that they started to clear with Brian Dawkins last year. There are two other safeties among this year's finalists, but neither Steve Atwater nor John Lynch holds a candle to Ed Reed.
During the show on NFL Network where they announced the finalists, one of the voters was on the panel. Everybody was in agreement about Gonzalez and Reed. Then talk turned to the third first-time-eligible finalist: Champ Bailey. And he made a very valid argument about how the career numbers for Bailey and Ty Law are very similar. So how is Bailey an "obvious" first-ballot guy when Law's been waiting for several years? It'll likely be a fascinating conversation about the two cornerbacks. I wouldn't even be surprised to see them both get in. I'm thinking it'll be only one, though...
Champ Bailey, Cornerback (1999-2003 Redskins, 2004-13 Broncos)-As compelling as the argument made for Law was (and those letters from Bradicheck will likely help, too), I can't bring myself to say he was better than Champ Bailey. So, if I had to choose between the two, I'd pick Bailey. He and Charles Woodson (a first-ballot lock in a few years) were widely recognized as the best corners in the game pretty much throughout Bailey's career. An eight-time All-Pro and 12-time Pro Bowler in 15 seasons. Five solid years in Washington before 10 great years in Denver where the Broncos were in the playoffs pretty much every season.
So that takes care of the three first-ballot guys. Now for everybody else, which includes an offensive lineman whose election is long overdue. This year should take care of that.
Kevin Mawae, Center (1994-97 Seahawks, 1998-2005 Jets, 2006-09 Titans)-No other offensive lineman should go into the Hall of Fame before Kevin Mawae. The fact that he still isn't in is ridiculous. Offensive linemen are always tough. Usually, you can only figure out who's good by watching. And Kevin Mawae was the best center in the game for pretty much his entire career. All-Pro six times, All-Decade Team in the 2000s. But this, to me is the best Mawae stat. In his 16 years, his teams featured seven different running backs who combined for 13 different 1,000-yard seasons.
My fifth call is a little tougher. But, with the Rams back in the Super Bowl, there's probably going to be a lot of sentiment for one particular guy. And, after a number of wide receivers have been inducted in recent years, he's now the best one in the mix.
Isaac Bruce, Wide Receiver (1994-2007 Rams, 2008-09 49ers)-Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk and Orlando Pace are already in the Hall of Fame. Time for another member of the Greatest Show On Turf to join them. Was Bruce made better by having those other Hall of Famers around him? Yes. Is that team nearly as good without him? Absolutely not! He's one of only 14 players in history with 1,000 catches. That 14 includes Tony Gonzalez, who'll become the sixth Hall of Famer in that group. Will there be two players with 1,000 catches in the same Hall of Fame class?
And, of course, the Hall of Fame class will be rounded out by the three senior/contributor finalists. And, as usual, those candidates are all deserving.
Johnny Robinson, Safety (1960-71 Texans/Chiefs)-An original member of the Texans/Chiefs who played 12 seasons with the franchise. He played in Super Bowl I and won Super Bowl IV with the Chiefs. There aren't many Hall of Famers who played primarily in the AFL, but Robinson will be one. He could've played in either league, but chose the AFL. He ended up playing in the league for its entire 10-year existence and was selected to the AFL's All-time Team.
Pat Bowlen, Owner (1984- Broncos)-Broncos Owner Pat Bowlen has been dealing with some health problems recently to the point where John Elway handles most of the franchise's day-to-day operations. But there's no denying that he built Denver into one of the NFL's model franchises. Over the past 35 seasons, the Broncos have made the playoffs 18 times, won 13 division titles, played in seven Super Bowls and won three championships. When Vance Joseph was fired at the end of the season, one of the reasons why was because he presided over Denver's first back-to-back 10-loss campaigns since they played in the AFL. In fact, they've only ever been under .500 seven times since Bowlen bought the team. That's a consistent winner.
Gil Brandt, Contributor (1960-88 Cowboys, 1995- NFL)-Fellow Cowboys architects Tex Schramm and Tom Landry are both already in the Hall of Fame. Now Brandt will likely join them. He was the VP of Player Personnel for those Dallas teams, and just as responsible for turning the Cowboys into America's Team. After Jerry Jones cleaned house when he bought the team, Brandt joined NFL.com at its inception in 1995 and has been a regular contributor ever since. That's not the reason he'll be voted into the Hall of Fame, though. It'll be for his 29 years in Dallas.
That's why I was impressed last year that I actually went 4-for-5. The only one I missed was T.O., a decision that many of the voters immediately came to regret anyway. I feel pretty good about this year, too. There are two obvious first-ballot guys and a third that could very likely join them, which only leaves two or three spots available for everyone else.
Let's start with those obvious first-ballot guys...
Tony Gonzalez, Tight End (1997-2008 Chiefs, 2009-13 Falcons)-We knew the moment he retired that he'd be the headliner of this year's Hall of Fame class. Gonzalez is, quite simply, the greatest tight end in NFL history. He made 1,325 career catches. That's more than everybody but Jerry Rice. This pass-happy era was held against wide receivers for far too long, but Gonzalez wasn't a wide receiver. He was a tight end, which means he had to block and do all kinds of other dirty work too. He revolutionized the position and was a focal point of both teams' passing game. Perhaps the only bad thing you can say about Tony Gonzalez is that he never played in a Super Bowl.
Ed Reed, Safety (2002-12 Ravens, 2013 Texans, 2013 Jets)-Like Gonzalez, it was obvious Reed would be a member of this year's Hall of Fame class the second he retired. And like Gonzalez, he might've been the best ever to play his position. Reed was right there alongside Ray Lewis for a decade in that dominant Ravens defense. He was the Defensive Player of the Year in 2004 and had 64 career interceptions (two of which went for the longest returns in NFL history). A complete game-changer on the defensive side of the ball. They've done a good job of clearing out the wide receiver backlog. There's now a safety backlog that they started to clear with Brian Dawkins last year. There are two other safeties among this year's finalists, but neither Steve Atwater nor John Lynch holds a candle to Ed Reed.
During the show on NFL Network where they announced the finalists, one of the voters was on the panel. Everybody was in agreement about Gonzalez and Reed. Then talk turned to the third first-time-eligible finalist: Champ Bailey. And he made a very valid argument about how the career numbers for Bailey and Ty Law are very similar. So how is Bailey an "obvious" first-ballot guy when Law's been waiting for several years? It'll likely be a fascinating conversation about the two cornerbacks. I wouldn't even be surprised to see them both get in. I'm thinking it'll be only one, though...
Champ Bailey, Cornerback (1999-2003 Redskins, 2004-13 Broncos)-As compelling as the argument made for Law was (and those letters from Bradicheck will likely help, too), I can't bring myself to say he was better than Champ Bailey. So, if I had to choose between the two, I'd pick Bailey. He and Charles Woodson (a first-ballot lock in a few years) were widely recognized as the best corners in the game pretty much throughout Bailey's career. An eight-time All-Pro and 12-time Pro Bowler in 15 seasons. Five solid years in Washington before 10 great years in Denver where the Broncos were in the playoffs pretty much every season.
So that takes care of the three first-ballot guys. Now for everybody else, which includes an offensive lineman whose election is long overdue. This year should take care of that.
Kevin Mawae, Center (1994-97 Seahawks, 1998-2005 Jets, 2006-09 Titans)-No other offensive lineman should go into the Hall of Fame before Kevin Mawae. The fact that he still isn't in is ridiculous. Offensive linemen are always tough. Usually, you can only figure out who's good by watching. And Kevin Mawae was the best center in the game for pretty much his entire career. All-Pro six times, All-Decade Team in the 2000s. But this, to me is the best Mawae stat. In his 16 years, his teams featured seven different running backs who combined for 13 different 1,000-yard seasons.
My fifth call is a little tougher. But, with the Rams back in the Super Bowl, there's probably going to be a lot of sentiment for one particular guy. And, after a number of wide receivers have been inducted in recent years, he's now the best one in the mix.
Isaac Bruce, Wide Receiver (1994-2007 Rams, 2008-09 49ers)-Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk and Orlando Pace are already in the Hall of Fame. Time for another member of the Greatest Show On Turf to join them. Was Bruce made better by having those other Hall of Famers around him? Yes. Is that team nearly as good without him? Absolutely not! He's one of only 14 players in history with 1,000 catches. That 14 includes Tony Gonzalez, who'll become the sixth Hall of Famer in that group. Will there be two players with 1,000 catches in the same Hall of Fame class?
And, of course, the Hall of Fame class will be rounded out by the three senior/contributor finalists. And, as usual, those candidates are all deserving.
Johnny Robinson, Safety (1960-71 Texans/Chiefs)-An original member of the Texans/Chiefs who played 12 seasons with the franchise. He played in Super Bowl I and won Super Bowl IV with the Chiefs. There aren't many Hall of Famers who played primarily in the AFL, but Robinson will be one. He could've played in either league, but chose the AFL. He ended up playing in the league for its entire 10-year existence and was selected to the AFL's All-time Team.
Pat Bowlen, Owner (1984- Broncos)-Broncos Owner Pat Bowlen has been dealing with some health problems recently to the point where John Elway handles most of the franchise's day-to-day operations. But there's no denying that he built Denver into one of the NFL's model franchises. Over the past 35 seasons, the Broncos have made the playoffs 18 times, won 13 division titles, played in seven Super Bowls and won three championships. When Vance Joseph was fired at the end of the season, one of the reasons why was because he presided over Denver's first back-to-back 10-loss campaigns since they played in the AFL. In fact, they've only ever been under .500 seven times since Bowlen bought the team. That's a consistent winner.
Gil Brandt, Contributor (1960-88 Cowboys, 1995- NFL)-Fellow Cowboys architects Tex Schramm and Tom Landry are both already in the Hall of Fame. Now Brandt will likely join them. He was the VP of Player Personnel for those Dallas teams, and just as responsible for turning the Cowboys into America's Team. After Jerry Jones cleaned house when he bought the team, Brandt joined NFL.com at its inception in 1995 and has been a regular contributor ever since. That's not the reason he'll be voted into the Hall of Fame, though. It'll be for his 29 years in Dallas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)