We've reached Super Bowl Weekend. The two weeks of hype and analysis (and analysis, and analysis) and predictions are almost over, and the 49ers and Chiefs are almost ready to get down to business. But before we can crown a champion, there's some other business that needs to get taken care of first.
Most of that business will be handled at the NFL Honors, the now annual pre-Super Bowl event. We're in year nine and I'm still not sure why it's pre-taped instead of shown live (probably in case it runs longer than two hours), but here we are. And Steve Harvey will once again be hosting the festivities from Miami.
There are eight awards set to be handed out, and I'm sure there will be some sort of NFL 100 celebration worked into the ceremony, as well. I'm not sure if they're announcing the winner at the NFL Honors or at some point during the actual Super Bowl coverage, but they're down to the Final Four in the "Greatest Moment" bracket...and it's the Helmet Catch, the Immaculate Reception, The Catch, and the Dolphins' perfect season. I obviously have a favorite among those four, but they're all great plays. And it would be especially appropriate if either the '72 Dolphins or The Catch ends up being the fans' choice.
Now on to the 2019 regular season awards. Of the seven (not including Man of the Year), I think there are five where the winners are fairly obvious. Offensive Player of the Year and Offensive Rookie of the Year seem very much up in the air, though.
MVP: Lamar Jackson, Ravens-What started out as a tight MVP race turned into a Lamar Jackson runaway by midseason. The Ravens' quarterback was the best player in the league all season, and he was dominating with both his arm and his legs in ways no one has ever seen before! There was a lot of pressure on Jackson heading into this season, too. Don't forget, Baltimore released Joe Flacco and handed him the keys. All he did was throw 36 touchdowns to only six interceptions, pass for 3,127 yards...and rush for over 1,000 yards with seven TDs on the ground. No dual threat QB has ever had a season like that. And certainly not while leading his team to the best record in football!
Offensive Player: Michael Thomas, Saints-You could easily make the case for Jackson to win both MVP and Offensive Player of the Year. But that would mean completely ignoring Thomas and his record-setting season. He had 149 freakin' catches this season! That's insane! That's 33 more than second-place Christian McCaffrey. And his 1,725 receiving yards were also the most in the league by a wide margin. This with everyone and their mother knowing he was the Saints' best player and Drew Brees was going to throw him the ball.
Defensive Player: Stephon Gilmore, Patriots-The Patriots' offense was terrible this season. That's no secret. It's also no secret that they went 12-4 primarily because of their No. 1-ranked defense. And Stephon Gilmore was the best player on that defense. He led the league with six interceptions, including two pick-sixes, one of which went for 64 yards. Teams knew better than to throw the ball anywhere near Stephon Gilmore in the second half of the season. He was that dominant!
Offensive Rookie: Kyler Murray, Cardinals-I think that for the first time since Cam Newton in 2011, the No. 1 pick in the Draft ends up winning the Offensive Rookie of the Year award. Drafting Kyler Murray could very well have been a franchise-altering moment for the Cardinals (actually, scratch that, drafting Larry Fitzgerald 30 years ago was!). Murray made the Cardinals relevant again, starting with that Week 1 comeback against the Lions. Then there were those performances against the Falcons and 49ers.
Defensive Rookie: Nick Bosa, 49ers-This one isn't even close. The 49ers went from having the No. 2 pick in the Draft to the Super Bowl. Nick Bosa is a big reason why. He was everything they could've asked for and then some as a rookie pass-rusher with high expectations. I can't say he's the only reason they improved so dramatically, but he was definitely a difference-maker on an elite defense.
Coach: John Harbaugh, Ravens-Did anyone see the Ravens coming? Sure, they won the division last season, but most preseason projections had them finishing third behind the Steelers and Browns. Instead, they rolled to a 14-2 record, 12 straight wins to end the regular season, and the No. 1 seed in the AFC. And they did it with the offense leading the way, which speaks a lot about Harbaugh's adaptability. Baltimore's strength has always been its defense. But he knew his best chance to win was to let Lamar Jackson loose, and that's exactly what he did. A veteran move by a veteran coach.
Comeback: Ryan Tannehill, Titans-It's safe to say that the Titans wouldn't have even made the playoffs, let alone the AFC Championship Game, if Mike Vrabel hadn't made that midseason quarterback change from Marcus Mariota to Ryan Tannehill. Although, I'm not sure Tannehill expected to be getting the 2012 version of Ryan Tannehill! Evidently there's a Fountain of Youth somewhere in Nashville!
Man of the Year: Andrew Whitworth, Rams-As usual, deciding who should win the Walter Payton Man of the Year is incredibly difficult. Because the criteria for this award are so different and all 32 candidates are deserving. But I'm going with the Rams' Andrew Whitworth.
Ever since joining the Rams in 2017, he has been involved in so many projects to benefit the LA community that it's hard to keep track. He chairs his own foundation that makes six-figure donations all over Southern California. He's a team captain, and he uses that leadership position to get other Rams players involved in these efforts. Whitworth was going to retire after the 2017 season, but put it off and was rewarded with a Super Bowl appearance last season. A 14-year vet, he's played 208 games at left tackle, which isn't exactly the easiest position.
Andrew Whitworth has been a leader both on the field and in the community throughout his career. Beyond that, he's one of the NFL's genuine "good guys." While I'm not saying he's more deserving of the NFL's most prestigious honor than any of the other 31 finalists, who are all outstanding representations of their teams, he gets my vote. And I don't think anyone would be complaining if he wins it.
Friday, January 31, 2020
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Making the Olympic Team Is Its Own Benefit
Before moving on to Super Bowl weekend (yes, Jaden, we're back to calling it that) and all the football-related posts that come with it, I couldn't ignore saying something about an article I saw earlier this week. It was an opinion piece in The Sports Examiner about U.S. race walk Olympian Allen James and his feelings that Olympians should be paid. Needless to say, I agree with the article. James is 100 percent wrong.
I'll let you read the article for yourselves, but to sum up the conversation, James is basically making the same argument as those who want to see college athletes get paid. He takes issue with the fact that the IOC generates billions of dollars in revenue, yet none of it goes directly to the athletes. Which is missing the entire point!
IOC President Thomas Bach has actually already addressed this, and his explanation provided some clarity on the IOC's position, which, I must say, is pretty reasonable. The IOC makes a lot of money, yes. But almost all of it goes to the 206 National Olympic Committees and the various International Federations. In fact, the IOC redistributes 90 percent of its revenue and uses the other 10 percent for its own operating expenses. So you can't view the IOC as a business and the Olympic Games as a business model.
First, let's look at how impractical it would be for the IOC to pay every athlete. There will be approximately 11,000 athletes in Tokyo. If they were all to receive a stipend for simply making their country's Olympic team, it would cost the IOC tens of millions. Even if every athlete was to receive $5,000--a relatively modest amount--that would be a $55 million expense (and $55 million less to go to the National Federations, many of which rely on the IOC for most of their funding).
For the sake of argument, I'm going to use that $5,000 figure as my example. While $5,000 would make a huge difference for a lot of Olympic athletes, it's nothing for the likes of Katie Ledecky or Simone Biles. (By comparison, first-round losers at the Australian Open earned $90,000.) Likewise, a good number of Olympians are still technically amateurs, which means they can't accept any endorsements or prize money. (An exception would likely be made in the case of Olympic bonuses, but even then, some legal wrangling would be necessary.) And what about the athletes from countries that don't have a free-market system? Or those who are already funded by their NOC?
That's the thing about the Olympics that we, as Americans, sometimes either forget or fail to understand. We're used to being part of a free market and even take it for granted. It's not like that in other countries. And you're talking about 205 different nations, all of which have different financial situations and ideologies. So, you can't just assume that something that would be good for the American and German athletes would benefit athletes from smaller nations like Gabon and Palau the same way.
There's also the fact that many countries--including the United States--already provide financial incentives for their Olympians. These incentives vary by nation. The U.S. has a medal bonus that will pay $37,500 for a gold, $22,500 for silver and $15,000 for bronze. Others only award their gold medalists, sometimes handsomely. Others, still, directly compensate all of their Olympic athletes. But that's up to the individual NOCs. Not the IOC itself.
It should also be noted that Olympic athletes do receive plenty of perks by simply qualifying for the Games. Their travel, training and housing expenses are all taken care of, and the Olympic Village is all-inclusive. They'll be able to find any service they need/want, and it's all covered. Not to mention the fact that they'll have earned the right to call themselves "Olympians," which is an honor that only comes around every four years and everyone spends their entire career working towards.
The word "Olympian" carries a lot of weight. And it should. The smart athletes know how to leverage it. It can lead to new sponsorships, endorsement deals, speaking engagements, and numerous other opportunities. The potential financial windfall from those is endless. And it's far greater than any lump-sum payment they could possibly receive for making the Olympic team.
Now let's go back to that. Everyone knows that the IOC tiers Summer Olympic sports based on factors such as worldwide TV audience and in-stadium attendance, among other things. The higher the tier, the more money that International Federation receives. It should come as no surprise that the the only three sports in Tier 1 are track & field, gymnastics and aquatics (which covers swimming, diving, water polo and synchronized swimming).
And here I go back to my NCAA argument. People who want NCAA athletes to get paid are really only talking about football and men's basketball. But those same rules would apply to the non-revenue sports, so, "fair" or not, the women's golfers and men's tennis players would be in line to receive the same stipend.
If the IOC started giving Olympians financial compensation simply for making the Games, how would they do it? Would athletes in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 sports receive more because they're the ones that people are watching on TV and in the stadiums? Or does everyone, regardless of sport, get the same? And if you do it that way, how do you justify giving the same amount of money to the fencers and modern pentathletes as the swimmers and gymnasts who are bringing in most of the revenue? Either way, somebody's not gonna be happy!
Simply put, providing direct compensation to every athlete would fundamentally change the Olympics. The world has changed dramatically in the 125 years since Pierre de Coubertin revived the Games, but one constant has remained. The Olympics bring together the very best athletes from all corners of the globe. That's part of what makes the Olympics so special. You only have 11,000 athletes from 205 countries in 34 different sports together in the same place at the same time in front of a worldwide viewing audience once every four years.
Making their nation's Olympic team is the greatest thrill in an athlete's life. It's something that can never be taken away from them, and something that they'll benefit from for the rest of their lives. That should be enough of a reward.
I'll let you read the article for yourselves, but to sum up the conversation, James is basically making the same argument as those who want to see college athletes get paid. He takes issue with the fact that the IOC generates billions of dollars in revenue, yet none of it goes directly to the athletes. Which is missing the entire point!
IOC President Thomas Bach has actually already addressed this, and his explanation provided some clarity on the IOC's position, which, I must say, is pretty reasonable. The IOC makes a lot of money, yes. But almost all of it goes to the 206 National Olympic Committees and the various International Federations. In fact, the IOC redistributes 90 percent of its revenue and uses the other 10 percent for its own operating expenses. So you can't view the IOC as a business and the Olympic Games as a business model.
First, let's look at how impractical it would be for the IOC to pay every athlete. There will be approximately 11,000 athletes in Tokyo. If they were all to receive a stipend for simply making their country's Olympic team, it would cost the IOC tens of millions. Even if every athlete was to receive $5,000--a relatively modest amount--that would be a $55 million expense (and $55 million less to go to the National Federations, many of which rely on the IOC for most of their funding).
For the sake of argument, I'm going to use that $5,000 figure as my example. While $5,000 would make a huge difference for a lot of Olympic athletes, it's nothing for the likes of Katie Ledecky or Simone Biles. (By comparison, first-round losers at the Australian Open earned $90,000.) Likewise, a good number of Olympians are still technically amateurs, which means they can't accept any endorsements or prize money. (An exception would likely be made in the case of Olympic bonuses, but even then, some legal wrangling would be necessary.) And what about the athletes from countries that don't have a free-market system? Or those who are already funded by their NOC?
That's the thing about the Olympics that we, as Americans, sometimes either forget or fail to understand. We're used to being part of a free market and even take it for granted. It's not like that in other countries. And you're talking about 205 different nations, all of which have different financial situations and ideologies. So, you can't just assume that something that would be good for the American and German athletes would benefit athletes from smaller nations like Gabon and Palau the same way.
There's also the fact that many countries--including the United States--already provide financial incentives for their Olympians. These incentives vary by nation. The U.S. has a medal bonus that will pay $37,500 for a gold, $22,500 for silver and $15,000 for bronze. Others only award their gold medalists, sometimes handsomely. Others, still, directly compensate all of their Olympic athletes. But that's up to the individual NOCs. Not the IOC itself.
It should also be noted that Olympic athletes do receive plenty of perks by simply qualifying for the Games. Their travel, training and housing expenses are all taken care of, and the Olympic Village is all-inclusive. They'll be able to find any service they need/want, and it's all covered. Not to mention the fact that they'll have earned the right to call themselves "Olympians," which is an honor that only comes around every four years and everyone spends their entire career working towards.
The word "Olympian" carries a lot of weight. And it should. The smart athletes know how to leverage it. It can lead to new sponsorships, endorsement deals, speaking engagements, and numerous other opportunities. The potential financial windfall from those is endless. And it's far greater than any lump-sum payment they could possibly receive for making the Olympic team.
Now let's go back to that. Everyone knows that the IOC tiers Summer Olympic sports based on factors such as worldwide TV audience and in-stadium attendance, among other things. The higher the tier, the more money that International Federation receives. It should come as no surprise that the the only three sports in Tier 1 are track & field, gymnastics and aquatics (which covers swimming, diving, water polo and synchronized swimming).
And here I go back to my NCAA argument. People who want NCAA athletes to get paid are really only talking about football and men's basketball. But those same rules would apply to the non-revenue sports, so, "fair" or not, the women's golfers and men's tennis players would be in line to receive the same stipend.
If the IOC started giving Olympians financial compensation simply for making the Games, how would they do it? Would athletes in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 sports receive more because they're the ones that people are watching on TV and in the stadiums? Or does everyone, regardless of sport, get the same? And if you do it that way, how do you justify giving the same amount of money to the fencers and modern pentathletes as the swimmers and gymnasts who are bringing in most of the revenue? Either way, somebody's not gonna be happy!
Simply put, providing direct compensation to every athlete would fundamentally change the Olympics. The world has changed dramatically in the 125 years since Pierre de Coubertin revived the Games, but one constant has remained. The Olympics bring together the very best athletes from all corners of the globe. That's part of what makes the Olympics so special. You only have 11,000 athletes from 205 countries in 34 different sports together in the same place at the same time in front of a worldwide viewing audience once every four years.
Making their nation's Olympic team is the greatest thrill in an athlete's life. It's something that can never be taken away from them, and something that they'll benefit from for the rest of their lives. That should be enough of a reward.
Monday, January 27, 2020
Farewell Black Mamba
Kobe Bryant. Wow! When I woke up this morning, that certainly wasn't news I was expecting to hear today. And "shocking" seems like such an insufficient word to describe what happened, but it's the only one I can think of. Kobe Bryant is gone. It's still hard to believe.
We aren't even a month into 2020, and it has already taken three legendary sports figures away from us. David Stern and Don Larsen were a little more expected. Stern had been having health problems and Larsen was old. But Kobe?
This is the same Kobe Bryant who not even 24 hours ago was congratulating LeBron for passing him on the NBA's all-time scoring list. This is the same Kobe Bryant who probably still could be playing in the NBA if he wanted to. This is the same Kobe Bryant who'll be inducted into the Hall of Fame later this year. And now he won't be there to give an acceptance speech.
Nowadays, it seems like any kid who picks up a basketball thinks he's good enough to go directly from high school to the NBA, and there are so many one-and-dones it's hard to keep track. But when Kobe did it in 1996, it was a completely different time. He was the first to do it since Moses Malone in 1979 and nobody knew if he'd succeed. Well, he succeeded and then some. He spent 20 years with one of the NBA's marquee franchises and became the face of the league. And he did it with class.
Throughout his career, there wasn't a single person who ever had anything negative to say about Kobe Bryant. It would've been easy to "hate" him just because. After all, he was the superstar playing for the Lakers, a team rival fans loved rooting against. But they never did. Because Kobe simply commanded that level of respect. From everyone he came across.
Spurs coach Gregg Popovich was probably the one who first came up with the plan, but every other team in the NBA followed suit with a beautiful tribute. Every NBA game today started with both teams taking a 24-second violation (or an 8-second violation) in honor of Kobe's jersey number. And the move prompted a standing ovation and chants of "Kobe! Kobe!" at every arena. The Grammys are being held at Staples Center tonight, and a massive crowd gathered outside the arena. They weren't there to see music's biggest stars, though. They were all there wearing No. 8 and No. 24 Lakers jerseys.
He transcended basketball, too. There aren't many people who are instantly recognizable by only one name, but Kobe was one of them. When you said the name "Kobe," everyone knew who you were talking about.
And could there be a more perfect athlete to play in LA? Playing for the Lakers could be a burden. For Kobe Bryant, it never was. In fact, it was just the opposite. He was a Hollywood star in his own right. Kobe was built for the spotlight, and he thrived in it.
That was never more apparent than his final game, when he dropped 60 points on the Jazz. As you know, I'm pretty adamant about by general apathy towards the NBA, but I watched almost that entire game. And I, like almost everyone else, just wanted him to keep shooting. You knew Kobe was going to do something special that night, but I don't think anyone expected 60! But maybe we should've. Because Kobe knew how to rise to the occasion.
In their illustrious history, the Los Angeles Lakers have had a number of legendary players, from Wilt Chamberlain to Elgin Baylor to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to Shaquille O'Neal to LeBron James. But the general consensus, even among those legends, is that the greatest is either Magic Johnson or Kobe Bryant. Who's No. 1 depends on who you ask (Magic would always say Kobe and Kobe would always say Magic), but it really doesn't matter. To be considered in the same breath as Magic Johnson as one of the two best players in Lakers history speaks volumes about Kobe Bryant and his legacy.
His legacy extended to USA Basketball. After the disappointing bronze at the 2004 Olympics, Kobe was one of the first to sign up for the 2008 team. He started every game in Beijing and averaged 15 points as the "Redeem Team" won the gold medal. Kobe might've been even better in 2012, when he led the U.S. to a second straight gold medal in London. Jerry Colangelo, who assembled both of those teams as the Chairman of USA Basketball, was interviewed on SportsCenter this afternoon and said that the U.S. doesn't win either of those Olympic titles without Kobe Bryant.
What's even crazier about all this is that Kobe Bryant's name had been in the news all week for different reasons. Wednesday was the 14th anniversary of his signature moment--his 81-point effort against the Raptors, the second-highest individual scoring performance in NBA history. Then, of course, there was the talk about LeBron passing him for third place on the all-time scoring list. Some people wondered what Kobe's reaction would be. Minutes after LeBron did it, Kobe sent out a congratulatory tweet. Almost fittingly, it's the last thing he ever posted on his Twitter account.
My generation had Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson. Kids today have LeBron James and Steph Curry. Everyone in between had Kobe Bryant. How many guys currently playing in the NBA wear No. 8 or No. 24 because of Kobe? How many have stories of encounters with Kobe and how generous he was with his time? All of the stories I heard today were similar. It sounds like that was simply Kobe being Kobe.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kobe Bryant could still be playing in the NBA if he wanted to. But after 20 years, he'd had enough. Besides, he was ready to move on to another chapter of his life. That second chapter included an Oscar for his short film "Dear Basketball." He also had a production company and an ESPN show. Kobe also wrote a children's book that became a New York Times bestseller. Who knows what else could've been in store had that second chapter not been so short?
One of the other victims in the crash was his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna. They were on the way to her basketball game, where Kobe was going to coach her team. You could tell from all the photos of them together that were posted all over social media how much Kobe loved his children and encouraged Gianna's love of basketball. In every picture, they're both beaming from ear to ear. They were regulars at LA Sparks games, and Gianna wanted to play for Geno Auriemma at UConn. You can bet her proud father would've been there every step of the way!
While he's gone far too soon, Kobe Bryant's legacy will endure forever. He was so much more than an all-time great basketball player. He was a transcendent, cultural icon. He was "The Black Mamba," a nickname he came up with himself. Or, as LeBron said earlier in the week: "Kobe is a legend, that's for damn sure!"
We aren't even a month into 2020, and it has already taken three legendary sports figures away from us. David Stern and Don Larsen were a little more expected. Stern had been having health problems and Larsen was old. But Kobe?
This is the same Kobe Bryant who not even 24 hours ago was congratulating LeBron for passing him on the NBA's all-time scoring list. This is the same Kobe Bryant who probably still could be playing in the NBA if he wanted to. This is the same Kobe Bryant who'll be inducted into the Hall of Fame later this year. And now he won't be there to give an acceptance speech.
Nowadays, it seems like any kid who picks up a basketball thinks he's good enough to go directly from high school to the NBA, and there are so many one-and-dones it's hard to keep track. But when Kobe did it in 1996, it was a completely different time. He was the first to do it since Moses Malone in 1979 and nobody knew if he'd succeed. Well, he succeeded and then some. He spent 20 years with one of the NBA's marquee franchises and became the face of the league. And he did it with class.
Throughout his career, there wasn't a single person who ever had anything negative to say about Kobe Bryant. It would've been easy to "hate" him just because. After all, he was the superstar playing for the Lakers, a team rival fans loved rooting against. But they never did. Because Kobe simply commanded that level of respect. From everyone he came across.
Spurs coach Gregg Popovich was probably the one who first came up with the plan, but every other team in the NBA followed suit with a beautiful tribute. Every NBA game today started with both teams taking a 24-second violation (or an 8-second violation) in honor of Kobe's jersey number. And the move prompted a standing ovation and chants of "Kobe! Kobe!" at every arena. The Grammys are being held at Staples Center tonight, and a massive crowd gathered outside the arena. They weren't there to see music's biggest stars, though. They were all there wearing No. 8 and No. 24 Lakers jerseys.
He transcended basketball, too. There aren't many people who are instantly recognizable by only one name, but Kobe was one of them. When you said the name "Kobe," everyone knew who you were talking about.
And could there be a more perfect athlete to play in LA? Playing for the Lakers could be a burden. For Kobe Bryant, it never was. In fact, it was just the opposite. He was a Hollywood star in his own right. Kobe was built for the spotlight, and he thrived in it.
That was never more apparent than his final game, when he dropped 60 points on the Jazz. As you know, I'm pretty adamant about by general apathy towards the NBA, but I watched almost that entire game. And I, like almost everyone else, just wanted him to keep shooting. You knew Kobe was going to do something special that night, but I don't think anyone expected 60! But maybe we should've. Because Kobe knew how to rise to the occasion.
In their illustrious history, the Los Angeles Lakers have had a number of legendary players, from Wilt Chamberlain to Elgin Baylor to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to Shaquille O'Neal to LeBron James. But the general consensus, even among those legends, is that the greatest is either Magic Johnson or Kobe Bryant. Who's No. 1 depends on who you ask (Magic would always say Kobe and Kobe would always say Magic), but it really doesn't matter. To be considered in the same breath as Magic Johnson as one of the two best players in Lakers history speaks volumes about Kobe Bryant and his legacy.
His legacy extended to USA Basketball. After the disappointing bronze at the 2004 Olympics, Kobe was one of the first to sign up for the 2008 team. He started every game in Beijing and averaged 15 points as the "Redeem Team" won the gold medal. Kobe might've been even better in 2012, when he led the U.S. to a second straight gold medal in London. Jerry Colangelo, who assembled both of those teams as the Chairman of USA Basketball, was interviewed on SportsCenter this afternoon and said that the U.S. doesn't win either of those Olympic titles without Kobe Bryant.
What's even crazier about all this is that Kobe Bryant's name had been in the news all week for different reasons. Wednesday was the 14th anniversary of his signature moment--his 81-point effort against the Raptors, the second-highest individual scoring performance in NBA history. Then, of course, there was the talk about LeBron passing him for third place on the all-time scoring list. Some people wondered what Kobe's reaction would be. Minutes after LeBron did it, Kobe sent out a congratulatory tweet. Almost fittingly, it's the last thing he ever posted on his Twitter account.
My generation had Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson. Kids today have LeBron James and Steph Curry. Everyone in between had Kobe Bryant. How many guys currently playing in the NBA wear No. 8 or No. 24 because of Kobe? How many have stories of encounters with Kobe and how generous he was with his time? All of the stories I heard today were similar. It sounds like that was simply Kobe being Kobe.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kobe Bryant could still be playing in the NBA if he wanted to. But after 20 years, he'd had enough. Besides, he was ready to move on to another chapter of his life. That second chapter included an Oscar for his short film "Dear Basketball." He also had a production company and an ESPN show. Kobe also wrote a children's book that became a New York Times bestseller. Who knows what else could've been in store had that second chapter not been so short?
One of the other victims in the crash was his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna. They were on the way to her basketball game, where Kobe was going to coach her team. You could tell from all the photos of them together that were posted all over social media how much Kobe loved his children and encouraged Gianna's love of basketball. In every picture, they're both beaming from ear to ear. They were regulars at LA Sparks games, and Gianna wanted to play for Geno Auriemma at UConn. You can bet her proud father would've been there every step of the way!
While he's gone far too soon, Kobe Bryant's legacy will endure forever. He was so much more than an all-time great basketball player. He was a transcendent, cultural icon. He was "The Black Mamba," a nickname he came up with himself. Or, as LeBron said earlier in the week: "Kobe is a legend, that's for damn sure!"
Friday, January 24, 2020
Eli's Hall Case
One day after Derek Jeter was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame, a New York football icon announced that he was hanging up his cleats. And no one was surprised that Eli Manning is retiring after 16 years with the Giants. The writing had been on the wall since last season, and it became even clearer this year as he sat on the bench while rookie Daniel Jones played.
Eli made it clear that it wasn't easy. He wasn't happy as a backup, but he also didn't want to play anywhere else, so he really had no choice other than retirement. And he knew that. The New York fans knew it, too, and it really is great that Eli was able to get that perfect sendoff after leading the Giants to a home win in his final start, letting the MetLife Stadium crowd say goodbye to a franchise icon.
Almost immediately after the announcement, the Great Eli Manning Hall of Fame Debate began. It's a debate that's going to continue for the next five years, and probably beyond that. He's not the sure-fire, I-don't-even-need-to-think-about-it first-ballot guarantee that his brother is. But you know Eli's gonna be in the discussion. As he should be.
The highlights are obvious, and they're the things that are going to boost his candidacy. Two Super Bowl wins, with a fourth-quarter comeback in each. There are only 12 quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl victories as a starter. Among those who are eligible, only Jim Plunkett isn't in the Hall of Fame (and I think he should be). Beyond that, Eli's one of only five players in history to be named Super Bowl MVP two or more times. Three are in the Hall of Fame, the fourth is Tom Brady.
Then there's the durability/reliability. Eli Manning made 210 consecutive regular season starts, plus 12 more in the playoffs. At quarterback! Only Brett Favre and the man he was traded for, Philip Rivers, have longer streaks in NFL history. Consider that. He started every game for 13 years starting in the middle of his rookie season. That's a remarkable run of stability, especially in the pressure-cooker of New York.
And let's not forget the fact that he's the Giants' all-time franchise leader in virtually every passing category. The Giants are one of the NFL's marquee franchises. They're the third-oldest team in the league, having been around since 1925! And the argument could be made that Eli Manning is the best quarterback in franchise history. John Mara already said he'll be inducted into the Giants Ring of Honor, and it's not a stretch to think his No. 10 will be retired, too.
Yet Eli-haters are quick to point out their reasons as to why they believe he's NOT a Hall of Famer. Frankly, I've always had a problem with that. Why are you nitpicking and trying to make an argument against somebody? He won two Super Bowls and was the face of a franchise for 15 years. Clearly he was better than merely "average." If he was, there wouldn't be any debate about his Hall of Fame candidacy. It would be nonexistent.
I actually got into a back-and-forth with someone on Facebook about that very topic. The argument being used was that Eli was never a "top five" NFL quarterback, as if that's somehow some sort of disqualifier. No, Eli Manning wasn't ever considered a "top five" quarterback. Nobody's saying he was! You know what, though? Nowhere in the Hall of Fame bylaws does it say that a player must be considered among the "top five" at his position in order to be eligible for the Hall of Fame!
Especially when you consider that Eli Manning was contemporaries with Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Roethlisberger and his brother, guaranteed future Hall of Famers all, as well as guys like Rivers and Wilson who are putting Hall of Fame-worthy careers, it's reasonable to think that potentially as many as eight (or more) quarterbacks playing in this era could end up with busts in Canton. So to say Eli wasn't one of the "top five" quarterbacks in the NFL during his career isn't exactly a knock. Quite the opposite, actually. It shows just how many great QBs have played in the NFL in the 2000s.
Another knock that people try to use against him is his career record and the fact that the Giants have only made the playoffs twice in the last 11 seasons (although, it should be noted they went 10-6 and missed the playoffs in 2010). As much as people wanted to, I'm not sure how much blame can really be assigned to Eli Manning for the Giants' struggles over the past few years. He's been stuck playing on some bad teams with no offensive line and no wide receivers (yet he had to throw because they were always behind, hence the interceptions). He could only do so much with what he had to work with!
It's true that it's been all or nothing with the Giants over the past 15 years. Outside of the two Super Bowl runs, Eli Manning never won a playoff game. However, five of the six non-Super Bowl playoff wins came on the road, including both NFC Championship Games. And, it's worth noting that the two Super Bowl-winning teams entered the playoffs as the 4-seed (at 9-7) and the 5-seed (at 10-6).
Frankly, a lot of the judgment about Eli Manning and his career is based on how it ended, which seems a little unfair. As recently as 2015, there was little to no debate about whether Eli deserved a place in Canton. And, yes, he absolutely struggled towards the end. But that's true of pretty much everyone who's ever played professional sports. They can't all get the storybook ending.
When the time comes, the voters will look at Eli Manning's entire career, not just the ending. And that entire body of work makes a pretty compelling argument for him to be giving a speech while wearing a gold jacket in August of 2026.
Will he? That's a question for the voters. And I have no doubt some of them will ignore the two Super Bowl MVPs and dwell on those negative stats. Ultimately, though, he likely will end up in Canton. Whether it's in his first year on the ballot or further down the line, Eli Manning deserves a place in the Hall of Fame.
Eli made it clear that it wasn't easy. He wasn't happy as a backup, but he also didn't want to play anywhere else, so he really had no choice other than retirement. And he knew that. The New York fans knew it, too, and it really is great that Eli was able to get that perfect sendoff after leading the Giants to a home win in his final start, letting the MetLife Stadium crowd say goodbye to a franchise icon.
Almost immediately after the announcement, the Great Eli Manning Hall of Fame Debate began. It's a debate that's going to continue for the next five years, and probably beyond that. He's not the sure-fire, I-don't-even-need-to-think-about-it first-ballot guarantee that his brother is. But you know Eli's gonna be in the discussion. As he should be.
The highlights are obvious, and they're the things that are going to boost his candidacy. Two Super Bowl wins, with a fourth-quarter comeback in each. There are only 12 quarterbacks with multiple Super Bowl victories as a starter. Among those who are eligible, only Jim Plunkett isn't in the Hall of Fame (and I think he should be). Beyond that, Eli's one of only five players in history to be named Super Bowl MVP two or more times. Three are in the Hall of Fame, the fourth is Tom Brady.
Then there's the durability/reliability. Eli Manning made 210 consecutive regular season starts, plus 12 more in the playoffs. At quarterback! Only Brett Favre and the man he was traded for, Philip Rivers, have longer streaks in NFL history. Consider that. He started every game for 13 years starting in the middle of his rookie season. That's a remarkable run of stability, especially in the pressure-cooker of New York.
And let's not forget the fact that he's the Giants' all-time franchise leader in virtually every passing category. The Giants are one of the NFL's marquee franchises. They're the third-oldest team in the league, having been around since 1925! And the argument could be made that Eli Manning is the best quarterback in franchise history. John Mara already said he'll be inducted into the Giants Ring of Honor, and it's not a stretch to think his No. 10 will be retired, too.
Yet Eli-haters are quick to point out their reasons as to why they believe he's NOT a Hall of Famer. Frankly, I've always had a problem with that. Why are you nitpicking and trying to make an argument against somebody? He won two Super Bowls and was the face of a franchise for 15 years. Clearly he was better than merely "average." If he was, there wouldn't be any debate about his Hall of Fame candidacy. It would be nonexistent.
I actually got into a back-and-forth with someone on Facebook about that very topic. The argument being used was that Eli was never a "top five" NFL quarterback, as if that's somehow some sort of disqualifier. No, Eli Manning wasn't ever considered a "top five" quarterback. Nobody's saying he was! You know what, though? Nowhere in the Hall of Fame bylaws does it say that a player must be considered among the "top five" at his position in order to be eligible for the Hall of Fame!
Especially when you consider that Eli Manning was contemporaries with Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Roethlisberger and his brother, guaranteed future Hall of Famers all, as well as guys like Rivers and Wilson who are putting Hall of Fame-worthy careers, it's reasonable to think that potentially as many as eight (or more) quarterbacks playing in this era could end up with busts in Canton. So to say Eli wasn't one of the "top five" quarterbacks in the NFL during his career isn't exactly a knock. Quite the opposite, actually. It shows just how many great QBs have played in the NFL in the 2000s.
Another knock that people try to use against him is his career record and the fact that the Giants have only made the playoffs twice in the last 11 seasons (although, it should be noted they went 10-6 and missed the playoffs in 2010). As much as people wanted to, I'm not sure how much blame can really be assigned to Eli Manning for the Giants' struggles over the past few years. He's been stuck playing on some bad teams with no offensive line and no wide receivers (yet he had to throw because they were always behind, hence the interceptions). He could only do so much with what he had to work with!
It's true that it's been all or nothing with the Giants over the past 15 years. Outside of the two Super Bowl runs, Eli Manning never won a playoff game. However, five of the six non-Super Bowl playoff wins came on the road, including both NFC Championship Games. And, it's worth noting that the two Super Bowl-winning teams entered the playoffs as the 4-seed (at 9-7) and the 5-seed (at 10-6).
Frankly, a lot of the judgment about Eli Manning and his career is based on how it ended, which seems a little unfair. As recently as 2015, there was little to no debate about whether Eli deserved a place in Canton. And, yes, he absolutely struggled towards the end. But that's true of pretty much everyone who's ever played professional sports. They can't all get the storybook ending.
When the time comes, the voters will look at Eli Manning's entire career, not just the ending. And that entire body of work makes a pretty compelling argument for him to be giving a speech while wearing a gold jacket in August of 2026.
Will he? That's a question for the voters. And I have no doubt some of them will ignore the two Super Bowl MVPs and dwell on those negative stats. Ultimately, though, he likely will end up in Canton. Whether it's in his first year on the ballot or further down the line, Eli Manning deserves a place in the Hall of Fame.
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
The Youth Olympics and Its Confusing Mixed-Nation Events
Over the past 10 days, the Winter Youth Olympics have been taking place in Lausanne, Switzerland. This is the third winter edition of the Youth Olympics, the brainchild of former IOC President Jacques Rogge. They still haven't caught on (this might be the first time some of you are finding out about the very existence of the Youth Olympics), and I'm not sure they ever will. And, frankly, the Youth Olympics are a little confusing.
The main purpose of the Youth Olympics is to give younger athletes exposure to the Olympic brand, and they also include cultural and educational events. But, let's call the Youth Olympics what they really are--a testing ground for different sports and events (and areas). And those that work just might find their way into the big boy Olympics.
We'll see some of these new events that started at the Youth Olympics in Tokyo. That's where they did the test run for 3x3 basketball and skateboarding. And it's where break dancing made its "Olympic" debut in 2018 and will be seen again in 2022 before we see it at the Paris Games. (Needless to say, I'm lukewarm about break dancing's inclusion on the Olympic program.)
They've also tried out plenty of newer events in the winter version. The main example I can think of is monobob, aka one-person bobsled, which will be the second women's bobsled event in Beijing. And a ton of the IOC's new favorite thing--the mixed team event--were seen in the Youth Olympics before graduating to the main event.
I can somewhat understand some of these new and mixed-gender events. One of the IOC's biggest problems with the regular Olympics is that the audience isn't young enough for them. The Youth Olympics were started as an attempt to appeal to these younger viewers and athletes, which is why these newer events, which are, in their opinion, much more TV- and spectator-friendly.
And, in a way, it makes sense that they're trying them out at the Youth Olympics first. They have the traditional events, too, but the athletes more likely to try something new are the younger ones. And if the younger athletes are the ones doing these different events, start them off in the Youth Olympics before moving them up to the regular Olympics when the athletes who do them get older.
But, here's the problem, some of these events are way too gimmicky and will never be in the actual Olympics! That I think is part of the reason the Youth Olympics will never catch on in the way the IOC hopes. They're viewed as a quaint little mini-Olympics (usually in a place the Olympics themselves will never go, especially in the Summer) where the IOC does these new and different things. It's because of these events, though, that nobody takes the Youth Olympics too seriously.
For example, they had an eight-team 3x3 hockey tournament in Lausanne. This replaced the skills competition, which featured at the first two editions of the Winter Youth Olympics. The teams were designated by color and made up of individual players from countries that don't have a national team in the regular tournament.
It's cool that they're giving these players who otherwise wouldn't the chance to participate in an Olympic competition. But it's also really tough from a viewer's perspective. People know countries. It's much harder to take a rooting interest in the "Green Team." And hockey's not the only sport where they do it. In the Summer Youth Olympics, they have a track & field relay that includes every athlete in the competition randomly put onto a team where they all run 100 meters.
These events will never be in the regular Olympics! Yet they're all over the place in the Youth Olympics! I don't understand it! It's not like the mixed team events, which have actually proven to be quite popular and still fit naturally. Mixed-nationality events, however, wouldn't work in the regular Olympics, the entire point of which is competition between countries. In fact, we often see tennis players change doubles partners in Olympic years simply because they have to play with a partner from their own country.
In one way, these mixed-nationality events make the Youth Olympics unique. Nowhere else are you going to see hockey players from Italy and Argentina playing on the same team. And I get that it's part of the experience. That may even be the entire point, and if it is that's fine.
If that is the point, though, the IOC then needs to decide what the purpose of the Youth Olympics is. Are they a testing ground for new events and other ideas to see if they work before implementing them when the entire world's watching every two years at the main event? Or are they something else?
Because if they're a testing ground, I'm not sure the mixed-nation events have a place. Sure, they promote camaraderie and are probably a lot of fun for the athletes, who may not even speak the same language yet suddenly become teammates. But they aren't even shown on TV! And if they aren't on TV, how are they going catch on in the mainstream (or with the casual Olympic fan)?!
There are plenty of other things about the Youth Olympics that don't make too much sense to me, but I'll table those for another day. After all, there are two editions of the regular Olympics before the next Youth Olympics in 2024, which will take place in Dakar, Senegal (the first Olympic event ever staged in Africa). The mixed-nation team events, though. They've gotta go!
The main purpose of the Youth Olympics is to give younger athletes exposure to the Olympic brand, and they also include cultural and educational events. But, let's call the Youth Olympics what they really are--a testing ground for different sports and events (and areas). And those that work just might find their way into the big boy Olympics.
We'll see some of these new events that started at the Youth Olympics in Tokyo. That's where they did the test run for 3x3 basketball and skateboarding. And it's where break dancing made its "Olympic" debut in 2018 and will be seen again in 2022 before we see it at the Paris Games. (Needless to say, I'm lukewarm about break dancing's inclusion on the Olympic program.)
They've also tried out plenty of newer events in the winter version. The main example I can think of is monobob, aka one-person bobsled, which will be the second women's bobsled event in Beijing. And a ton of the IOC's new favorite thing--the mixed team event--were seen in the Youth Olympics before graduating to the main event.
I can somewhat understand some of these new and mixed-gender events. One of the IOC's biggest problems with the regular Olympics is that the audience isn't young enough for them. The Youth Olympics were started as an attempt to appeal to these younger viewers and athletes, which is why these newer events, which are, in their opinion, much more TV- and spectator-friendly.
And, in a way, it makes sense that they're trying them out at the Youth Olympics first. They have the traditional events, too, but the athletes more likely to try something new are the younger ones. And if the younger athletes are the ones doing these different events, start them off in the Youth Olympics before moving them up to the regular Olympics when the athletes who do them get older.
But, here's the problem, some of these events are way too gimmicky and will never be in the actual Olympics! That I think is part of the reason the Youth Olympics will never catch on in the way the IOC hopes. They're viewed as a quaint little mini-Olympics (usually in a place the Olympics themselves will never go, especially in the Summer) where the IOC does these new and different things. It's because of these events, though, that nobody takes the Youth Olympics too seriously.
For example, they had an eight-team 3x3 hockey tournament in Lausanne. This replaced the skills competition, which featured at the first two editions of the Winter Youth Olympics. The teams were designated by color and made up of individual players from countries that don't have a national team in the regular tournament.
It's cool that they're giving these players who otherwise wouldn't the chance to participate in an Olympic competition. But it's also really tough from a viewer's perspective. People know countries. It's much harder to take a rooting interest in the "Green Team." And hockey's not the only sport where they do it. In the Summer Youth Olympics, they have a track & field relay that includes every athlete in the competition randomly put onto a team where they all run 100 meters.
These events will never be in the regular Olympics! Yet they're all over the place in the Youth Olympics! I don't understand it! It's not like the mixed team events, which have actually proven to be quite popular and still fit naturally. Mixed-nationality events, however, wouldn't work in the regular Olympics, the entire point of which is competition between countries. In fact, we often see tennis players change doubles partners in Olympic years simply because they have to play with a partner from their own country.
In one way, these mixed-nationality events make the Youth Olympics unique. Nowhere else are you going to see hockey players from Italy and Argentina playing on the same team. And I get that it's part of the experience. That may even be the entire point, and if it is that's fine.
If that is the point, though, the IOC then needs to decide what the purpose of the Youth Olympics is. Are they a testing ground for new events and other ideas to see if they work before implementing them when the entire world's watching every two years at the main event? Or are they something else?
Because if they're a testing ground, I'm not sure the mixed-nation events have a place. Sure, they promote camaraderie and are probably a lot of fun for the athletes, who may not even speak the same language yet suddenly become teammates. But they aren't even shown on TV! And if they aren't on TV, how are they going catch on in the mainstream (or with the casual Olympic fan)?!
There are plenty of other things about the Youth Olympics that don't make too much sense to me, but I'll table those for another day. After all, there are two editions of the regular Olympics before the next Youth Olympics in 2024, which will take place in Dakar, Senegal (the first Olympic event ever staged in Africa). The mixed-nation team events, though. They've gotta go!
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Captain, Legend, and Now, Hall of Famer
Ever since September 28, 2014, Yankees fans have been counting down the days until January 21, 2020. Actually, they've been making their plans for July 26, but he needs to actually get elected to the Hall of Fame first. Which we all know is just a formality.
The question of whether Derek Jeter will be the first player to get 100 percent of the vote has been answered, too. That honor went to his friend and fellow "Core Four" Yankee Mariano Rivera last year. Now, with Jeter set to join him in Cooperstown, the question is whether we'll have a unanimous inductee two years in a row. Either way, Jeter looks poised to finish with one of the top five voting percentages in history.
Will anyone join him and Ted Simmons on that stage in July? (Per his request before his death, Marvin Miller's family will not be there to accept on his behalf.) Recent history tells us "Yes." The writers have voted in at least two players every year since their 2013 shutout, including four in each of the last two years. That bodes well for guys like Curt Schilling and Larry Walker, and even Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.
With eight players moving off the ballot in the last two years and Jeter the only first-ballot lock, I've got plenty of room to vote for some players I haven't been able to fit on my "ballot" in the past. I "voted" for all four guys who got in last year, as well as Fred McGriff, who fell off because he reached the 10-year maximum. Which gives me room for three other new guys, none of which is a first-ballot candidate. So, welcome to my ballot, Omar Vizquel, Jeff Kent and Andruw Jones!
1. Derek Jeter, Shortstop (1995-2014 Yankees): Duh! Jeter will be overwhelmingly inducted and headline the class. As he should. He was the face of baseball's marquee franchise for 20 years, is their all-time hit leader, and won five rings as their captain. Few individuals made it look as easy or do it in a classier way than Derek Jeter. Even Red Sox and Mets fans would agree. That says all you need to know.
2. Barry Bonds, Outfielder (1986-92 Pirates, 1993-2007 Giants): You know my stance on Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. It hasn't changed in the now eight years they've been on the ballot, and it's not going to now. Their support among actual voters seems to be growing, too, so maybe next year when there are no sure-fire guys, they go in together. I feel like I write the same thing about Bonds every year, and I'll say it again. You can't write the History of Baseball without Barry Bonds. Steroids or not, he's a Hall of Famer.
3. Roger Clemens, Pitcher (1984-96 Red Sox, 1997-98 Blue Jays, 1999-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007 Yankees): Ditto about Roger Clemens. The unofficial "rule" regarding Bonds and Clemens has been you either vote for both of them or neither one of them. And, for me, both of them are no-brainer "yes" votes without even thinking about it. Seriously, was there a more feared right-handed pitcher in the 80s, 90s OR 2000s than Roger Clemens? Seven Cy Young Awards, intimidating dominance, and the third-most strikeouts in history. That's Roger Clemens in a nutshell. Eight years on the ballot. Eight times I'm marking his name.
4. Curt Schilling, Pitcher (1988-90 Orioles, 1991 Astros, 1992-2000 Phillies, 2000-03 Diamondbacks, 2004-07 Red Sox): I seriously don't know how Mike Mussina got in last year and Curt Schilling didn't. I'm not trying to say Mussina doesn't belong in Cooperstown. He absolutely does. I'm just saying they're so tough to separate that I'm not sure how you vote for one and not the other. In fact, I always rated Schilling higher than Mussina because of his postseason dominance. The guy was virtually unbeatable in October!
5. Andy Pettitte, Pitcher (1995-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007-10 Yankees, 2012-13 Yankees): Pettitte only got 10 percent of the vote last year. I wasn't expecting him to come anywhere close to getting in, but I did think his percentage would be a little higher. Anyway, I'll keep throwing a "vote" Pettitte's way as long as he's on the ballot...and not just because he was a Yankee! His postseason record was remarkable. I don't think there's any pitcher Joe Torre would've wanted to hand the ball to in an important game more than Andy Pettitte. That says a lot. Even if his regular season numbers weren't as gaudy as some others.
6. Larry Walker, Outfielder (1989-94 Expos, 1995-2004 Rockies, 2004-05 Cardinals): It's Walker's final year on the ballot, and, like Edgar Martinez and Tim Raines before him, I think he gets in on his final try. Walker has been helped greatly by the ballot congestion being eased. Because it finally gave some voters who didn't have the room previously a chance to vote for him. Yes, Coors Field has been held against him. But I think most people understand that Larry Walker was much more than a product of Denver's high altitude. He was a pure hitter throughout his entire 17-year career. I just have a feeling that his support will grow to the point where it puts him over the top. Fergie Jenkins might not be the only Canadian Hall of Famer for too much longer.
7. Omar Vizquel, Shortstop (1989-93 Mariners, 1994-2004 Indians, 2005-08 Giants, 2009 Rangers, 2010-11 White Sox, 2012 Blue Jays): Ozzie Smith is the greatest defensive shortstop in history. It's the primary reason he's in the Hall of Fame. Omar Vizquel isn't in that same class, but he's still probably No. 2 behind Ozzie. He won 11 Gold Gloves, including nine in a row from 1993-2001. And, while he wasn't known for his bat, Vizquel amassed 2,877 hits in a 24-year career, third most all-time among shortstops.
8. Jeff Kent, Second Baseman (1992 Blue Jays, 1992-96 Mets, 1996 Indians, 1997-2002 Giants, 2003-04 Astros, 2005-08 Dodgers): While we're on the subject of the greatest player of the 90s at each position, may I present Jeff Kent? Roberto Alomar was the premier second baseman of the decade, but Kent was far-and-away the NL's best at the position in that era. His greatness got somewhat overlooked because he played second fiddle to Bonds throughout his entire six-year run in San Francisco, even though he was the NL MVP in 2000! Kent hit more homers (351) than any second baseman in history and had eight 20 HR-100 RBI seasons. Plus, he was on Survivor!
9. Andruw Jones, Outfielder (1996-2007 Braves, 2008 Dodgers, 2009 Rangers, 2010 White Sox, 2011-12 Yankees): Was there a better defensive center fielder during the late 90s and early 2000s than Andruw Jones? And let's not forget he could hit, too. He hit 434 home runs and had 20 or more 10 consecutive times! Just as important is his significance as the first real star player from Curacao, which has since turned into a baseball factory.
10. Todd Helton, First Baseman (1997-2013 Rockies): My final vote goes to the other Colorado Rockie on the ballot. Helton spent his entire career in Colorado and is the best player in franchise history. Like Walker, it would be unfair to consider him simply a product of Coors Field. Because Todd Helton was arguably the best overall first baseman in baseball during his prime. He won't get in. I know that. But I feel he's worthy of a vote.
All of the ballot clean up over the past couple years has given me a chance to reassess some lower-ballot guys. For me, Billy Wagner, Gary Sheffield and Scott Rolen don't make the cut in 2020, but without a first-ballot slam dunk in 2021, they very well might appear when we do this again next year.
As for who is most likely to join Jeter in getting the Hall Call, I'd say it's probably Walker. He's in his final year on the ballot, which always brings a surge. And Schilling had the highest percentage of those who didn't get in last year. I think they both get in, making it a five-man Hall of Fame Class of 2020.
The question of whether Derek Jeter will be the first player to get 100 percent of the vote has been answered, too. That honor went to his friend and fellow "Core Four" Yankee Mariano Rivera last year. Now, with Jeter set to join him in Cooperstown, the question is whether we'll have a unanimous inductee two years in a row. Either way, Jeter looks poised to finish with one of the top five voting percentages in history.
Will anyone join him and Ted Simmons on that stage in July? (Per his request before his death, Marvin Miller's family will not be there to accept on his behalf.) Recent history tells us "Yes." The writers have voted in at least two players every year since their 2013 shutout, including four in each of the last two years. That bodes well for guys like Curt Schilling and Larry Walker, and even Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.
With eight players moving off the ballot in the last two years and Jeter the only first-ballot lock, I've got plenty of room to vote for some players I haven't been able to fit on my "ballot" in the past. I "voted" for all four guys who got in last year, as well as Fred McGriff, who fell off because he reached the 10-year maximum. Which gives me room for three other new guys, none of which is a first-ballot candidate. So, welcome to my ballot, Omar Vizquel, Jeff Kent and Andruw Jones!
1. Derek Jeter, Shortstop (1995-2014 Yankees): Duh! Jeter will be overwhelmingly inducted and headline the class. As he should. He was the face of baseball's marquee franchise for 20 years, is their all-time hit leader, and won five rings as their captain. Few individuals made it look as easy or do it in a classier way than Derek Jeter. Even Red Sox and Mets fans would agree. That says all you need to know.
2. Barry Bonds, Outfielder (1986-92 Pirates, 1993-2007 Giants): You know my stance on Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. It hasn't changed in the now eight years they've been on the ballot, and it's not going to now. Their support among actual voters seems to be growing, too, so maybe next year when there are no sure-fire guys, they go in together. I feel like I write the same thing about Bonds every year, and I'll say it again. You can't write the History of Baseball without Barry Bonds. Steroids or not, he's a Hall of Famer.
3. Roger Clemens, Pitcher (1984-96 Red Sox, 1997-98 Blue Jays, 1999-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007 Yankees): Ditto about Roger Clemens. The unofficial "rule" regarding Bonds and Clemens has been you either vote for both of them or neither one of them. And, for me, both of them are no-brainer "yes" votes without even thinking about it. Seriously, was there a more feared right-handed pitcher in the 80s, 90s OR 2000s than Roger Clemens? Seven Cy Young Awards, intimidating dominance, and the third-most strikeouts in history. That's Roger Clemens in a nutshell. Eight years on the ballot. Eight times I'm marking his name.
4. Curt Schilling, Pitcher (1988-90 Orioles, 1991 Astros, 1992-2000 Phillies, 2000-03 Diamondbacks, 2004-07 Red Sox): I seriously don't know how Mike Mussina got in last year and Curt Schilling didn't. I'm not trying to say Mussina doesn't belong in Cooperstown. He absolutely does. I'm just saying they're so tough to separate that I'm not sure how you vote for one and not the other. In fact, I always rated Schilling higher than Mussina because of his postseason dominance. The guy was virtually unbeatable in October!
5. Andy Pettitte, Pitcher (1995-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007-10 Yankees, 2012-13 Yankees): Pettitte only got 10 percent of the vote last year. I wasn't expecting him to come anywhere close to getting in, but I did think his percentage would be a little higher. Anyway, I'll keep throwing a "vote" Pettitte's way as long as he's on the ballot...and not just because he was a Yankee! His postseason record was remarkable. I don't think there's any pitcher Joe Torre would've wanted to hand the ball to in an important game more than Andy Pettitte. That says a lot. Even if his regular season numbers weren't as gaudy as some others.
6. Larry Walker, Outfielder (1989-94 Expos, 1995-2004 Rockies, 2004-05 Cardinals): It's Walker's final year on the ballot, and, like Edgar Martinez and Tim Raines before him, I think he gets in on his final try. Walker has been helped greatly by the ballot congestion being eased. Because it finally gave some voters who didn't have the room previously a chance to vote for him. Yes, Coors Field has been held against him. But I think most people understand that Larry Walker was much more than a product of Denver's high altitude. He was a pure hitter throughout his entire 17-year career. I just have a feeling that his support will grow to the point where it puts him over the top. Fergie Jenkins might not be the only Canadian Hall of Famer for too much longer.
7. Omar Vizquel, Shortstop (1989-93 Mariners, 1994-2004 Indians, 2005-08 Giants, 2009 Rangers, 2010-11 White Sox, 2012 Blue Jays): Ozzie Smith is the greatest defensive shortstop in history. It's the primary reason he's in the Hall of Fame. Omar Vizquel isn't in that same class, but he's still probably No. 2 behind Ozzie. He won 11 Gold Gloves, including nine in a row from 1993-2001. And, while he wasn't known for his bat, Vizquel amassed 2,877 hits in a 24-year career, third most all-time among shortstops.
8. Jeff Kent, Second Baseman (1992 Blue Jays, 1992-96 Mets, 1996 Indians, 1997-2002 Giants, 2003-04 Astros, 2005-08 Dodgers): While we're on the subject of the greatest player of the 90s at each position, may I present Jeff Kent? Roberto Alomar was the premier second baseman of the decade, but Kent was far-and-away the NL's best at the position in that era. His greatness got somewhat overlooked because he played second fiddle to Bonds throughout his entire six-year run in San Francisco, even though he was the NL MVP in 2000! Kent hit more homers (351) than any second baseman in history and had eight 20 HR-100 RBI seasons. Plus, he was on Survivor!
9. Andruw Jones, Outfielder (1996-2007 Braves, 2008 Dodgers, 2009 Rangers, 2010 White Sox, 2011-12 Yankees): Was there a better defensive center fielder during the late 90s and early 2000s than Andruw Jones? And let's not forget he could hit, too. He hit 434 home runs and had 20 or more 10 consecutive times! Just as important is his significance as the first real star player from Curacao, which has since turned into a baseball factory.
10. Todd Helton, First Baseman (1997-2013 Rockies): My final vote goes to the other Colorado Rockie on the ballot. Helton spent his entire career in Colorado and is the best player in franchise history. Like Walker, it would be unfair to consider him simply a product of Coors Field. Because Todd Helton was arguably the best overall first baseman in baseball during his prime. He won't get in. I know that. But I feel he's worthy of a vote.
All of the ballot clean up over the past couple years has given me a chance to reassess some lower-ballot guys. For me, Billy Wagner, Gary Sheffield and Scott Rolen don't make the cut in 2020, but without a first-ballot slam dunk in 2021, they very well might appear when we do this again next year.
As for who is most likely to join Jeter in getting the Hall Call, I'd say it's probably Walker. He's in his final year on the ballot, which always brings a surge. And Schilling had the highest percentage of those who didn't get in last year. I think they both get in, making it a five-man Hall of Fame Class of 2020.
Monday, January 20, 2020
Will Rafa Tie Roger?
As the Australian Open starts, that's the most pressing question. When Federer won his sixth title here two years ago, it was his 20th career Grand Slam trophy. Since then, Nadal has won three to bring his career total to 19. So, if Nadal wins here, he'll tie Roger for the most men's Grand Slam titles in history, which is pretty remarkable. Even if he doesn't, you know he's going to win the French Open, so he'll tie him in Paris unless Roger gets No. 21 here.
They're not the only ones thinking about a Grand Slam record, either. Serena Williams won here while pregnant three years ago for her 23rd career Grand Slam title, one shy of tying Margaret Court for the most all-time. She hasn't won a Grand Slam since becoming a mom, though, so she still sits at 23. However, Serena won a warm up tournament, which has some people thinking she might finally tie the record.
Those are the major on-court headlines heading into the first Grand Slam tournament of the 2020s. The entire event takes a back seat, though, to the devastating wildfires that have swept through the host country. Despite concerns about the air quality, the tournament began on schedule. But it'll be on everyone's minds throughout the next two weeks.
We actually saw the impact of the wildfires during qualifying, when a player had to retire because she couldn't breathe in the smoke-filled air. So, yeah, the concerns are real. Fortunately, the Australian Open is the only Grand Slam that has retractable roofs on three different courts. They'll need to use the uncovered outer courts at the start of the tournament, but once they reach the point when they only need the three main courts, you play all remaining singles matches with the roof closed. It might not be the most popular solution, but it's probably the safest. (Although, as I type this the roofs are closed because of rain, which is good on two fronts, because that's the best possible way to fight the wildfires.)
The big tennis story of the next two weeks, though, will be about the Big Three. Specifically Nole and Rafa's assault on Roger's record. Federer seems resigned to the fact that it's a matter of when they'll catch him (not if). But, he actually has a decent chance to hold them off little longer. Federer has won this thing six times, including two of the last three years. And, perhaps just as significantly, he comes into the Australian Open fresh. Djokovic and Nadal, meanwhile, both played a lot of matches at the ATP Cup, a new Davis Cup-style team competition where Serbia (Djokovic) beat Spain (Nadal) in the final. How much did that take out of them?
Another thing that helps Federer is the temperature. Melbourne's mid-summer heat is notorious, and it usually causes all sorts of problems, especially for those players who have long matches. But, the temperatures are supposed to be significantly cooler during the first week, which will help everybody.
Ultimately, it's not going to be the temperature or the roof that makes the difference. It's going to be who's most on his game when the tournament hits crunch time. And, of course, the matchups always come into play, too.
Either Federer or Djokovic has won 13 of the last 15 Australian Open titles. So, it would make sense to look at them as the two favorites. Unfortunately, the draw has them set to square off in the semifinals. Which actually helps Nadal, who's only won the Australian Open once. Nadal appears more vulnerable to an upset, though, since he has Daniil Medvedev, Alexander Zverev and Nick Kyrgios all in his half of the draw.
Djokovic and Nadal are the two betting favorites, but the experts are also really high on Medvedev after his US Open Coming Out Party. Still, I find it hard to go against Nadal in that top half. He'll have to wait until his annual win in Paris to tie Roger, though. Because Novak Djokovic will defend his title and get himself to 17.
Meanwhile, Serena's pursuit of No. 24 will be a challenge. Seemingly all of the major title contenders join her in the top half of the draw. That includes defending champion Naomi Osaka, last year's finalist Petra Kvitova, her good friend and 2018 champion Caroline Wozniacki (who's retiring after the tournament, which upsets me greatly). Oh, and the world No. 1, Ashleigh Barty, is Australian, so she'll obviously have the home crowd support.
Still, we've seem glimpses of the Serena of old. If we didn't, she wouldn't still be playing. And, as her win last week showed, she's still got it. You just have to wonder if those extra matches took a toll. Because since she had Olympia, we've seen Serena look like her old, great self a lot. But she's also been incredibly outplayed in each of her four Grand Slam final losses over the last two years.
If Serena Williams is on, though, there are very few--if any--players who can beat her. Which is why I like her to finally get that 24th victory and tie Margaret Court. The chances of her having a bad day and/or getting beaten by a younger opponent who made her play their way will always be there. In fact, she'll need to have an almost perfect tournament to win. But I think that's what we'll see. And when Serena Williams is on another level, look out!
Of course, there's a whole bottom side of the draw that might have something to say about that. I'm not sure I see anyone in the bottom half beating her in a final, though. Everyone who'd challenge Serena for the title is on the top half, so the winner of that semifinal will be a heavy favorite in the final. I say this even though 2016 champion Angie Kerber, 2018 finalist Simona Halep, the Pliskova sisters and Elina Svitolina, a semifinalist at both Wimbledon and the US Open last year, occupy the bottom half.
Since Serena has to play someone in the final, I'm going to say Svitolina gets through to her first Grand Slam final. She won't have enough for Serena in the end, though. Not after Willliams gets through that gauntlet in the top half. So, even if Roger keeps his hold on the men's record, we'll still see an all-time Grand Slam record tied. Serena Williams will finally get that 24th career title and match Margaret Court for the most in history.
They're not the only ones thinking about a Grand Slam record, either. Serena Williams won here while pregnant three years ago for her 23rd career Grand Slam title, one shy of tying Margaret Court for the most all-time. She hasn't won a Grand Slam since becoming a mom, though, so she still sits at 23. However, Serena won a warm up tournament, which has some people thinking she might finally tie the record.
Those are the major on-court headlines heading into the first Grand Slam tournament of the 2020s. The entire event takes a back seat, though, to the devastating wildfires that have swept through the host country. Despite concerns about the air quality, the tournament began on schedule. But it'll be on everyone's minds throughout the next two weeks.
We actually saw the impact of the wildfires during qualifying, when a player had to retire because she couldn't breathe in the smoke-filled air. So, yeah, the concerns are real. Fortunately, the Australian Open is the only Grand Slam that has retractable roofs on three different courts. They'll need to use the uncovered outer courts at the start of the tournament, but once they reach the point when they only need the three main courts, you play all remaining singles matches with the roof closed. It might not be the most popular solution, but it's probably the safest. (Although, as I type this the roofs are closed because of rain, which is good on two fronts, because that's the best possible way to fight the wildfires.)
The big tennis story of the next two weeks, though, will be about the Big Three. Specifically Nole and Rafa's assault on Roger's record. Federer seems resigned to the fact that it's a matter of when they'll catch him (not if). But, he actually has a decent chance to hold them off little longer. Federer has won this thing six times, including two of the last three years. And, perhaps just as significantly, he comes into the Australian Open fresh. Djokovic and Nadal, meanwhile, both played a lot of matches at the ATP Cup, a new Davis Cup-style team competition where Serbia (Djokovic) beat Spain (Nadal) in the final. How much did that take out of them?
Another thing that helps Federer is the temperature. Melbourne's mid-summer heat is notorious, and it usually causes all sorts of problems, especially for those players who have long matches. But, the temperatures are supposed to be significantly cooler during the first week, which will help everybody.
Ultimately, it's not going to be the temperature or the roof that makes the difference. It's going to be who's most on his game when the tournament hits crunch time. And, of course, the matchups always come into play, too.
Either Federer or Djokovic has won 13 of the last 15 Australian Open titles. So, it would make sense to look at them as the two favorites. Unfortunately, the draw has them set to square off in the semifinals. Which actually helps Nadal, who's only won the Australian Open once. Nadal appears more vulnerable to an upset, though, since he has Daniil Medvedev, Alexander Zverev and Nick Kyrgios all in his half of the draw.
Djokovic and Nadal are the two betting favorites, but the experts are also really high on Medvedev after his US Open Coming Out Party. Still, I find it hard to go against Nadal in that top half. He'll have to wait until his annual win in Paris to tie Roger, though. Because Novak Djokovic will defend his title and get himself to 17.
Meanwhile, Serena's pursuit of No. 24 will be a challenge. Seemingly all of the major title contenders join her in the top half of the draw. That includes defending champion Naomi Osaka, last year's finalist Petra Kvitova, her good friend and 2018 champion Caroline Wozniacki (who's retiring after the tournament, which upsets me greatly). Oh, and the world No. 1, Ashleigh Barty, is Australian, so she'll obviously have the home crowd support.
Still, we've seem glimpses of the Serena of old. If we didn't, she wouldn't still be playing. And, as her win last week showed, she's still got it. You just have to wonder if those extra matches took a toll. Because since she had Olympia, we've seen Serena look like her old, great self a lot. But she's also been incredibly outplayed in each of her four Grand Slam final losses over the last two years.
If Serena Williams is on, though, there are very few--if any--players who can beat her. Which is why I like her to finally get that 24th victory and tie Margaret Court. The chances of her having a bad day and/or getting beaten by a younger opponent who made her play their way will always be there. In fact, she'll need to have an almost perfect tournament to win. But I think that's what we'll see. And when Serena Williams is on another level, look out!
Of course, there's a whole bottom side of the draw that might have something to say about that. I'm not sure I see anyone in the bottom half beating her in a final, though. Everyone who'd challenge Serena for the title is on the top half, so the winner of that semifinal will be a heavy favorite in the final. I say this even though 2016 champion Angie Kerber, 2018 finalist Simona Halep, the Pliskova sisters and Elina Svitolina, a semifinalist at both Wimbledon and the US Open last year, occupy the bottom half.
Since Serena has to play someone in the final, I'm going to say Svitolina gets through to her first Grand Slam final. She won't have enough for Serena in the end, though. Not after Willliams gets through that gauntlet in the top half. So, even if Roger keeps his hold on the men's record, we'll still see an all-time Grand Slam record tied. Serena Williams will finally get that 24th career title and match Margaret Court for the most in history.
Sunday, January 19, 2020
NFL 100: Playoffs, Week 3
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the first Bradicheck-less Conference Championship Sunday since 2010! Is it weird that the NFL's Final Four doesn't include the Patriots? Absolutely! Am I upset about it? Not in the slightest! It's nice to have some fresh faces fighting for a chance to go to the Super Bowl instead of the same teams playing for the AFC title year after year.
In fact, this will be just the second time in the last 20 seasons that the AFC representative won't be either New England, Pittsburgh, Baltimore or a team quarterbacked by Peyton Manning...and the other one was the 2002 Raiders! So, yeah, it's been a while.
Meanwhile, in the NFC, we've got two of the league's most decorated teams battling it out for another trip to the Super Bowl. The 49ers and Packers have combined to win 11 NFL/NFC titles and are a combined 9-2 all-time in Super Bowls. But it's been nine years since Green Bay's last conference championship and seven years since San Francisco's. So we've got new blood on both ends of this Super Bowl equation (even if Aaron Rodgers is a past Super Bowl MVP).
That leaves us with some fun Super Bowl possibilities, too. How cool would it be if we get a Packers-Chiefs Super Bowl I rematch in the NFL's 100th anniversary season (and 50 years after the AFL's final game, which was a Chiefs win in Super Bowl IV)?! San Francisco and Kansas City will be forever linked because the 49ers traded Joe Montana to the Chiefs way back when. And Ryan Tannehill, of course, used to play for the Dolphins, which adds a level of intrigue if the Titans get there, regardless of their opponent.
Titans (11-7) at Chiefs (13-4): Kansas City-Don't sleep on the Tennessee Titans. This team is dangerous, which I think we've all figured out by now. They've beaten three straight division winners on the road in essentially three playoff games in three consecutive weeks. Now they look to complete the Grand Slam and make it four straight road wins over the AFC division winners. And if they can pull it off, they'll give Tannehill that most unexpected Miami homecoming.
The Titans have also done their opponent a tremendous favor, though. Two tremendous favors actually. The Chiefs went into the playoffs thinking their route to Miami would involve going through both the Patriots and the Ravens. Thanks to the Titans, they don't have to play either one. And...to top it off, the get to play the AFC Championship Game IN KANSAS CITY! None of the first 58 AFL/AFC Championship Games took place in Kansas City. Now the Chiefs are hosting for the second year in a row.
And they really seem like a team of destiny. Especially when you consider what happened last week, it's hard to go against the Chiefs. They erased a 24-point deficit in no time at all and ended up winning the game in a blowout! There aren't many teams capable of doing that. Which just goes to show what type of a team the Chiefs are. And it also gives you the feeling that something special is happening in Kansas City.
Last year might've been good for them. Because of what Bradicheck did to them in last season's AFC Championship Game, they didn't panic when the Texans took that big lead last week. They've been in the situation before and relied on their talent, which is sometimes easier said than done (just ask the Ravens). And Kansas City has some of the most supreme talent in the league.
Derrick Henry is also a supreme talent. What he's done over the past month is ridiculous. It's even more impressive when you consider that the Titans' offense essentially consists of Henry running the ball, yet New England and Baltimore still couldn't do anything about it! I think the Chiefs will employ a different game plan, though. Let Henry get his yards. He's going to get them anyway. Just don't let them do anything else.
More importantly, Kansas City has a ton of explosive offensive weapons, so it's really more about challenging the Titans to keep up with them. And the Chiefs can score quickly, so the Titans' ball control game won't make as much of a difference. Besides, Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes deserve to play in a Super Bowl. Fifty years after their last appearance, the Chiefs will finally get back there.
Packers (14-3) at 49ers (14-3): San Francisco-I'm still not 100 percent sold on the 49ers. But...they're in the NFC Championship Game--and hosting it--so I now have a feeling I've simply missed the boat on them. And, I must say, they had perhaps the most impressive showing of any team last week. They dominated Minnesota from the start, making it pretty clear very early that the NFC Championship Game would be played in California.
Besides the fact that they're hosting, there's another reason to have confidence in the 49ers. They've shown an ability to win in different ways. So, whatever the style of the game, you know they're going to be in it. Take their back-to-back games in Baltimore and New Orleans. The game against the Ravens was a 20-17 defensive battle. Then, the very next week, they go and win a 48-46 shootout in New Orleans! The same thing happened against bad teams. They beat the Redskins 9-0, then scored 51 points against Carolina the next week.
It's that versatility that makes the 49ers incredibly scary. It's not just their ability to play different styles. It's the fact that you don't know how they're going to beat you each week. They can run the ball. But they've also got a ton of receiving threats, anchored by an All-Pro tight end. And I haven't even mentioned Nick Bosa and the defense yet!
With the Packers, meanwhile, I'm just the opposite. I seem to have more faith in Green Bay than a lot of other people. "They haven't beaten anybody good!" is the most common complaint about the Packers. Well, guess what? They beat the teams on their schedule to the tune of a 13-3 regular season and playoff bye. And they did beat a good team last week, beating Seattle to send Cal grad Aaron Rodgers back to the Bay Area for the chance to get to another Super Bowl.
Two of the Packers' three losses this season came in California, though, including a 37-8 blowout against this same 49ers team in Week 12. That's the reason this rematch is taking place at Levi's Stadium instead of Lambeau Field. And it's a valid reason for concern. Because that game wasn't so long ago that the teams are dramatically different. And the Packers' combined 19 points on the West Coast this season aren't gonna be enough to get it done in the NFC Championship Game!
Ultimately, that's why I can't say I see the Packers winning this one. They've won six straight since that loss the first time they played the 49ers. But I think the fact they had to travel is going to be the big difference. A Sunday night game in Lambeau would've been a huge advantage for the Packers. Instead, they have to travel out West. When the 49ers beat the Seahawks in the last game of the regular season to clinch home field, their Super Bowl odds shot up astronomically. That win will pay off with a trip to Super Bowl LIV against Kansas City.
Last Week: 3-1
Playoffs: 5-3
Overall: 159-104-1
In fact, this will be just the second time in the last 20 seasons that the AFC representative won't be either New England, Pittsburgh, Baltimore or a team quarterbacked by Peyton Manning...and the other one was the 2002 Raiders! So, yeah, it's been a while.
Meanwhile, in the NFC, we've got two of the league's most decorated teams battling it out for another trip to the Super Bowl. The 49ers and Packers have combined to win 11 NFL/NFC titles and are a combined 9-2 all-time in Super Bowls. But it's been nine years since Green Bay's last conference championship and seven years since San Francisco's. So we've got new blood on both ends of this Super Bowl equation (even if Aaron Rodgers is a past Super Bowl MVP).
That leaves us with some fun Super Bowl possibilities, too. How cool would it be if we get a Packers-Chiefs Super Bowl I rematch in the NFL's 100th anniversary season (and 50 years after the AFL's final game, which was a Chiefs win in Super Bowl IV)?! San Francisco and Kansas City will be forever linked because the 49ers traded Joe Montana to the Chiefs way back when. And Ryan Tannehill, of course, used to play for the Dolphins, which adds a level of intrigue if the Titans get there, regardless of their opponent.
Titans (11-7) at Chiefs (13-4): Kansas City-Don't sleep on the Tennessee Titans. This team is dangerous, which I think we've all figured out by now. They've beaten three straight division winners on the road in essentially three playoff games in three consecutive weeks. Now they look to complete the Grand Slam and make it four straight road wins over the AFC division winners. And if they can pull it off, they'll give Tannehill that most unexpected Miami homecoming.
The Titans have also done their opponent a tremendous favor, though. Two tremendous favors actually. The Chiefs went into the playoffs thinking their route to Miami would involve going through both the Patriots and the Ravens. Thanks to the Titans, they don't have to play either one. And...to top it off, the get to play the AFC Championship Game IN KANSAS CITY! None of the first 58 AFL/AFC Championship Games took place in Kansas City. Now the Chiefs are hosting for the second year in a row.
And they really seem like a team of destiny. Especially when you consider what happened last week, it's hard to go against the Chiefs. They erased a 24-point deficit in no time at all and ended up winning the game in a blowout! There aren't many teams capable of doing that. Which just goes to show what type of a team the Chiefs are. And it also gives you the feeling that something special is happening in Kansas City.
Last year might've been good for them. Because of what Bradicheck did to them in last season's AFC Championship Game, they didn't panic when the Texans took that big lead last week. They've been in the situation before and relied on their talent, which is sometimes easier said than done (just ask the Ravens). And Kansas City has some of the most supreme talent in the league.
Derrick Henry is also a supreme talent. What he's done over the past month is ridiculous. It's even more impressive when you consider that the Titans' offense essentially consists of Henry running the ball, yet New England and Baltimore still couldn't do anything about it! I think the Chiefs will employ a different game plan, though. Let Henry get his yards. He's going to get them anyway. Just don't let them do anything else.
More importantly, Kansas City has a ton of explosive offensive weapons, so it's really more about challenging the Titans to keep up with them. And the Chiefs can score quickly, so the Titans' ball control game won't make as much of a difference. Besides, Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes deserve to play in a Super Bowl. Fifty years after their last appearance, the Chiefs will finally get back there.
Packers (14-3) at 49ers (14-3): San Francisco-I'm still not 100 percent sold on the 49ers. But...they're in the NFC Championship Game--and hosting it--so I now have a feeling I've simply missed the boat on them. And, I must say, they had perhaps the most impressive showing of any team last week. They dominated Minnesota from the start, making it pretty clear very early that the NFC Championship Game would be played in California.
Besides the fact that they're hosting, there's another reason to have confidence in the 49ers. They've shown an ability to win in different ways. So, whatever the style of the game, you know they're going to be in it. Take their back-to-back games in Baltimore and New Orleans. The game against the Ravens was a 20-17 defensive battle. Then, the very next week, they go and win a 48-46 shootout in New Orleans! The same thing happened against bad teams. They beat the Redskins 9-0, then scored 51 points against Carolina the next week.
It's that versatility that makes the 49ers incredibly scary. It's not just their ability to play different styles. It's the fact that you don't know how they're going to beat you each week. They can run the ball. But they've also got a ton of receiving threats, anchored by an All-Pro tight end. And I haven't even mentioned Nick Bosa and the defense yet!
With the Packers, meanwhile, I'm just the opposite. I seem to have more faith in Green Bay than a lot of other people. "They haven't beaten anybody good!" is the most common complaint about the Packers. Well, guess what? They beat the teams on their schedule to the tune of a 13-3 regular season and playoff bye. And they did beat a good team last week, beating Seattle to send Cal grad Aaron Rodgers back to the Bay Area for the chance to get to another Super Bowl.
Two of the Packers' three losses this season came in California, though, including a 37-8 blowout against this same 49ers team in Week 12. That's the reason this rematch is taking place at Levi's Stadium instead of Lambeau Field. And it's a valid reason for concern. Because that game wasn't so long ago that the teams are dramatically different. And the Packers' combined 19 points on the West Coast this season aren't gonna be enough to get it done in the NFC Championship Game!
Ultimately, that's why I can't say I see the Packers winning this one. They've won six straight since that loss the first time they played the 49ers. But I think the fact they had to travel is going to be the big difference. A Sunday night game in Lambeau would've been a huge advantage for the Packers. Instead, they have to travel out West. When the 49ers beat the Seahawks in the last game of the regular season to clinch home field, their Super Bowl odds shot up astronomically. That win will pay off with a trip to Super Bowl LIV against Kansas City.
Last Week: 3-1
Playoffs: 5-3
Overall: 159-104-1
Monday, January 13, 2020
Hammer Dropped
I sure hope that World Series title was worth it. Because to say the Houston Astros won it by "dubious" means sure seems like an understatement now. And Houston's 2017 championship will forever be tainted (as will Boston's in 2018) by the sign stealing scandal that has cost GM Jeff Luhnow and Manager A.J. Hinch their jobs.
After the MLB investigation started and people realized Mike Fiers' story had merit, the question was no longer about whether the Astros would get punished. It was about who would and how severely. Then, when the depths of the Astros' cheating was exposed, the expectation was that MLB would drop the hammer. And that's exactly what happened. Luhnow and Hinch were suspended for a year, the organization got hit with a $5 million fine and, perhaps most importantly, Houston's first- and second-round picks in the next two drafts were taken away. For a team that got good by drafting well and won a World Series with all that homegrown talent, that might be the biggest blow of them all.
The MLB penalties weren't enough for Houston owner Jim Craine, though. A few hours after Luhnow and Hinch's suspensions were announced, Craine did the Commissioner one better. He fired them both. Manfred and Craine both acknowledged that it was mostly a "player-driven" scheme, but Luhnow and Hinch were the ones in charge. And as such, they were the ones responsible for it.
Keep in mind this is the same organization that went out of its way to try and not fire Brandon Taubman, even though that was the only logical (and acceptable) outcome in that situation. After trying to pass the blame and accuse others, they didn't fire him until MLB forced their hand...days later. And the Astros' incredibly terrible mishandling of the Taubman debacle likely had a hand in the severity of their punishment for the sign-stealing. (Taubman, by the way, also received a one-year suspension.)
There was obviously a big problem with the culture in Houston. One that considered Taubman's actions no big deal and condoned a sophisticated system of electronic sign-stealing (which continued even after the Commissioner sent a league-wide memo to all clubs reiterating that the practice was prohibited). That culture emphasized winning over everything, ethics be damned. And that culture was driven by Jeff Luhnow and A.J. Hinch.
They've both claimed that they weren't directly involved in the sign stealing. Luhnow accepted that he's responsible since it happened under his watch, but also said he would've stopped it had he known (sorry, but I have trouble believing that). Hinch evidently DID know what was going on, but did nothing to stop it. If he had, it would've. But how much they both knew and their level of involvement is irrelevant. They were the proverbial "adults in the room." And by not doing anything to stop it, they were complicit.
It's about so much more than sign stealing, too. It's an integrity of the game issue. That's why Rob Manfred came down so hard on the Astros. He even said that while he can't prove their banging-on-the-garbage-can scheme gave them a competitive advantage, the perception across Baseball was that it did. And that was enough for him to come down hard. Harder than people expected, in fact.
Of course, this issue isn't limited to the Astros (or the Red Sox). No one's claiming it is. It's been a problem throughout Baseball ever since replay became a part of the game a few years ago. Which is part of the reason why MLB nailed the Astros so severely. The message has been sent. Using video to steal an opponent's signs WILL NOT be tolerated!
"Everybody's doing it" isn't a defense! The fact of the matter is the Astros are the ones who got caught, so they're the ones who had to pay the price. No one knows if they would've won the 2017 World Series anyway, but the optics certainly aren't good. That surely came into play, too. Whether or not the Astros cheated their way to a championship is irrelevant. The perception is that they did, and it's going to be very hard for them to shake that.
While MLB acknowledged that the sign stealing was mostly player-driven, they were quick to point out who they considered the mastermind of the whole scheme. Alex Cora's name is all over the report. He was Houston's bench coach in 2017, then left to become manager of the Red Sox. Boston went on to win the World Series in Cora's first season as manager in 2018.
However, the Red Sox are subject to a separate investigation regarding alleged electronic sign stealing. And now that the investigation into the Astros is over, MLB will turn its full attention to Boston. Although, it's not hard to find the common link between the two teams.
Cora wasn't suspended for his involvement in Houston's scheme, but that's only because MLB is waiting to conclude its investigation into the Red Sox. Make no mistake, though. He's going to get nailed. And, if the punishments handed down on Monday are any indication, Cora's will be far worse. After all, Hinch and Lunhow were given one-year suspensions even though they had no direct involvement. Cora wasn't just directly involved, he was directly involved in two separate incidents.
Whether or not he's fired, it's safe to say Alex Cora won't be managing the Boston Red Sox in 2020...and probably beyond that. What seems more likely is that he's managed his final game fo for the Red Sox. Judging by the degree of his involvement, it's reasonable to assume Cora's suspension will be significantly longer than those of his now-unemployed bosses in Houston. And it's hard to believe he'll be able to get another Major League managing job anytime soon...if at all.
With the suspensions of Hinch and Luhnow, and the coming suspension of Cora, MLB has hopefully gotten its point across. Stealing signs the old-fashioned way is fine. But when you start using technology to cheat, that's crossing the line. That's affecting the integrity of the game. And when the game's integrity is at stake, expect to pay the price. Just ask the Black Sox or Pete Rose.
After the MLB investigation started and people realized Mike Fiers' story had merit, the question was no longer about whether the Astros would get punished. It was about who would and how severely. Then, when the depths of the Astros' cheating was exposed, the expectation was that MLB would drop the hammer. And that's exactly what happened. Luhnow and Hinch were suspended for a year, the organization got hit with a $5 million fine and, perhaps most importantly, Houston's first- and second-round picks in the next two drafts were taken away. For a team that got good by drafting well and won a World Series with all that homegrown talent, that might be the biggest blow of them all.
The MLB penalties weren't enough for Houston owner Jim Craine, though. A few hours after Luhnow and Hinch's suspensions were announced, Craine did the Commissioner one better. He fired them both. Manfred and Craine both acknowledged that it was mostly a "player-driven" scheme, but Luhnow and Hinch were the ones in charge. And as such, they were the ones responsible for it.
Keep in mind this is the same organization that went out of its way to try and not fire Brandon Taubman, even though that was the only logical (and acceptable) outcome in that situation. After trying to pass the blame and accuse others, they didn't fire him until MLB forced their hand...days later. And the Astros' incredibly terrible mishandling of the Taubman debacle likely had a hand in the severity of their punishment for the sign-stealing. (Taubman, by the way, also received a one-year suspension.)
There was obviously a big problem with the culture in Houston. One that considered Taubman's actions no big deal and condoned a sophisticated system of electronic sign-stealing (which continued even after the Commissioner sent a league-wide memo to all clubs reiterating that the practice was prohibited). That culture emphasized winning over everything, ethics be damned. And that culture was driven by Jeff Luhnow and A.J. Hinch.
They've both claimed that they weren't directly involved in the sign stealing. Luhnow accepted that he's responsible since it happened under his watch, but also said he would've stopped it had he known (sorry, but I have trouble believing that). Hinch evidently DID know what was going on, but did nothing to stop it. If he had, it would've. But how much they both knew and their level of involvement is irrelevant. They were the proverbial "adults in the room." And by not doing anything to stop it, they were complicit.
It's about so much more than sign stealing, too. It's an integrity of the game issue. That's why Rob Manfred came down so hard on the Astros. He even said that while he can't prove their banging-on-the-garbage-can scheme gave them a competitive advantage, the perception across Baseball was that it did. And that was enough for him to come down hard. Harder than people expected, in fact.
Of course, this issue isn't limited to the Astros (or the Red Sox). No one's claiming it is. It's been a problem throughout Baseball ever since replay became a part of the game a few years ago. Which is part of the reason why MLB nailed the Astros so severely. The message has been sent. Using video to steal an opponent's signs WILL NOT be tolerated!
"Everybody's doing it" isn't a defense! The fact of the matter is the Astros are the ones who got caught, so they're the ones who had to pay the price. No one knows if they would've won the 2017 World Series anyway, but the optics certainly aren't good. That surely came into play, too. Whether or not the Astros cheated their way to a championship is irrelevant. The perception is that they did, and it's going to be very hard for them to shake that.
While MLB acknowledged that the sign stealing was mostly player-driven, they were quick to point out who they considered the mastermind of the whole scheme. Alex Cora's name is all over the report. He was Houston's bench coach in 2017, then left to become manager of the Red Sox. Boston went on to win the World Series in Cora's first season as manager in 2018.
However, the Red Sox are subject to a separate investigation regarding alleged electronic sign stealing. And now that the investigation into the Astros is over, MLB will turn its full attention to Boston. Although, it's not hard to find the common link between the two teams.
Cora wasn't suspended for his involvement in Houston's scheme, but that's only because MLB is waiting to conclude its investigation into the Red Sox. Make no mistake, though. He's going to get nailed. And, if the punishments handed down on Monday are any indication, Cora's will be far worse. After all, Hinch and Lunhow were given one-year suspensions even though they had no direct involvement. Cora wasn't just directly involved, he was directly involved in two separate incidents.
Whether or not he's fired, it's safe to say Alex Cora won't be managing the Boston Red Sox in 2020...and probably beyond that. What seems more likely is that he's managed his final game fo for the Red Sox. Judging by the degree of his involvement, it's reasonable to assume Cora's suspension will be significantly longer than those of his now-unemployed bosses in Houston. And it's hard to believe he'll be able to get another Major League managing job anytime soon...if at all.
With the suspensions of Hinch and Luhnow, and the coming suspension of Cora, MLB has hopefully gotten its point across. Stealing signs the old-fashioned way is fine. But when you start using technology to cheat, that's crossing the line. That's affecting the integrity of the game. And when the game's integrity is at stake, expect to pay the price. Just ask the Black Sox or Pete Rose.
Saturday, January 11, 2020
NFL 100: Playoffs, Week 2
It looks like the Browns are poised to hire Josh McDaniels, so, before getting into this week's playoff matchups, some thoughts on the five new head coaches. Assuming McDaniels goes to Cleveland, two teams made absolutely great hires. Two will be looking for coaches again within the next three years. And Carolina, well, I don't know what they're doing!
Dallas hit an absolute home run with Mike McCarthy. Jerry Jones wanted a coach with NFL experience, and McCarthy has that and then some. Things may have ended badly in Green Bay, but he led one of the NFL's other marquee franchises to nine playoff appearances in 12 years. And, he won a Super Bowl, which is more than I can say about any other Cowboys coach over the last 25 years. McDaniels, meanwhile, assuming he doesn't leave the Browns hanging the way he did the Colts two years ago, is the perfect guy in Cleveland. He almost got that job twice previously, and the Browns already have a talented roster. With the right coach, it won't take much to build a winner there. And McDaniels seems like the right coach.
As for the Giants, what are they doing? They also hired a Patriots assistant. Joe Judge. Who's never been a head coach at any level and was completely unimpressive in his introductory press conference. They whiffed on their last two coaching hires. And they go with an unproven guy whose only claim to fame is being an assistant for Nick Saban and Bill Belichick? The Redskins, meanwhile, went with the only guy they interviewed, Ron Rivera (so the Rooney Rule only applies one way?). Frankly, I don't think it's the coaches that are the problem in Washington. Dan Snyder is. He's the Jim Dolan of football, and any coach who works for him is resigning himself to the same fate as anybody dumb enough to coach the Knicks.
Then there's Rivera's former team, the Carolina Panthers. Other owners are not happy with Panthers owner David Tepper, who gave seven years and $60 million to a college coach with all of one season as an NFL assistant on his resume. He might've thought he had to do that or else Matt Rhule would go somewhere else, but he's making quite a commitment by overpaying him so ridiculously. And, frankly, it seems doomed for failure. There's no way Rhule lasts all seven years.
Now on to the Divisional Playoffs. No team without a bye has been to the Super Bowl since the 2013 season, and that streak seems likely to continue. Because the one team that played last week that seemed capable of getting there--New Orleans--was upset by the Vikings. As a result, we don't get the Saints-Packers game we were all looking forward to. It's Packers-Seahawks instead. And there won't be a Patriots-Chiefs rematch, either. Which is just fine with Kansas City.
And I must say, it's refreshing to see they changed the rules and New England isn't required to have a home game this week anymore. As Cris Collinsworth said, it'll have a different feel without them lurking around. (And could Tony Romo have kissed Brady's ass any more at the end of the Patriots-Titans game? He's not going anywhere, Tony!)
Vikings (11-6) at 49ers (13-3): San Francisco-The biggest beneficiary of the Saints' shocking loss last week (other than, obviously, the Vikings) might've been San Francisco. The 49ers went from potentially playing the Seahawks, who already beat them in Santa Clara this season, to facing the Vikings. And they saw their Super Bowl odds get a massive boost as a result.
Kirk Cousins finally got his big time moment last week with that beautiful game-winning touchdown pass to Kyle Rudolph. Now it's Jimmy Garoppolo's turn. The 49ers may be the No. 1 seed in the NFC, but they'll only go as far as their quarterback takes them. He's had plenty of experience watching Brady from the sidelines. But he's never had one himself. This is his chance, though. San Francisco is a better team than Minnesota. The 49ers will host the NFC Championship Game.
Titans (10-7) at Ravens (14-2): Baltimore-My favorite part of Tennessee's upset over New England is how Mike Vrabel beat the Patriots by doing things Bill Belichick would do. He deferred the coin toss for the Belichick-patented double possession. Then there was the brilliant false start-after-false start strategy to waste time in the fourth quarter. I was expecting that to backfire when Brady led New England to a touchdown with 30 seconds left and the Titans didn't have those 90 seconds they wasted. But it was so great that it didn't!
For their reward, the Titans got a trip to play the best team in the NFL and prohibitive Super Bowl favorites. And, unlike the Patriots, the Ravens have both a formidable defense AND a formidable offense, led by MVP frontrunner Lamar Jackson. I'm simply not sure Tennessee has enough weapons to keep up. They did the entire NFL-watching world outside of New England a huge favor last week. But their run will come to an end in Baltimore.
Texans (11-6) at Chiefs (12-4): Kansas City-Maybe last week was the start of something for the Texans. That was an impressive comeback against the Bills, then the Titans did them a huge favor by sending them to Kansas City, where they won earlier this season, instead of Baltimore. And against the Chiefs, the Texans have a much better chance of finally getting over that Divisional Playoff hump and losing that distinction as the only team in the NFL never to play in a Conference Championship Game.
However, the Titans also did the Kansas City Chiefs a huge favor. The Houston matchup is far more beneficial for them than facing Bradicheck in January. Although, I'm not sure it would've made a difference. Because I have a feeling about the Chiefs this year. Especially with the way they played in December. This team got hot at the right time, and the bye week is only going to help them. The Texans will have to wait at least another year for that maiden AFC Championship Game appearance.
Seahawks (12-5) at Packers (13-3): Green Bay-Of the four road teams, Seattle has the most realistic chance of coming away with a win. After all, the Seahawks are 8-1 on the road this season after winning in Philadelphia for a second time last week. Can they make it two straight playoff road victories by stopping the Packers at the Frozen Tundra, though? That seems like a tall order.
Despite going 13-3 and clinching a playoff bye, the Packers still feel like they have something to prove. They "didn't beat anybody" and "aren't as good" as the 49ers or Seahawks, or even the since-eliminated Saints. However, they're not playing New Orleans, which would've been a much tougher matchup. And is it really a good idea to count out Aaron Rodgers at Lambeau Field in January? The Chesseheads will have plenty to cheer about, as the Cal grad sends his team to the Bay Area next week.
Last Week: 2-2
Overall: 156-103-1
Friday, January 10, 2020
No Protests In Tokyo
As the Winter Youth Olympics get underway in Lausanne, Switzerland (the IOC's own backyard), the IOC took care of some housekeeping items. They elected some new members and rubber-stamped Gangwon Province in South Korea (aka PyeongChang) as the next Winter Youth Olympic host in 2024. They also made a pair of announcements involving athletes that will almost certainly come into play during the Tokyo Games.
I'll start with the easy one. They further relaxed the controversial "Rule 40," which had been the subject of legal challenges in a number of countries. Under the previous interpretation, "Rule 40" essentially prohibited athletes from using their name or likeness for commercial purposes in the period directly before and during the Olympics unless it was for an official Olympic sponsor.
This rule was designed to protect the interests of Olympic sponsors, which pay a lot of money for that distinction. However, it had an adverse effect on the athletes since it essentially prevented them from capitalizing on the achievement of making the Olympic team at the most valuable time of their careers.
They eventually realized that this was inherently unfair, so they came up with a compromise. Athletes are allowed to participate in advertising campaigns with their personal sponsors, as long as they're generic, are in place before the athlete makes the Olympic team, and doesn't use the trademarked Olympic terms and logos. This is important. Because those sponsors shouldn't have access to those logos or give any sort of implication that they're involved with the Olympics. Not when other companies (which may be their direct competitors) are shelling out billions of dollars to the IOC for the privilege to use them.
The athletes, meanwhile, can do both. They're Olympians. They've earned the right to refer to themselves as such. They're also represented by their individual sponsors, so it's reasonable that they'd want to thank them and let them share in their accomplishment (which in many cases wouldn't be possible without that support). In the past, they couldn't do that. Now they can.
In a way, it's like NCAA recruiting. Coaches can't say anything directly about a potential recruit until they sign an NLI, but there's no stopping the athlete from doing it. The directive from compliance offices is always "click, don't type," meaning it's fine to retweet something from the athlete, but saying something directly could potentially be considered an NCAA violation.
Under the new guidelines, Olympic athletes are free to thank and receive congratulations from their personal sponsors, as well as participating in generic advertising. Their individual sponsors, however, are still limited in what they can do, which is necessary to provide the Olympic sponsors with exclusivity in their areas and shield them from ambush marketing (which was the original intent of the rule in the first place).
There are undoubtedly going to be some smaller organizations that are still upset they can't promote their affiliation with an Olympic athlete, but that was never going to happen. Not with the amount of money involved. And, frankly, this was a good compromise. The athletes earned the right to call themselves "Olympians." Not their sponsors! Now they can thank the people who helped them get there. Including their sponsors.
While everyone knew changes to Rule 40 were coming, the other new piece of Olympic legislation introduced on Thursday was a little more surprising. In Tokyo, athletes will be prohibited from any sort of racial, political or religious demonstration at any Olympic site or venue, including the field of play and medals ceremonies. Anyone who violates this rule will be subject to three-pronged discipline from their National Olympic Committee, International Federation AND the IOC.
It's important to note that this came directly from the IOC Athletes' Commission. Because that's basically the athletes saying to each other, "There's a time and a place, and the Olympics aren't either." It's disrespectful to their competitors. They've worked for years for their Olympic moment, yet the only thing anybody's going to talk about is the protest that hijacked it.
Athlete activists are nothing new. In fact, they've become more and more prevalent in recent years. Colin Kaepernick and Megan Rapione are obviously examples 1 and 1A, but they aren't the only ones. The last straw might've been last summer, when Americans Race Imboden and Gwen Berry protested on back-to-back days at the Pan Am Games. This on the heels of the World Swimming Championships, where Australia's Mack Horton and Great Britain's Duncan Scott both received widespread attention for refusing to share the podium with China's Sun Yang, who was competing despite a pending doping suspension.
Whether you agree with Horton and Scott or not, you can't argue that it wasn't a bad look all around. It was embarrassing for FINA, disrespectful to Sun (which was the entire point), and incredibly selfish. They took a World Championships medals ceremony, something that is designed to celebrate the achievement of three athletes, and made it all about themselves.
And no one is telling the athletes not to have an opinion or that they can't share it. They can talk about whatever they like on social media or in press conferences or during interviews. Just leave it off the field. People came to see an athletic competition. Not a political demonstration. And you should respect your competitors in the same way you would want them to respect you.
Not everyone is keen on these new regulations. I even saw one article accusing the IOC of hypocrisy by enacting them. It's an issue that concerned the IOC, yes, but it's the athletes themselves who established these guidelines. They're the only ones who can see it both ways. And they're the ones who decided that any sort of protest or demonstration, no matter how legitimate, destroys the dignity of the competition and diminishes the achievement that's supposed to be celebrated.
Let's not kid ourselves, either. There's still going to be plenty of political statements made by athletes at the Tokyo Olympics. There will be outspoken critics of the Russians who are allowed to compete. There will be Americans who'll want to make it known which candidate they support in the Presidential election. And there will probably be that old Olympic standard--the Islamic athlete who refuses to face an Israeli opponent.
What these restrictions aim to do, though, is limit the protests to the appropriate forums. Because that's not what people are coming to see or what the competition deserves. Athletes might want to get their point across, only for it to become divisive because of the way they chose to express it. Is that the message you want to send? The answer is "No." That point has now been made. Very clearly.
I'll start with the easy one. They further relaxed the controversial "Rule 40," which had been the subject of legal challenges in a number of countries. Under the previous interpretation, "Rule 40" essentially prohibited athletes from using their name or likeness for commercial purposes in the period directly before and during the Olympics unless it was for an official Olympic sponsor.
This rule was designed to protect the interests of Olympic sponsors, which pay a lot of money for that distinction. However, it had an adverse effect on the athletes since it essentially prevented them from capitalizing on the achievement of making the Olympic team at the most valuable time of their careers.
They eventually realized that this was inherently unfair, so they came up with a compromise. Athletes are allowed to participate in advertising campaigns with their personal sponsors, as long as they're generic, are in place before the athlete makes the Olympic team, and doesn't use the trademarked Olympic terms and logos. This is important. Because those sponsors shouldn't have access to those logos or give any sort of implication that they're involved with the Olympics. Not when other companies (which may be their direct competitors) are shelling out billions of dollars to the IOC for the privilege to use them.
The athletes, meanwhile, can do both. They're Olympians. They've earned the right to refer to themselves as such. They're also represented by their individual sponsors, so it's reasonable that they'd want to thank them and let them share in their accomplishment (which in many cases wouldn't be possible without that support). In the past, they couldn't do that. Now they can.
In a way, it's like NCAA recruiting. Coaches can't say anything directly about a potential recruit until they sign an NLI, but there's no stopping the athlete from doing it. The directive from compliance offices is always "click, don't type," meaning it's fine to retweet something from the athlete, but saying something directly could potentially be considered an NCAA violation.
Under the new guidelines, Olympic athletes are free to thank and receive congratulations from their personal sponsors, as well as participating in generic advertising. Their individual sponsors, however, are still limited in what they can do, which is necessary to provide the Olympic sponsors with exclusivity in their areas and shield them from ambush marketing (which was the original intent of the rule in the first place).
There are undoubtedly going to be some smaller organizations that are still upset they can't promote their affiliation with an Olympic athlete, but that was never going to happen. Not with the amount of money involved. And, frankly, this was a good compromise. The athletes earned the right to call themselves "Olympians." Not their sponsors! Now they can thank the people who helped them get there. Including their sponsors.
While everyone knew changes to Rule 40 were coming, the other new piece of Olympic legislation introduced on Thursday was a little more surprising. In Tokyo, athletes will be prohibited from any sort of racial, political or religious demonstration at any Olympic site or venue, including the field of play and medals ceremonies. Anyone who violates this rule will be subject to three-pronged discipline from their National Olympic Committee, International Federation AND the IOC.
It's important to note that this came directly from the IOC Athletes' Commission. Because that's basically the athletes saying to each other, "There's a time and a place, and the Olympics aren't either." It's disrespectful to their competitors. They've worked for years for their Olympic moment, yet the only thing anybody's going to talk about is the protest that hijacked it.
Athlete activists are nothing new. In fact, they've become more and more prevalent in recent years. Colin Kaepernick and Megan Rapione are obviously examples 1 and 1A, but they aren't the only ones. The last straw might've been last summer, when Americans Race Imboden and Gwen Berry protested on back-to-back days at the Pan Am Games. This on the heels of the World Swimming Championships, where Australia's Mack Horton and Great Britain's Duncan Scott both received widespread attention for refusing to share the podium with China's Sun Yang, who was competing despite a pending doping suspension.
Whether you agree with Horton and Scott or not, you can't argue that it wasn't a bad look all around. It was embarrassing for FINA, disrespectful to Sun (which was the entire point), and incredibly selfish. They took a World Championships medals ceremony, something that is designed to celebrate the achievement of three athletes, and made it all about themselves.
And no one is telling the athletes not to have an opinion or that they can't share it. They can talk about whatever they like on social media or in press conferences or during interviews. Just leave it off the field. People came to see an athletic competition. Not a political demonstration. And you should respect your competitors in the same way you would want them to respect you.
Not everyone is keen on these new regulations. I even saw one article accusing the IOC of hypocrisy by enacting them. It's an issue that concerned the IOC, yes, but it's the athletes themselves who established these guidelines. They're the only ones who can see it both ways. And they're the ones who decided that any sort of protest or demonstration, no matter how legitimate, destroys the dignity of the competition and diminishes the achievement that's supposed to be celebrated.
Let's not kid ourselves, either. There's still going to be plenty of political statements made by athletes at the Tokyo Olympics. There will be outspoken critics of the Russians who are allowed to compete. There will be Americans who'll want to make it known which candidate they support in the Presidential election. And there will probably be that old Olympic standard--the Islamic athlete who refuses to face an Israeli opponent.
What these restrictions aim to do, though, is limit the protests to the appropriate forums. Because that's not what people are coming to see or what the competition deserves. Athletes might want to get their point across, only for it to become divisive because of the way they chose to express it. Is that the message you want to send? The answer is "No." That point has now been made. Very clearly.
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
Fixing the NFL 100 Team
When the NFL announced that, as a part of the league's centennial celebration, a blue-ribbon panel would select an NFL 100 All-Time Team, you knew it was going to be the subject of massive debate. They even had an entire hour-long postgame show on NFL Network after the latest members of the team were announced each week dedicated to that very topic. And, I've gotta say, some of the criticism is justified. Because I have no idea how they came up with some of the players on the All-Time Team!
Don't get me wrong. They're all Hall of Famers, and they're all worthy of having their busts in Canton. But I really question some of the selections as the "greatest of all-time" at their particular positions. The NFL has been around for 100 years. This team was designed to honor the best of the best. For the most part, they did a good job. But, beyond the obvious selections, some of the choices definitely left people scratching their heads.
For starters, there are only three active players on the list (Tom Brady, Adam Vinatieri, Larry Fitzgerald). Rob Gronkowski was still active when they voted, so, for all intents and purposes, he counts as an "active" player too. There wasn't a single active defensive player who made the team. So, according to the experts on the panel, none of the 39 greatest defensive players in history is currently playing in the NFL!
There also isn't a single running back who's played an NFL snap at any point in the last 15 years on the team. I understand the modern NFL is built around the passing game, but you're telling me that none of the great running backs of the 2000s belongs on the team?! Those seem like two big misses! Also, how was there no place for Jim Thorpe?!
LaDainian Tomlinson, who was a finalist but not selected, was the first to bring up the running back issue on the very first reaction show. They then had Peter King as a guest on one of the reaction shows, and he offered a theory as to why there were so few active players on the list. The NFL told them to encompass the entire 100 years. As a result, he thinks almost too much emphasis was put on players from the early days, and the current players were the ones who suffered.
Another voter who appeared on the reaction show one week suggested another possible reason why there were so few current players on the final team. Their career arc isn't complete, which makes it difficult to judge them compared to those whose careers have been over for years. To an extent, she has a point. Antonio Brown was her example. When they voted two years ago, AB was arguably on a Hall of Fame trajectory. We all know what's happened since! (She also made a passionate case for TO to be on the team, though, so I'm beginning to wonder what her criteria for an "all-time great" is.)
With all that in mind (and with no offense to the blue-ribbon panel), I'd like to offer some suggestions for players who should've been named to the NFL 100 All-Time Team instead, as well as the players they'd be replacing...
Quarterback: Drew Brees and Terry Bradshaw for John Elway and Dan Marino
I started off 7-for-7 on the quarterbacks, which got me feeling pretty good. Then I missed the last three. I had Bart Starr instead of Roger Staubach, but I had Staubach 11th, so that selection doesn't bother me. Why are John Elway and Dan Marino on the All-Time Team, though? I can kinda understand Marino since he set a lot of records, but what did Elway do that makes him one of the best of all-time? Terry Bradshaw won four Super Bowls, which is tied with Joe Montana for second-most all-time. Elway and Marino went a combined 2-4 in Super Bowls. And who broke all of Marino's records? Oh, that's right...Drew Brees!
Running Back: Marshall Faulk for Earl Campbell
Running back might've been the most competitive position of them all for the voters. They only had 12 spots, and there are a number of worthy names who didn't make the cut. Which is really what makes the selection of Earl Campbell so glaring. And, I agree with LaDainian Tomlinson that the lack of running backs from the 2000s isn't a good look. Which is why Marshall Faulk, the best two-way running back in NFL history, is my selection to replace Campbell on the All-Time Team. I'd also move Gale Sayers to kick returner, if only to open up a spot for Jim Thorpe, Red Grange or Bronko Nagurski (the only player on the 75th anniversary not on the 100th).
Wide Receiver: Cris Carter for Paul Warfield
First off, why were there only 10 wide receivers? It seems like there should've been at least as many wide receivers as running backs. Wide receiver also must've been a tough position for the voters because of how prominent the passing game has become in the modern NFL, thus skewing the all-time receiving numbers towards recent players. I still think Cris Carter is one of the 10 greatest receivers ever, though. He's certainly ahead of Paul Warfield. So is Lynn Swann, but I'm not sure who else I'd take off. As for TO, I'm not even sure he's in my top 15.
Offensive Tackle: Jackie Slater for Walter Jones
Jackie Slater's omission was perhaps the most surprising of any. Especially since Walter Jones made the squad. No offense to Walter Jones, but he was no Jackie Slater. He wasn't a Joe Thomas, either. Which actually gets me thinking...where's Joe Thomas?
Defensive End: Michael Strahan and J.J. Watt for Bill Hewitt and Lee Roy Selmon
Defensive end is one position where the voters really missed the mark. That's where the emphasis on historical players over recent ones really stands out. Because J.J. Watt (the active player Peter King was really advocating) is definitely one of the greatest defensive players in history and should be on this team! So should Michael Strahan, and not just because he played for the Giants!
Defensive Tackle: Warren Sapp for John Randle
Remember how good that Bucs defense of the early 2000s was? Apparently the voters didn't! Because I can't fathom how Warren Sapp, the best player on that defense and one of the most dominant defensive tackles ever was left off! Especially because they put John Randle on it, even though Randle and Sapp played at the same time and Sapp was better.
Linebacker: Ray Nitschke for Bobby Bell
It was surprising that Dick Butkus was the only Bears middle linebacker selected. I couldn't think of who I would take off to include Mike Singletary, though. However, I would make one change. We don't need both Chiefs linebackers from the 60s on there. Not when Ray Nitschke is missing. There's a shockingly small number of Lombardi Packers on the All-Time Team. And nobody says Lombardi Packers more than Ray Nitschke.
Safety: Troy Polamalu for Jack Christiansen
Another example where the historical player got the nod over the more recent player. And with only six choices, those slights become even more glaring. But, then again, safety is one of the most underrepresented positions in Canton, so that shouldn't be a surprise. After the obvious choices (Ronnie Lott, Ed Reed, Larry Wilson), there were only three spots left. One of them should've gone to Troy Polamalu. Also, a question about Polamalu...How long will it take the sculptor to get his hair right on his Hall of Fame bust? Have they already started working on it? It's only eight months until Polamalu's induction, after all.
This was an impossible task for this selection committee. I'm sure they were honored to be asked to serve on the panel, then they get jokers like me telling them where they got it wrong. But, you'd have to think, if this was an NFL 150, there would've been room for both the players who made it and some of the deserving guys they omitted...and there'd still be plenty of controversy and debate over the selections!
Don't get me wrong. They're all Hall of Famers, and they're all worthy of having their busts in Canton. But I really question some of the selections as the "greatest of all-time" at their particular positions. The NFL has been around for 100 years. This team was designed to honor the best of the best. For the most part, they did a good job. But, beyond the obvious selections, some of the choices definitely left people scratching their heads.
For starters, there are only three active players on the list (Tom Brady, Adam Vinatieri, Larry Fitzgerald). Rob Gronkowski was still active when they voted, so, for all intents and purposes, he counts as an "active" player too. There wasn't a single active defensive player who made the team. So, according to the experts on the panel, none of the 39 greatest defensive players in history is currently playing in the NFL!
There also isn't a single running back who's played an NFL snap at any point in the last 15 years on the team. I understand the modern NFL is built around the passing game, but you're telling me that none of the great running backs of the 2000s belongs on the team?! Those seem like two big misses! Also, how was there no place for Jim Thorpe?!
LaDainian Tomlinson, who was a finalist but not selected, was the first to bring up the running back issue on the very first reaction show. They then had Peter King as a guest on one of the reaction shows, and he offered a theory as to why there were so few active players on the list. The NFL told them to encompass the entire 100 years. As a result, he thinks almost too much emphasis was put on players from the early days, and the current players were the ones who suffered.
Another voter who appeared on the reaction show one week suggested another possible reason why there were so few current players on the final team. Their career arc isn't complete, which makes it difficult to judge them compared to those whose careers have been over for years. To an extent, she has a point. Antonio Brown was her example. When they voted two years ago, AB was arguably on a Hall of Fame trajectory. We all know what's happened since! (She also made a passionate case for TO to be on the team, though, so I'm beginning to wonder what her criteria for an "all-time great" is.)
With all that in mind (and with no offense to the blue-ribbon panel), I'd like to offer some suggestions for players who should've been named to the NFL 100 All-Time Team instead, as well as the players they'd be replacing...
Quarterback: Drew Brees and Terry Bradshaw for John Elway and Dan Marino
I started off 7-for-7 on the quarterbacks, which got me feeling pretty good. Then I missed the last three. I had Bart Starr instead of Roger Staubach, but I had Staubach 11th, so that selection doesn't bother me. Why are John Elway and Dan Marino on the All-Time Team, though? I can kinda understand Marino since he set a lot of records, but what did Elway do that makes him one of the best of all-time? Terry Bradshaw won four Super Bowls, which is tied with Joe Montana for second-most all-time. Elway and Marino went a combined 2-4 in Super Bowls. And who broke all of Marino's records? Oh, that's right...Drew Brees!
Running Back: Marshall Faulk for Earl Campbell
Running back might've been the most competitive position of them all for the voters. They only had 12 spots, and there are a number of worthy names who didn't make the cut. Which is really what makes the selection of Earl Campbell so glaring. And, I agree with LaDainian Tomlinson that the lack of running backs from the 2000s isn't a good look. Which is why Marshall Faulk, the best two-way running back in NFL history, is my selection to replace Campbell on the All-Time Team. I'd also move Gale Sayers to kick returner, if only to open up a spot for Jim Thorpe, Red Grange or Bronko Nagurski (the only player on the 75th anniversary not on the 100th).
Wide Receiver: Cris Carter for Paul Warfield
First off, why were there only 10 wide receivers? It seems like there should've been at least as many wide receivers as running backs. Wide receiver also must've been a tough position for the voters because of how prominent the passing game has become in the modern NFL, thus skewing the all-time receiving numbers towards recent players. I still think Cris Carter is one of the 10 greatest receivers ever, though. He's certainly ahead of Paul Warfield. So is Lynn Swann, but I'm not sure who else I'd take off. As for TO, I'm not even sure he's in my top 15.
Offensive Tackle: Jackie Slater for Walter Jones
Jackie Slater's omission was perhaps the most surprising of any. Especially since Walter Jones made the squad. No offense to Walter Jones, but he was no Jackie Slater. He wasn't a Joe Thomas, either. Which actually gets me thinking...where's Joe Thomas?
Defensive End: Michael Strahan and J.J. Watt for Bill Hewitt and Lee Roy Selmon
Defensive end is one position where the voters really missed the mark. That's where the emphasis on historical players over recent ones really stands out. Because J.J. Watt (the active player Peter King was really advocating) is definitely one of the greatest defensive players in history and should be on this team! So should Michael Strahan, and not just because he played for the Giants!
Defensive Tackle: Warren Sapp for John Randle
Remember how good that Bucs defense of the early 2000s was? Apparently the voters didn't! Because I can't fathom how Warren Sapp, the best player on that defense and one of the most dominant defensive tackles ever was left off! Especially because they put John Randle on it, even though Randle and Sapp played at the same time and Sapp was better.
Linebacker: Ray Nitschke for Bobby Bell
It was surprising that Dick Butkus was the only Bears middle linebacker selected. I couldn't think of who I would take off to include Mike Singletary, though. However, I would make one change. We don't need both Chiefs linebackers from the 60s on there. Not when Ray Nitschke is missing. There's a shockingly small number of Lombardi Packers on the All-Time Team. And nobody says Lombardi Packers more than Ray Nitschke.
Safety: Troy Polamalu for Jack Christiansen
Another example where the historical player got the nod over the more recent player. And with only six choices, those slights become even more glaring. But, then again, safety is one of the most underrepresented positions in Canton, so that shouldn't be a surprise. After the obvious choices (Ronnie Lott, Ed Reed, Larry Wilson), there were only three spots left. One of them should've gone to Troy Polamalu. Also, a question about Polamalu...How long will it take the sculptor to get his hair right on his Hall of Fame bust? Have they already started working on it? It's only eight months until Polamalu's induction, after all.
This was an impossible task for this selection committee. I'm sure they were honored to be asked to serve on the panel, then they get jokers like me telling them where they got it wrong. But, you'd have to think, if this was an NFL 150, there would've been room for both the players who made it and some of the deserving guys they omitted...and there'd still be plenty of controversy and debate over the selections!
Friday, January 3, 2020
NFL 100: Playoffs, Week 1
We made it! It's playoff time in the NFL, and Week 17 sure didn't disappoint in providing drama. The 49ers got the defensive stop they needed to win the NFC West and the conference's No. 1 seed. The Titans took all the suspense out of the AFC wild card race by dominating the Texans. The Dolphins, meanwhile, pulled the shocker of all shockers, beating the Patriots in Foxboro to take New England's first-round bye and give it to Kansas City.
It'll be both weird and fun to see New England actually playing on Wild Card Weekend, then potentially playing an actual road Divisional Playoff game for the first time since the 2006 season. They're joined by three teams that have never won the Super Bowl, which could actually work in their favor. The first three champions of 2019 were first-time winners (Blues, Raptors, Nationals). So, if the NFL is going to follow that trend and make it a perfect 4-for-4 with first-time champions in the 2019 seasons, it bodes well for the Bills-Texans winner, as well as the Titans and Vikings.
Speaking of the Vikings, they head to New Orleans for a rematch of the "Minneapolis Miracle." The Saints, incredibly, went 13-3 and didn't get a bye! As a result, they've got to play an extra game, then travel to Green Bay instead of staying at the Superdome. Will that make a difference? Or, is it even possible that they'll find another excruciating way to be eliminated from the playoffs this season?
AFC
Bills (10-6) at Texans (10-6): Houston-The playoffs start with what seems to have become the annual Saturday afternoon game in Houston. And this is a tremendous opportunity for both the Bills and Texans. They both lost last week, but this matchup was already locked in, so neither seemed to care. This is the one that matters, and they've both got a great shot to turn around their recent playoff history. Buffalo is looking for its first playoff win since 1995, while Houston is the only team in the league that has never played in a Conference Championship Game.
Buffalo's 10-6 record is by no means a fluke. They belong here. But can they get enough offense against a Houston defense that will only get better with the return of J.J. Watt? The Texans seem to follow the same script every year. They lose one or two games to a middle-of the-road team, but play great when the stakes are the highest. I don't see anything different happening here. The Texans move on, and the Bills have to wait another year.
Titans (9-7) at Patriots (12-4): New England-Welcome to Wild Card Weekend, Bradicheck! It's the round of playoff games played before the Divisional round, where it's no longer a requirement that you host. And, yes, that made your road to a fourth straight Super Bowl a lot more difficult. Although, it might be a good thing that you have an extra game to play. Because that offense needs as much time on the field as it can get!
Their opponent won't be a pushover, either. Ever since Ryan Tannehill took over for Marcus Mariota, the Titans' offense has been very formidable. Which means New England will have to rely on its strength--its defense--to keep Tennessee at bay. Although, the offense will need to hold its own and come up with a big play or two if the Patriots want to guarantee themselves a trip to Kansas City. Make no mistake, though. Their fans may be shell-shocked by the Patriots' playoff home game coming a week earlier, but Belichick always makes sure the players take it one game at a time. They'll do just that and send the Titans packing.
NFC
Vikings (10-6) at Saints (13-3): New Orleans-Two years ago, they played an absolute classic in the Divisional Playoffs. They also played a memorable NFC Championship Game following the 2009 season. So what does the third installment of the Saints-Vikings playoff rivalry have in store for us? Offense. Plenty of offense.
This one has all the makings of a shootout, especially with Drew Brees slinging passes to Michael Thomas left and right. New Orleans will need something more than that to win, though. They'll need their defense to step up, too. Make no mistake, though. The 13-3 Saints are the best team playing this weekend. They're legitimate Super Bowl contenders (see below). And this is probably their last time playing in the Superdome this season. I'd like to think this game will be close, but I can see the Saints getting up big early and running away with it.
Seahawks (11-5) at Eagles (9-7): Seattle-To everyone who said the NFC East didn't "deserve" a playoff team, guess what? The Eagles don't just belong, they're going to be very formidable. Yes, it was four division games against three teams that fired their coaches, but a four-game winning streak to end the season is a four-game winning streak to end the season. And it got them a home playoff game against a team that has to travel cross country for it.
Obviously, Seattle would've preferred to be at home. But this is a different Seahawks team than in years past. They're 7-1 on the road this season. And the Eagles are a good opponent for them. Philly won just four games outside the NFC East (although two of those wins were over the Packers and Bills). As a result, Seattle is the only road favorite of Wild Card Weekend. The Seahawks beat the Eagles 17-9 in Week 12. Their playoff encounter should be a little higher-scoring, but the result should be the same. The Seahawks win.
Super Bowl LIV: Kansas City over New Orleans
Baltimore enters the playoffs as the favorite to win the Super Bowl...and should be. The Ravens have the best offense in football, as well as a tremendous defense. They've won 12 straight since starting the season 2-2, winning both blowouts and close games alike. However, with all that being said, I don't even see them getting to Miami. Because Andy Reid's Kansas City Chiefs are on a similar roll. The Chiefs are peaking at just the right time, winning six straight and earning a first-round bye. And their defense has been unreal during the streak. That's why I see them finishing what they started last year. Kansas City beats New England, then Baltimore, and makes its first Super Bowl appearance in 50 years.
In the NFC, experts are rightly saying that San Francisco's Super Bowl odds increased dramatically with last Sunday night's win in Seattle that gave them the 1-seed. I 100 percent agree with that. The 49ers were not going to win three road games. Frankly, I don't see them winning two home games, either. Because, I've said it all year, and I'll say it again now--the Saints are the best team in the NFC. A lot has been made about the fact it's been six years since a team that didn't have a first-round bye reached the Super Bowl. I think that changes this year. Because the Saints will beat the Packers in Lambeau, then go to San Francisco and avenge their loss in that Week 14 instant classic (which would've made New Orleans the 1-seed had they won instead).
So, I've got that Chiefs-Saints Super Bowl one year later. The Saints back in a Miami Super Bowl 10 years after their last. And Andy Reid finally back for the second time, 15 years after taking the Eagles to the Promised Land. He's one of the greatest coaches of his generation, but doesn't have a Super Bowl ring to show for it. That changes this year. Kansas City's roll will continue, and the Chiefs will end the NFL's 100th season the same way they ended its 50th (as well as the AFL's entire existence). By lifting the Lombardi Trophy.
Last Week: 10-6
Overall: 154-101-1
It'll be both weird and fun to see New England actually playing on Wild Card Weekend, then potentially playing an actual road Divisional Playoff game for the first time since the 2006 season. They're joined by three teams that have never won the Super Bowl, which could actually work in their favor. The first three champions of 2019 were first-time winners (Blues, Raptors, Nationals). So, if the NFL is going to follow that trend and make it a perfect 4-for-4 with first-time champions in the 2019 seasons, it bodes well for the Bills-Texans winner, as well as the Titans and Vikings.
Speaking of the Vikings, they head to New Orleans for a rematch of the "Minneapolis Miracle." The Saints, incredibly, went 13-3 and didn't get a bye! As a result, they've got to play an extra game, then travel to Green Bay instead of staying at the Superdome. Will that make a difference? Or, is it even possible that they'll find another excruciating way to be eliminated from the playoffs this season?
AFC
Bills (10-6) at Texans (10-6): Houston-The playoffs start with what seems to have become the annual Saturday afternoon game in Houston. And this is a tremendous opportunity for both the Bills and Texans. They both lost last week, but this matchup was already locked in, so neither seemed to care. This is the one that matters, and they've both got a great shot to turn around their recent playoff history. Buffalo is looking for its first playoff win since 1995, while Houston is the only team in the league that has never played in a Conference Championship Game.
Buffalo's 10-6 record is by no means a fluke. They belong here. But can they get enough offense against a Houston defense that will only get better with the return of J.J. Watt? The Texans seem to follow the same script every year. They lose one or two games to a middle-of the-road team, but play great when the stakes are the highest. I don't see anything different happening here. The Texans move on, and the Bills have to wait another year.
Titans (9-7) at Patriots (12-4): New England-Welcome to Wild Card Weekend, Bradicheck! It's the round of playoff games played before the Divisional round, where it's no longer a requirement that you host. And, yes, that made your road to a fourth straight Super Bowl a lot more difficult. Although, it might be a good thing that you have an extra game to play. Because that offense needs as much time on the field as it can get!
Their opponent won't be a pushover, either. Ever since Ryan Tannehill took over for Marcus Mariota, the Titans' offense has been very formidable. Which means New England will have to rely on its strength--its defense--to keep Tennessee at bay. Although, the offense will need to hold its own and come up with a big play or two if the Patriots want to guarantee themselves a trip to Kansas City. Make no mistake, though. Their fans may be shell-shocked by the Patriots' playoff home game coming a week earlier, but Belichick always makes sure the players take it one game at a time. They'll do just that and send the Titans packing.
NFC
Vikings (10-6) at Saints (13-3): New Orleans-Two years ago, they played an absolute classic in the Divisional Playoffs. They also played a memorable NFC Championship Game following the 2009 season. So what does the third installment of the Saints-Vikings playoff rivalry have in store for us? Offense. Plenty of offense.
This one has all the makings of a shootout, especially with Drew Brees slinging passes to Michael Thomas left and right. New Orleans will need something more than that to win, though. They'll need their defense to step up, too. Make no mistake, though. The 13-3 Saints are the best team playing this weekend. They're legitimate Super Bowl contenders (see below). And this is probably their last time playing in the Superdome this season. I'd like to think this game will be close, but I can see the Saints getting up big early and running away with it.
Seahawks (11-5) at Eagles (9-7): Seattle-To everyone who said the NFC East didn't "deserve" a playoff team, guess what? The Eagles don't just belong, they're going to be very formidable. Yes, it was four division games against three teams that fired their coaches, but a four-game winning streak to end the season is a four-game winning streak to end the season. And it got them a home playoff game against a team that has to travel cross country for it.
Obviously, Seattle would've preferred to be at home. But this is a different Seahawks team than in years past. They're 7-1 on the road this season. And the Eagles are a good opponent for them. Philly won just four games outside the NFC East (although two of those wins were over the Packers and Bills). As a result, Seattle is the only road favorite of Wild Card Weekend. The Seahawks beat the Eagles 17-9 in Week 12. Their playoff encounter should be a little higher-scoring, but the result should be the same. The Seahawks win.
Super Bowl LIV: Kansas City over New Orleans
Baltimore enters the playoffs as the favorite to win the Super Bowl...and should be. The Ravens have the best offense in football, as well as a tremendous defense. They've won 12 straight since starting the season 2-2, winning both blowouts and close games alike. However, with all that being said, I don't even see them getting to Miami. Because Andy Reid's Kansas City Chiefs are on a similar roll. The Chiefs are peaking at just the right time, winning six straight and earning a first-round bye. And their defense has been unreal during the streak. That's why I see them finishing what they started last year. Kansas City beats New England, then Baltimore, and makes its first Super Bowl appearance in 50 years.
In the NFC, experts are rightly saying that San Francisco's Super Bowl odds increased dramatically with last Sunday night's win in Seattle that gave them the 1-seed. I 100 percent agree with that. The 49ers were not going to win three road games. Frankly, I don't see them winning two home games, either. Because, I've said it all year, and I'll say it again now--the Saints are the best team in the NFC. A lot has been made about the fact it's been six years since a team that didn't have a first-round bye reached the Super Bowl. I think that changes this year. Because the Saints will beat the Packers in Lambeau, then go to San Francisco and avenge their loss in that Week 14 instant classic (which would've made New Orleans the 1-seed had they won instead).
So, I've got that Chiefs-Saints Super Bowl one year later. The Saints back in a Miami Super Bowl 10 years after their last. And Andy Reid finally back for the second time, 15 years after taking the Eagles to the Promised Land. He's one of the greatest coaches of his generation, but doesn't have a Super Bowl ring to show for it. That changes this year. Kansas City's roll will continue, and the Chiefs will end the NFL's 100th season the same way they ended its 50th (as well as the AFL's entire existence). By lifting the Lombardi Trophy.
Last Week: 10-6
Overall: 154-101-1
Thursday, January 2, 2020
Rough Start to 2020
All that euphoria of the calendar flipping to 2020 (I can't believe Y2K was 20 years ago!) was quickly muted with the announcement that former NBA Commissioner David Stern, who had been hospitalized a few weeks ago, passed away on Wednesday afternoon. Then 2020 dealt us another blow later on Wednesday, when Don Larsen also died. That's two notable sports deaths in a decade that's barely 24 hours old! Not the best of starts.
David Stern's impact on the NBA cannot be overstated. He took over as commissioner of a struggling league in 1984. When he retired 30 years later, it was a global behemoth. That growth can be attributed almost entirely to Stern. He was an ahead-of-his-time visionary who, along with Pete Rozelle, is right there on the short list of greatest commissioners ever in the history of the four major sports.
Stern saw the big picture. He knew that the NBA's value was in its stars, and he knew how to market them. He became commissioner in Michael Jordan's rookie year. It's no coincidence that the NBA's rise started in the mid-80s, with Jordan, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird leading the way. Star players playing on good teams in big cities. The Lakers-Celtics rivalry helped the NBA takeoff, and that train hasn't stopped rolling since.
But David Stern was so much more than that. He instituted the Draft Lottery, guaranteeing every non-playoff team a chance at the top pick. He saw the value in new markets, adding six teams to the league, including the NBA's first two Canadian franchises. He started the WNBA, which is entering its 24th season in 2020. He spearheaded the creation of the NBA Development League, now the G-League, a minor league that provides domestic opportunities for players who otherwise would've had to go overseas in order to continue their careers.
Speaking of overseas, the influx of international talent into the NBA is yet another example of David Stern's massive impact. He was one of the driving forces between the greatest and most important basketball team ever assembled, the Dream Team at the 1992 Olympics. The rest of the world got to see NBA stars on the international stage for the first time, and it didn't take very long for them to catch up.
Now the NBA is a truly global league. Under Stern, there were nearly 150 international games, and NBA games were broadcast in more than 200 countries and more than 40 languages. And that's not even mentioning the domestic TV deals, first with NBC, then with current partners TNT and ESPN/ABC. When he started, CBS was showing NBA playoff games on tape delay. Today, Finals games are shown live in countless countries and the league has its own TV network.
It was his idea to take the All-Star Game to Las Vegas in 2007. Which worked (proving Las Vegas is a viable major league market). It was his idea to play the 2010 All-Star Game at Jerry World, which set an attendance record of more than 108,000 fans.
Adam Silver, Stern's successor as commissioner, released a beautiful tribute to his friend and mentor on the NBA website. Stern knew he was leaving the NBA in good hands. And Silver knew that the NBA was in such good shape because of all the work Stern put in to get it there.
Don Larsen, meanwhile, will always be remembered for one signature moment. In the long, storied history of the New York Yankees, Larsen did something that stands out above the rest. In fact, it's a signature moment in baseball history. He threw a perfect game in the 1956 World Series. He didn't even know he was pitching that day until he saw a ball in his shoe when he got to the clubhouse. Little did anybody know, Larsen would earn a permanent place in baseball history that afternoon.
The team released a statement on Wednesday night acknowledging Larsen's status as a franchise icon: "Don's perfect game is a defining moment for our franchise, encapsulating a storied era of Yankees success and ranking among the best single-game performances in Major League Baseball history. The unmitigated joy reflected in his embrace with Yogi Berra after the final out will forever hold a secure place in Yankees lore. It was the pinnacle of baseball success and a reminder of the incredible, unforgettable things that can take place on a baseball field."
Whenever people go to the Yankee Museum, the first thing they want to check out is the "ball wall," which has autographed baseballs of almost everyone ever associated with the Yankees organization. The "ball wall" is 60 feet, 6 inches long, the exact distance between the pitcher's mound and home plate. At one end is a statue of Don Larsen, at the other is a statue of Yogi Berra. They change out the balls from time to time, but Larsen's has never moved and never will. It's in position 1A, as if it's coming out of his right hand.
When MLB Network launched on January 1, 2009, the very first program aired on the network was the original broadcast of Larsen's perfect game. Whether or not it was intentional or just coincidence, on January 1, 2020, the day Larsen died, the YES Network showed David Cone's perfect game...when Larsen threw out the ceremonial first pitch to Yogi Berra, his catcher that day. Frankly, I can't think of a better way to close that circle. It's yet another beautiful connection between Don Larsen and history.
Yankees fans are well aware of the connection between the pitchers of the franchise's three perfect games. Larsen and David Wells attended the same high school, Point Loma in San Diego. And Larsen, of course, threw out the first pitch on "Yogi Berra Day" at Yankee Stadium, when Cone ended up joining their fraternity as the author of the third Yankee perfect game.
There's a great picture of the three of them together from the final game at the Old Yankee Stadium. That club only has three members, and they all appreciated their place in it. It's why Wells and Cone always treated Larsen with reverence whenever they were together. It's why Yankees fans treated Larsen with such reverence, too.
Even as he became advanced in age and became weaker physically, Larsen was a fixture at Old Timer's Day almost every year. And he would draw among the loudest cheers. It'll be weird to not hear his name introduced and see him get that ovation this year.
Regardless, Don Larsen won't easily be forgotten. He'll always hold a special place in Yankees (and baseball) history. And rightfully so. There have only been 23 perfect games in MLB history, and he threw one in the World Series! Not bad for a journeyman pitcher with an 81-91 career record who had one incredible afternoon 63 years ago.
David Stern's impact on the NBA cannot be overstated. He took over as commissioner of a struggling league in 1984. When he retired 30 years later, it was a global behemoth. That growth can be attributed almost entirely to Stern. He was an ahead-of-his-time visionary who, along with Pete Rozelle, is right there on the short list of greatest commissioners ever in the history of the four major sports.
Stern saw the big picture. He knew that the NBA's value was in its stars, and he knew how to market them. He became commissioner in Michael Jordan's rookie year. It's no coincidence that the NBA's rise started in the mid-80s, with Jordan, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird leading the way. Star players playing on good teams in big cities. The Lakers-Celtics rivalry helped the NBA takeoff, and that train hasn't stopped rolling since.
But David Stern was so much more than that. He instituted the Draft Lottery, guaranteeing every non-playoff team a chance at the top pick. He saw the value in new markets, adding six teams to the league, including the NBA's first two Canadian franchises. He started the WNBA, which is entering its 24th season in 2020. He spearheaded the creation of the NBA Development League, now the G-League, a minor league that provides domestic opportunities for players who otherwise would've had to go overseas in order to continue their careers.
Speaking of overseas, the influx of international talent into the NBA is yet another example of David Stern's massive impact. He was one of the driving forces between the greatest and most important basketball team ever assembled, the Dream Team at the 1992 Olympics. The rest of the world got to see NBA stars on the international stage for the first time, and it didn't take very long for them to catch up.
Now the NBA is a truly global league. Under Stern, there were nearly 150 international games, and NBA games were broadcast in more than 200 countries and more than 40 languages. And that's not even mentioning the domestic TV deals, first with NBC, then with current partners TNT and ESPN/ABC. When he started, CBS was showing NBA playoff games on tape delay. Today, Finals games are shown live in countless countries and the league has its own TV network.
It was his idea to take the All-Star Game to Las Vegas in 2007. Which worked (proving Las Vegas is a viable major league market). It was his idea to play the 2010 All-Star Game at Jerry World, which set an attendance record of more than 108,000 fans.
Adam Silver, Stern's successor as commissioner, released a beautiful tribute to his friend and mentor on the NBA website. Stern knew he was leaving the NBA in good hands. And Silver knew that the NBA was in such good shape because of all the work Stern put in to get it there.
Don Larsen, meanwhile, will always be remembered for one signature moment. In the long, storied history of the New York Yankees, Larsen did something that stands out above the rest. In fact, it's a signature moment in baseball history. He threw a perfect game in the 1956 World Series. He didn't even know he was pitching that day until he saw a ball in his shoe when he got to the clubhouse. Little did anybody know, Larsen would earn a permanent place in baseball history that afternoon.
The team released a statement on Wednesday night acknowledging Larsen's status as a franchise icon: "Don's perfect game is a defining moment for our franchise, encapsulating a storied era of Yankees success and ranking among the best single-game performances in Major League Baseball history. The unmitigated joy reflected in his embrace with Yogi Berra after the final out will forever hold a secure place in Yankees lore. It was the pinnacle of baseball success and a reminder of the incredible, unforgettable things that can take place on a baseball field."
Whenever people go to the Yankee Museum, the first thing they want to check out is the "ball wall," which has autographed baseballs of almost everyone ever associated with the Yankees organization. The "ball wall" is 60 feet, 6 inches long, the exact distance between the pitcher's mound and home plate. At one end is a statue of Don Larsen, at the other is a statue of Yogi Berra. They change out the balls from time to time, but Larsen's has never moved and never will. It's in position 1A, as if it's coming out of his right hand.
When MLB Network launched on January 1, 2009, the very first program aired on the network was the original broadcast of Larsen's perfect game. Whether or not it was intentional or just coincidence, on January 1, 2020, the day Larsen died, the YES Network showed David Cone's perfect game...when Larsen threw out the ceremonial first pitch to Yogi Berra, his catcher that day. Frankly, I can't think of a better way to close that circle. It's yet another beautiful connection between Don Larsen and history.
Yankees fans are well aware of the connection between the pitchers of the franchise's three perfect games. Larsen and David Wells attended the same high school, Point Loma in San Diego. And Larsen, of course, threw out the first pitch on "Yogi Berra Day" at Yankee Stadium, when Cone ended up joining their fraternity as the author of the third Yankee perfect game.
There's a great picture of the three of them together from the final game at the Old Yankee Stadium. That club only has three members, and they all appreciated their place in it. It's why Wells and Cone always treated Larsen with reverence whenever they were together. It's why Yankees fans treated Larsen with such reverence, too.
Even as he became advanced in age and became weaker physically, Larsen was a fixture at Old Timer's Day almost every year. And he would draw among the loudest cheers. It'll be weird to not hear his name introduced and see him get that ovation this year.
Regardless, Don Larsen won't easily be forgotten. He'll always hold a special place in Yankees (and baseball) history. And rightfully so. There have only been 23 perfect games in MLB history, and he threw one in the World Series! Not bad for a journeyman pitcher with an 81-91 career record who had one incredible afternoon 63 years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)