As people continue to freak out about coronavirus and wonder whether or not the Olympics will be held, it's time to start thinking about the event that was on the receiving end of its very own freak out a few months ago. After seeing so many runners collapse in the heat at the World Championships in Doha, the IOC unilaterally decided to move the Olympic marathons out of Tokyo and north to Sapporo, where it's not nearly as hot. It'll be hot in Atlanta, though, where the U.S. Olympic Trials will determine the six marathoners who'll be headed to Sapporo.
At first, it wasn't going to be top three go to the Olympics as has been the case at the U.S. Olympic Trials for as long as anybody can remember. However, since World Athletics has this new world ranking system that they put into place last year, the qualifying standards for the Olympics became substantially more difficult.
Since athletes generally don't run more than two marathons a year, they were given an additional opportunity by their performance in those races. A top 10 finish at last year's World Championships or in one of the six World Marathon Majors (Boston, Chicago, New York, London, Berlin, Tokyo) would be considered as having reached the standard. So would a top five finish at a Gold Label marathon. For a marathon to earn Gold Label status, the race needs to include a certain number of runners ranked among the top 200 in the world.
That was no issue on the women's side, where at least 10 American runners had that ranking. That's not the case on the men's side, though, which led to plenty of confusion among both racers and organizers. USATF originally announced that the top three finishers with the standard would make the team. Again, not a problem with the women. But on the men's side, what exactly would that mean?
One of the best things about the U.S. Olympic Trials is the straightforward, winner-take-all aspect of it. The top three make the team. That's it. Can't be more clear than that. Except that might not have necessarily been the case, potentially taking away the greatest element of the Olympic Trials.
Fortunately, World Athletics understood the importance of the U.S. Olympic Trials (which is never fast because people care about their place, not their time) and granted both races Gold Label status. Which means that the 2020 Olympic Trials will be exactly the same as years past. The first three men and the first three women across the line will be on the plane to Japan.
But who will fill those six spots? That's the million dollar question. And there are plenty of candidates on both the men's and women's side. Which means we're going to have a pair of intense races on our hands!
American women have enjoyed a lot of success in the marathon in recent years. Shalane Flanagan won New York in 2017 and Des Linden won Boston in 2018. Amy Cragg, meanwhile, won bronze at the 2017 World Championships. Although, of those three, only Linden will be going for the Olympic team. Flanagan is retired and Cragg is out with an injury (but could, conceivably try for a spot on the track in the 10K).
Linden has to be a favorite to finish in the top three and make the team, but is by no means a lock. In fact, the women's field is so deep that I can conceivably see any of the top eight or so contenders earning a top-three showing. (And some of whom will have a very good shot of making the team in the 10,000 if they don't in the marathon.)
So who am I picking to join Linden on the Olympic marathon team? My first choice is Emily Sisson, who moved up to the marathon last year and finished sixth in London. I've just got a feeling about her. She's a great racer, and I think the competitive field will help her. I see Sisson finishing top three and making her first Olympic team.
My second women's choice is more of a dark horse. Kellyn Taylor (not to be confused with Kelly Taylor, Jennie Garth's character on Beverly Hills 90210). She's never made a World or Olympic team, but has come painfully close so many times (she was sixth in 2016, then finished fourth in the 10K Trials, and she finished third in the 10K last year, but didn't have the standard). This time, I think it'll be different. We'll be calling her "Kellyn Taylor, Olympian" at day's end.
On the men's side, Galen Rupp is the clear favorite. His first-ever marathon was the 2016 Trials...which he won. Rupp followed that up with an Olympic bronze in Rio (where he was also fifth in the 10K) before winning Chicago and taking second in Boston in 2017. He's one of the most prominent athletes who used to train under controversial and since-suspended coach Alberto Salazar. Rupp hasn't faced any sanctions himself and has switched to a new coach. We'll see how much of an impact that has, but I don't think it'll be enough to knock him out of the top three.
For the second spot, I'll go with Jared Ward. He finished third to make the team four years ago, then placed a respectable sixth in Rio. He was sixth in New York in each of the last two years and was the only U.S. man besides Rupp to have the Olympic standard before the Gold Label thing was decided. I don't see three people beating him.
Lastly, I'll take Scott Fauble to make his first Olympic team. Like Kellyn Taylor, he just missed the team in 2016, when he finished fourth in the 10K. Like Kellyn Taylor, he's put up some solid results in marathons since then. He was seventh overall and the first American at the Boston Marathon last year, beating Ward by 16 seconds. Wouldn't it be cool if they go 2-3 in either order and both make the team?
It's really anybody's race in Atlanta, though. Because like the women, there are plenty of men who can go top three and make the team. U.S. marathoning is just that stacked! And whoever makes it will have done the hard part. They'll know they're Olympians.
Although, it shouldn't be hard to feel like an Olympian even before the race begins. The Marathon Trials are being held in Atlanta on the same course they used in 1996. The start/finish line will be in Centennial Park, and they'll even light the torch for the occasion. The perfect setting to choose the members of the next Olympic team.
Saturday, February 29, 2020
Friday, February 28, 2020
The Games Will Go On
The internet being what it is, people tend to use it as a means of spreading paranoia. And that paranoia can spread pretty fast. That's certainly the case right now, with fears about coronavirus leading to speculation that the Olympics will be postponed or cancelled. Neither of which is remotely being considered at the present time.
All of this panic started a few days ago when IOC Vice President Dick Pound went on the record saying that they had until the end of May before having to make any sort of decision about the Tokyo Games. Pound was speaking for himself, but the IOC didn't have any response to his comments, suggesting they're on the same page. Although, the IOC officially has no position and has even told the Japanese organizers to "proceed as planned" with their preparations.
But that hasn't stopped people from freaking out. And, to be quite frank about it, that freaking out is a major overreaction to something that may not even be an issue five months from now. I'm not trying to downplay coronavirus or the health risk that it causes. But five months is a long time. We have no idea what things will be like come July. After all, they were saying the same thing about Zika four years ago, and the Rio Games went off no problem.
If this were two years from now and we were talking about the world coming to China in February, it would be a completely different story. The IOC would have no choice but to cancel the Winter Games in Beijing. That would be an unnecessary and irresponsible risk. We're not talking about the 2022 Winter Games, though. We're talking about the the Summer Games in Japan. Which is NOT the country where the coronavirus outbreak started.
Yes, coronavirus has already led to the cancellation/postponement/relocation of a number of major sporting events, including several Olympic qualifiers. However, those events were scheduled to take place now or in the coming weeks...when it's still dangerous to be in the affected areas. And many of them were scheduled for China, the very heart of the pandemic.
None of these events are remotely close to the size and scale of the Olympics, either. Cancelling/postponing/relocating them is a whole lot easier than it would be to do the same with the largest sporting event on the planet. Which isn't even taking into consideration all of the other factors that go into putting on an Olympics.
Which is why a postponement isn't just unlikely, it's impractical. TV networks from all over the world have spent billions of dollars and allotted hours of programming for an Olympics that's scheduled to be held in July and August. You can't just suddenly change that to October and expect the TV networks to be OK with it. And that's not even mentioning the international federations, who would then have to juggle all of their calendars on the fly to accommodate the Olympics suddenly taking place three months later than planned.
Likewise, the athletes have been training with specific dates in mind. They've designed their entire workout calendars and competition schedules knowing when the prelim and final of their event is. They've done everything so that they can peak in July-August. Now you want to tell them to push everything back three months? When they're already this deep into their training cycle?
And you can't just do what World Athletics has done with the World Indoor Championships and delay the Olympics a year. Because that screws up schedules beyond just the Olympics. Most Olympic sports hold their World Championships in odd years, meaning those would all have to be postponed, impacting all of those host cities that are deep into preparations. Not to mention throwing off the entire cycle by having a five-year gap between Olympics, followed a three-year gap. (You'd also have two Olympics within roughly six months of each other, which is not a scenario anyone in the Olympic Movement wants to see.)
Moving the Games isn't a practical option, either. For starters, there's the billions of dollars that the Japanese organizers have already spent and the thousands of tickets that have already been sold. But beyond that, an Olympics is a huge undertaking. That's why they're awarded seven years in advance. It takes that long for all the planning (it's actually more like a 10-year process when you take the bid process into account). You can't just throw it together in a couple months.
London has offered to step in as a replacement, a suggestion that was quickly dismissed as inappropriate (which I completely agree with). Likewise, Pound has rejected the suggestion that if the Games were to be moved from Tokyo, the different sports could be scattered all over the world. That's not an Olympics. That's a bunch of individual World Championships. We already have those in every sport. The Olympics bring all of those sports together. That's kinda the point.
Of the three alternatives, cancellation is the only one that would be viable. And even then, it should only be considered a last resort. The only time in history the Olympics have been cancelled was because of the two World Wars, when the entire world was understandably preoccupied. Needless to say, those were entirely different situations than what we have right now with coronavirus.
Even though cancellation is the only viable scenario if it comes to that, it would still result in a tremendous hit. The IOC has a reserve fund, the primary purpose of which is so that the Olympic Movement can withstand the cancellation of a Games. But cancelling Tokyo would deplete that reserve, since there would be no broadcast revenue coming in. And that would impact every organization that relies on IOC funding.
Not to mention the financial blow to Japan. The country has spent billions preparing for these Games. They're not getting that money back. If the Games were cancelled, the organizers wouldn't be getting the ticket revenue they anticipated when preparing their budget. Likewise, with no fans from around the world traveling to Tokyo, nobody's booking flights or staying in Japanese hotels or spending money while in the country. It would be devastating across the board. The effects would be felt in so many different areas.
Then there are the fans. What are you going to tell the millions of Japanese people who've already bought tickets? Or those from around the world planning a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Tokyo? I'm sure Tokyo would be awarded another Olympics as compensation. It's only fair. But the next one available isn't until 2032. That's 12 years from now!
Is coronavirus serious? Absolutely. Is it something we should be concerned about? Yes. Will/should it impact the Olympics? It's too soon to say. But I've got a strong feeling that the Games will go on as planned in Tokyo from July 24-August 9.
All of this panic started a few days ago when IOC Vice President Dick Pound went on the record saying that they had until the end of May before having to make any sort of decision about the Tokyo Games. Pound was speaking for himself, but the IOC didn't have any response to his comments, suggesting they're on the same page. Although, the IOC officially has no position and has even told the Japanese organizers to "proceed as planned" with their preparations.
But that hasn't stopped people from freaking out. And, to be quite frank about it, that freaking out is a major overreaction to something that may not even be an issue five months from now. I'm not trying to downplay coronavirus or the health risk that it causes. But five months is a long time. We have no idea what things will be like come July. After all, they were saying the same thing about Zika four years ago, and the Rio Games went off no problem.
If this were two years from now and we were talking about the world coming to China in February, it would be a completely different story. The IOC would have no choice but to cancel the Winter Games in Beijing. That would be an unnecessary and irresponsible risk. We're not talking about the 2022 Winter Games, though. We're talking about the the Summer Games in Japan. Which is NOT the country where the coronavirus outbreak started.
Yes, coronavirus has already led to the cancellation/postponement/relocation of a number of major sporting events, including several Olympic qualifiers. However, those events were scheduled to take place now or in the coming weeks...when it's still dangerous to be in the affected areas. And many of them were scheduled for China, the very heart of the pandemic.
None of these events are remotely close to the size and scale of the Olympics, either. Cancelling/postponing/relocating them is a whole lot easier than it would be to do the same with the largest sporting event on the planet. Which isn't even taking into consideration all of the other factors that go into putting on an Olympics.
Which is why a postponement isn't just unlikely, it's impractical. TV networks from all over the world have spent billions of dollars and allotted hours of programming for an Olympics that's scheduled to be held in July and August. You can't just suddenly change that to October and expect the TV networks to be OK with it. And that's not even mentioning the international federations, who would then have to juggle all of their calendars on the fly to accommodate the Olympics suddenly taking place three months later than planned.
Likewise, the athletes have been training with specific dates in mind. They've designed their entire workout calendars and competition schedules knowing when the prelim and final of their event is. They've done everything so that they can peak in July-August. Now you want to tell them to push everything back three months? When they're already this deep into their training cycle?
And you can't just do what World Athletics has done with the World Indoor Championships and delay the Olympics a year. Because that screws up schedules beyond just the Olympics. Most Olympic sports hold their World Championships in odd years, meaning those would all have to be postponed, impacting all of those host cities that are deep into preparations. Not to mention throwing off the entire cycle by having a five-year gap between Olympics, followed a three-year gap. (You'd also have two Olympics within roughly six months of each other, which is not a scenario anyone in the Olympic Movement wants to see.)
Moving the Games isn't a practical option, either. For starters, there's the billions of dollars that the Japanese organizers have already spent and the thousands of tickets that have already been sold. But beyond that, an Olympics is a huge undertaking. That's why they're awarded seven years in advance. It takes that long for all the planning (it's actually more like a 10-year process when you take the bid process into account). You can't just throw it together in a couple months.
London has offered to step in as a replacement, a suggestion that was quickly dismissed as inappropriate (which I completely agree with). Likewise, Pound has rejected the suggestion that if the Games were to be moved from Tokyo, the different sports could be scattered all over the world. That's not an Olympics. That's a bunch of individual World Championships. We already have those in every sport. The Olympics bring all of those sports together. That's kinda the point.
Of the three alternatives, cancellation is the only one that would be viable. And even then, it should only be considered a last resort. The only time in history the Olympics have been cancelled was because of the two World Wars, when the entire world was understandably preoccupied. Needless to say, those were entirely different situations than what we have right now with coronavirus.
Even though cancellation is the only viable scenario if it comes to that, it would still result in a tremendous hit. The IOC has a reserve fund, the primary purpose of which is so that the Olympic Movement can withstand the cancellation of a Games. But cancelling Tokyo would deplete that reserve, since there would be no broadcast revenue coming in. And that would impact every organization that relies on IOC funding.
Not to mention the financial blow to Japan. The country has spent billions preparing for these Games. They're not getting that money back. If the Games were cancelled, the organizers wouldn't be getting the ticket revenue they anticipated when preparing their budget. Likewise, with no fans from around the world traveling to Tokyo, nobody's booking flights or staying in Japanese hotels or spending money while in the country. It would be devastating across the board. The effects would be felt in so many different areas.
Then there are the fans. What are you going to tell the millions of Japanese people who've already bought tickets? Or those from around the world planning a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Tokyo? I'm sure Tokyo would be awarded another Olympics as compensation. It's only fair. But the next one available isn't until 2032. That's 12 years from now!
Is coronavirus serious? Absolutely. Is it something we should be concerned about? Yes. Will/should it impact the Olympics? It's too soon to say. But I've got a strong feeling that the Games will go on as planned in Tokyo from July 24-August 9.
Tuesday, February 25, 2020
New Uniforms Everywhere
Nike took over as MLB's uniform supplier this season, which means every team will have the Nike swoosh on the front. It looks kinda stupid on the Yankees' jersey (ask my brother-in-law how much I've complained about it already), but it'll be there for the next 10 years.
And we all got used to the New Era logo on the side of the hats, moving patches to the other side (even if the backwards flag still doesn't make any sense to me!), so I'm sure we'll all get used to the Nike jerseys, too. Although, I wish Nike had put the swoosh on the sleeve instead, where it's a lot less in your face (especially on the traditional uniforms that have nothing on the front and the ones where the wordmark starts on the left and the Nike logo is too close to the top letter).
Whenever a league changes its uniform provider, it gives teams a perfect opportunity to make changes to their look. Which is exactly what a number of teams decided to do. And, I must say, for a change, there isn't a single bad look in the bunch! Some are better than others, but there are no "What were they thinking?!" ensembles like the Jaguars' two-tone helmet or that ridiculous dark gray the Diamondbacks were wearing.
Speaking of the Diamondbacks, the dark gray and the equally awful snakeskin pattern on the shoulders are both finally gone! Instead, they've gone with a much more traditional look (including a normal shade of gray) that is a major upgrade. I'm still not sure why a team that's only been around for 20 years feels the need to constantly change its look, and, personally, I think they should go back to their original purple, green and gold (which they eventually will at some point) color scheme, but their 2020 uniforms are definitely an improvement over 2019.
The Rangers are moving into a new stadium, and they had to do something to celebrate. So they introduced new home whites and a powder blue alternate. The uniforms themselves are fine, but I'm not crazy about the home and road uniforms having completely different fonts and scripts. It's par for the course with the Rangers, though, since they can't seem to decide whether their primary color is blue or red (which has annoyed me about this franchise for a while). I'm also not crazy about the powder blue hats (it'll be A LOT of powder blue when they use the Father's Day bats), but maybe they'll look better on the field than they do in the still photos.
For the first time in years, the Reds will have an alternate jersey this season. And it's a beauty! Nice and simple. You'd expect nothing less from tradition-rich Cincinnati. Plus, it's got Mr. Redleg on the sleeve! I'd imagine these will go flying off the shelves, and we'll probably see them a lot on the field. Overall, a solid addition to an already solid uniform set.
This is the Twins' 60th season in Minnesota, and they're celebrating by bringing back powder blue as an alternate uniform. It's very similar to the road uniform they wore throughout the 70s and into the 80s, which isn't a bad thing. Powder blue is definitely making a comeback around the Majors!
Another team that has revived baby blue as an alternate uniform is the Toronto Blue Jays. And they're gorgeous! Just like when they updated their uniforms a few years ago with a modernized version of their original logo, they absolutely hit a home run with these! And they made the primary blue darker, which makes these stand out even more. Overall, a great addition to their repertorie.
After wearing blue jerseys for the entire 2019 postseason, the defending champion Nationals will have an alternate white uniform that's very similar this season. The curly W is still their primary home jersey, but they've taken that "Nationals" script from their blue jerseys and put it on a white one for a very nice alternative. The interesting part is the hats, though. There are two alternates, neither of which has the curly W, but both hearken back to ones the Senators wore way back when.
Pittsburgh's home uniform is one of the nicest in baseball. But that didn't stop the Pirates from changing their road uniforms back to a modernized version of the script "Pittsburgh" they sported when Barry Bonds was leading them three straight NLCS in the early 90s. They took it a step further and added it to the black alternates, where it doesn't look nearly as good. (At least they resisted the urge to go with the Marlins' illegible black-on-black.) I can't say it's an improvement, but it's tolerable.
Finally, I saved the best two for last. These two are both throwbacks that fans have been begging to see return almost since the day their teams changed got new logos/uniforms to begin with. And you can see why. Because they're both classics that deserved to be resurrected!
How is it possible to not know that the logo is an M and a B forming a baseball glove? (Seriously, it's like not seeing the V in the negative space on helmet in the Golden Knights' logo!) It's one of the classic logos in the history of sports, and I'm so glad it's back! The Brewers did everything right with its revival, too. Just like the Blue Jays, they found the perfect way to modernize their classic look. My only issue is the script "Milwaukee" on the blue alternate, but the other three are simply beautiful! (Although, full disclosure, I'm one of the few people who actually liked the Brewers' old logo.)
Of the 123 franchises across the four major sports, only two are primarily associated with the color brown. One, of course, is the football team whose name IS the color! The other is the San Diego Padres. They rocked the brown from their founding in 1969 until switching to navy in the mid-90s. And they didn't just rock the brown, they OWNED it! Even as they were wearing navy for the last 20 years, everybody was wondering when the Padres would bring the brown back. When they brought it back as an alternate, the calls for it to return as the primary became even louder. Now it finally has! And they even took it up a notch with the light brown road jerseys! As Ron Burgundy said, "Stay Classy, San Diego!" In these glorious uniforms, the Padres will do just that.
Wow! That was a lot to get through! I can't recall an MLB season with so many uniform changes, especially so many that are massive improvements over what they wore the previous year. So, Nike logos aside, these teams will be looking good when they take the field in 2020.
And we all got used to the New Era logo on the side of the hats, moving patches to the other side (even if the backwards flag still doesn't make any sense to me!), so I'm sure we'll all get used to the Nike jerseys, too. Although, I wish Nike had put the swoosh on the sleeve instead, where it's a lot less in your face (especially on the traditional uniforms that have nothing on the front and the ones where the wordmark starts on the left and the Nike logo is too close to the top letter).
Whenever a league changes its uniform provider, it gives teams a perfect opportunity to make changes to their look. Which is exactly what a number of teams decided to do. And, I must say, for a change, there isn't a single bad look in the bunch! Some are better than others, but there are no "What were they thinking?!" ensembles like the Jaguars' two-tone helmet or that ridiculous dark gray the Diamondbacks were wearing.
Speaking of the Diamondbacks, the dark gray and the equally awful snakeskin pattern on the shoulders are both finally gone! Instead, they've gone with a much more traditional look (including a normal shade of gray) that is a major upgrade. I'm still not sure why a team that's only been around for 20 years feels the need to constantly change its look, and, personally, I think they should go back to their original purple, green and gold (which they eventually will at some point) color scheme, but their 2020 uniforms are definitely an improvement over 2019.
The Rangers are moving into a new stadium, and they had to do something to celebrate. So they introduced new home whites and a powder blue alternate. The uniforms themselves are fine, but I'm not crazy about the home and road uniforms having completely different fonts and scripts. It's par for the course with the Rangers, though, since they can't seem to decide whether their primary color is blue or red (which has annoyed me about this franchise for a while). I'm also not crazy about the powder blue hats (it'll be A LOT of powder blue when they use the Father's Day bats), but maybe they'll look better on the field than they do in the still photos.
For the first time in years, the Reds will have an alternate jersey this season. And it's a beauty! Nice and simple. You'd expect nothing less from tradition-rich Cincinnati. Plus, it's got Mr. Redleg on the sleeve! I'd imagine these will go flying off the shelves, and we'll probably see them a lot on the field. Overall, a solid addition to an already solid uniform set.
This is the Twins' 60th season in Minnesota, and they're celebrating by bringing back powder blue as an alternate uniform. It's very similar to the road uniform they wore throughout the 70s and into the 80s, which isn't a bad thing. Powder blue is definitely making a comeback around the Majors!
Another team that has revived baby blue as an alternate uniform is the Toronto Blue Jays. And they're gorgeous! Just like when they updated their uniforms a few years ago with a modernized version of their original logo, they absolutely hit a home run with these! And they made the primary blue darker, which makes these stand out even more. Overall, a great addition to their repertorie.
After wearing blue jerseys for the entire 2019 postseason, the defending champion Nationals will have an alternate white uniform that's very similar this season. The curly W is still their primary home jersey, but they've taken that "Nationals" script from their blue jerseys and put it on a white one for a very nice alternative. The interesting part is the hats, though. There are two alternates, neither of which has the curly W, but both hearken back to ones the Senators wore way back when.
Pittsburgh's home uniform is one of the nicest in baseball. But that didn't stop the Pirates from changing their road uniforms back to a modernized version of the script "Pittsburgh" they sported when Barry Bonds was leading them three straight NLCS in the early 90s. They took it a step further and added it to the black alternates, where it doesn't look nearly as good. (At least they resisted the urge to go with the Marlins' illegible black-on-black.) I can't say it's an improvement, but it's tolerable.
Finally, I saved the best two for last. These two are both throwbacks that fans have been begging to see return almost since the day their teams changed got new logos/uniforms to begin with. And you can see why. Because they're both classics that deserved to be resurrected!
How is it possible to not know that the logo is an M and a B forming a baseball glove? (Seriously, it's like not seeing the V in the negative space on helmet in the Golden Knights' logo!) It's one of the classic logos in the history of sports, and I'm so glad it's back! The Brewers did everything right with its revival, too. Just like the Blue Jays, they found the perfect way to modernize their classic look. My only issue is the script "Milwaukee" on the blue alternate, but the other three are simply beautiful! (Although, full disclosure, I'm one of the few people who actually liked the Brewers' old logo.)
Of the 123 franchises across the four major sports, only two are primarily associated with the color brown. One, of course, is the football team whose name IS the color! The other is the San Diego Padres. They rocked the brown from their founding in 1969 until switching to navy in the mid-90s. And they didn't just rock the brown, they OWNED it! Even as they were wearing navy for the last 20 years, everybody was wondering when the Padres would bring the brown back. When they brought it back as an alternate, the calls for it to return as the primary became even louder. Now it finally has! And they even took it up a notch with the light brown road jerseys! As Ron Burgundy said, "Stay Classy, San Diego!" In these glorious uniforms, the Padres will do just that.
Wow! That was a lot to get through! I can't recall an MLB season with so many uniform changes, especially so many that are massive improvements over what they wore the previous year. So, Nike logos aside, these teams will be looking good when they take the field in 2020.
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Take It Up With the Union
With Spring Training games getting started across Florida and Arizona, we're getting our first glimpse of other players' feelings on the Astros' sign-stealing controversy. They're pretty much universally angry, which was to be expected. But their anger at MLB (and Commissioner Rob Manfred) is misdirected.
MLB's investigation determined that it was mostly a player-driven scheme, but Manfred stopped short of punishing individual players or even naming those responsible (other than Carlos Beltran). Instead, he limited his discipline to the organization as a whole, suspending GM Jeff Luhnow and Manager A.J. Hinch (both of whom were later fired), taking away four draft picks, and issuing a hefty fine. Some opposing players feel like that isn't enough. They want Astros players to face suspensions, too.
Except there's one problem with that. Manfred was never going to be able to suspend any individual players! That was a non-starter with the Union, which MLBPA Exective Director Tony Clark has confirmed. So, Manfred offered the players immunity in exchange for their honest testimony. He wasn't really left with any other choice. But it also helped him get to the bottom of everything a lot quicker.
Remember how long it took for the Mitchell Report to come out? Part of the reason for that was because of all the legal jostling he had to do to get to the truth. Players were under no obligation to talk to George Mitchell, and even those who did were reluctant to tell the whole story (or throw anybody under the bus). It wasn't until Congress got involved that MLB forced the issue.
It's also worth noting that no player named in the Mitchell Report was suspended for anything mentioned in the report. Mark McGwire was ridiculed for saying, "I'm not here to talk about the past," but MLB essentially said the same thing. The Mitchell Report was the starting point for MLB's Joint Drug Policy. Anything that happened before that wasn't subject to the Joint Drug Policy. Anything that happened after was.
Similar situation here. Any discipline the Commissioner doled out would've been challenged by the MLBPA. After all, that's the job of a labor union--to look out for the best interest of its members. And that's something any dues-paying member would want their union to do for them. (Just look at how good the NFLPA is at that. They file a grievance in almost every case. It's pretty much expected.)
So, if the other players don't like the fact that Astros players weren't suspended, their issue shouldn't be with Major League Baseball. It should be with their own Union! Because it wasn't Manfred's decision to give the Astros immunity. It was the MLBPA's. He just went along with it (which, agree with it or not, was probably the right move--for both sides). And, again, if the shoe was on the other foot, they'd want the Union to go to bat for them!
Which is why I'm really getting tired of other players acting all holier than thou and saying how they'd "never do such a thing." It's easy to say that as an outsider, but none of them know how they would've acted in the same situation. Because very few people believe the Astros were the only team that had such a scheme going. They just happened to get caught (and who's to say if that even would've happened without Mike Fiers)! And they're all now viewed as "cheaters" by the majority of fans and opposing players, and that's not going to go away anytime soon!
Just as ludicrous is the suggestion that the Astros should be stripped of their 2017 World Series title. You can't rewrite history. The games were played, and they won them. Did the sign stealing affect the outcomes of those games? Most likely. But we can't say the Astros wouldn't have won them anyway. Cheating or not, that team was pretty damn good! (And Verlander wasn't striking people out because the Astros hitters knew what was coming.)
Of course, MLB's refusal to strip Houston of its title is part of what's made people so angry. The Dodgers and Yankees understandably feel the most cheated. And the Astros aren't helping themselves with their complete lack of contrition, which makes you think they'd do it all again if the situation presented itself. After all, the whole reason they did it was to win a World Series. Which is exactly what they did. And since that trophy won't be taken away from them, the organization probably thinks it was all worth it.
Since suspensions weren't issues and opposing players are understandably upset with what happened in Houston, you can bet teams will take it up with the Astros on the field this season. Oddsmakers are setting over-unders on how many Astros batters will be hit by a pitch this season, and Dusty Baker has already asked for some sort of blanket warning to all pitchers about throwing at Houston batters. Which MLB has been wise not to comment on. At least not yet.
Frankly, MLB should stay out of it. They know opposing players are frustrated and are probably expecting them to take their shot. I think they should let them, within reason. Head hunting is still a no-no, but if you want to throw behind Alex Bregman or hit Jose Altuve in the back, go ahead! Make your point, then move on! A blanket warning to every pitcher who faces the Astros is not the answer. Because you need to let them have that outlet.
Imagine if MLB did issue that blanket warning Dusty Baker wants. You have 29 teams that are pissed off at one team. What kind of a message does it send to those other 29 teams if their pitchers are subject to automatic ejection and suspension when the Astros cheated and got off scot-free!?
The Astros have to know it's coming. That's why they want to be "protected." I say shut up and take it like men! Especially because you deserve it! And if suspensions are issued to pitchers who throw at Astros hitters, the MLBPA had better have their back. Just like they had every one of the Astros' backs. Which is how the whole situation got to this point in the first place!
MLB's investigation determined that it was mostly a player-driven scheme, but Manfred stopped short of punishing individual players or even naming those responsible (other than Carlos Beltran). Instead, he limited his discipline to the organization as a whole, suspending GM Jeff Luhnow and Manager A.J. Hinch (both of whom were later fired), taking away four draft picks, and issuing a hefty fine. Some opposing players feel like that isn't enough. They want Astros players to face suspensions, too.
Except there's one problem with that. Manfred was never going to be able to suspend any individual players! That was a non-starter with the Union, which MLBPA Exective Director Tony Clark has confirmed. So, Manfred offered the players immunity in exchange for their honest testimony. He wasn't really left with any other choice. But it also helped him get to the bottom of everything a lot quicker.
Remember how long it took for the Mitchell Report to come out? Part of the reason for that was because of all the legal jostling he had to do to get to the truth. Players were under no obligation to talk to George Mitchell, and even those who did were reluctant to tell the whole story (or throw anybody under the bus). It wasn't until Congress got involved that MLB forced the issue.
It's also worth noting that no player named in the Mitchell Report was suspended for anything mentioned in the report. Mark McGwire was ridiculed for saying, "I'm not here to talk about the past," but MLB essentially said the same thing. The Mitchell Report was the starting point for MLB's Joint Drug Policy. Anything that happened before that wasn't subject to the Joint Drug Policy. Anything that happened after was.
Similar situation here. Any discipline the Commissioner doled out would've been challenged by the MLBPA. After all, that's the job of a labor union--to look out for the best interest of its members. And that's something any dues-paying member would want their union to do for them. (Just look at how good the NFLPA is at that. They file a grievance in almost every case. It's pretty much expected.)
So, if the other players don't like the fact that Astros players weren't suspended, their issue shouldn't be with Major League Baseball. It should be with their own Union! Because it wasn't Manfred's decision to give the Astros immunity. It was the MLBPA's. He just went along with it (which, agree with it or not, was probably the right move--for both sides). And, again, if the shoe was on the other foot, they'd want the Union to go to bat for them!
Which is why I'm really getting tired of other players acting all holier than thou and saying how they'd "never do such a thing." It's easy to say that as an outsider, but none of them know how they would've acted in the same situation. Because very few people believe the Astros were the only team that had such a scheme going. They just happened to get caught (and who's to say if that even would've happened without Mike Fiers)! And they're all now viewed as "cheaters" by the majority of fans and opposing players, and that's not going to go away anytime soon!
Just as ludicrous is the suggestion that the Astros should be stripped of their 2017 World Series title. You can't rewrite history. The games were played, and they won them. Did the sign stealing affect the outcomes of those games? Most likely. But we can't say the Astros wouldn't have won them anyway. Cheating or not, that team was pretty damn good! (And Verlander wasn't striking people out because the Astros hitters knew what was coming.)
Of course, MLB's refusal to strip Houston of its title is part of what's made people so angry. The Dodgers and Yankees understandably feel the most cheated. And the Astros aren't helping themselves with their complete lack of contrition, which makes you think they'd do it all again if the situation presented itself. After all, the whole reason they did it was to win a World Series. Which is exactly what they did. And since that trophy won't be taken away from them, the organization probably thinks it was all worth it.
Since suspensions weren't issues and opposing players are understandably upset with what happened in Houston, you can bet teams will take it up with the Astros on the field this season. Oddsmakers are setting over-unders on how many Astros batters will be hit by a pitch this season, and Dusty Baker has already asked for some sort of blanket warning to all pitchers about throwing at Houston batters. Which MLB has been wise not to comment on. At least not yet.
Frankly, MLB should stay out of it. They know opposing players are frustrated and are probably expecting them to take their shot. I think they should let them, within reason. Head hunting is still a no-no, but if you want to throw behind Alex Bregman or hit Jose Altuve in the back, go ahead! Make your point, then move on! A blanket warning to every pitcher who faces the Astros is not the answer. Because you need to let them have that outlet.
Imagine if MLB did issue that blanket warning Dusty Baker wants. You have 29 teams that are pissed off at one team. What kind of a message does it send to those other 29 teams if their pitchers are subject to automatic ejection and suspension when the Astros cheated and got off scot-free!?
The Astros have to know it's coming. That's why they want to be "protected." I say shut up and take it like men! Especially because you deserve it! And if suspensions are issued to pitchers who throw at Astros hitters, the MLBPA had better have their back. Just like they had every one of the Astros' backs. Which is how the whole situation got to this point in the first place!
Saturday, February 22, 2020
40 Years Since a Miracle
"Do you believe in miracles? Yes!" Do you believe that was 40 years ago? Absolutely not! It was the biggest upset in Olympic history, and arguably the greatest moment in American sporting history. And all these years later, it still resonates.
One of the most beautiful things about the Miracle On Ice is that it can never happen again. It was the perfect combination of circumstances that came together and led to something truly special. Circumstances that are not possible in this day and age.
Let's first consider the most obvious element that won't be repeated. The American team was amateurs in the truest sense of the word. The Soviets were "amateurs" in name only. It was a bunch of 20-something college kids going against seasoned professionals who had been playing together for 10 years. They had no business being in the game, let alone beating them!
The Olympics have long since ceased being a strictly amateur event. It's the best athletes in the world, and the best athletes in the world are all professionals. Everyone's on equal footing. That's what people want and expect to see. Which is why the watered-down hockey tournament in PyeongChang, where the NHL chose not to participate, was so disappointing.
Cold War tensions also loomed large over that game. In fact, it took place just days after Jimmy Carter announced the U.S. would boycott the 1980 Summer Games in Moscow. The Soviets, of course, followed suit four years later when the Olympics were in LA. It's impossible to keep politics out of the Olympics completely, but we haven't seen a boycott since 1988. Countries have learned that they don't work and only the athletes suffer. Nations can still be hostile towards each other, but the athletes aren't held hostage anymore.
Then there's the fact that the game was at 5:00 in the afternoon. ABC wanted to move it to 8:00, but the IOC wouldn't let them. That obviously would never happen today. NBC has so much clout that they can dictate the start times of events to make sure they're on primetime TV in the U.S. Yet, with the Games IN the U.S., ABC was forced to show the game on tape delay.
Tape delay. It's a fact of life in televised sports. Especially when you're dealing with time differences. But with loads of information available at your fingertips instantaneously, people aren't going to wait hours to find out what happened. Not when they can watch it live on their phone or computer or tablet. Even NBC's own Olympic website has shown everything live since 2012, giving people the option to either watch it then or wait until it's on TV. Either way, even if you try, it's nearly impossible to avoid finding out the results ahead of time.
That wasn't even the final game, either. That's the crazy part. They pull off this monumental upset against the Soviets, but still have to beat Finland (in a game that was shown live on Sunday morning). That format has long since been replaced by the much more straightforward (and far less confusing) single-elimination medal round, capped by a winner-take-all gold medal game. There's more room for upsets, but there's also no anticlimactic final game that serves as nothing more than a postscript in the story.
And let's not forget the setting of this miracle--Lake Placid, New York. It's not exactly a metropolis. It's a village of 2,500 people in the middle of nowhere. It's in the Adirondacks, only about 90 minutes from the Canadian border. The closest cities are Plattsburgh, New York and Burlington, Vermont. Yet this small hamlet has hosted the Winter Olympics twice.
Compare that to recent Winter Olympic hosts. Salt Lake City: 200,000 (metropolitan area: 1.2 million). Turin: 875,000. Vancouver: 631,000 (metropolitan area: 2.4 million). Sochi: 343,000. PyeongChang: 43,000 (small by comparison). And the next two Winter Olympics are in Beijing (21.5 million) and Milan-Cortina (Milan's population: 1.4 million).
Lake Placid could never host the Olympics today. It was a different time then. It was a time when you could have the world literally come and take over a town for two weeks and be embraced with open arms! We haven't had that feeling since Lillehammer 1994. Since then, it's been large cities. Which makes sense because the Winter Olympics have outgrown these small villages. They have so many more events and so many more visitors from so many countries that they need the hotel rooms and facilities and resources that only cities can offer. I can't say I don't miss something about those quaint little hometown Olympics, though.
So, the Miracle On Ice is something that can never be repeated. Which only adds to how special it was. It's a moment that's truly etched in time, yet it's one that will never be forgotten. (The Miracle On Ice happened two years before I was born, but the emotion I get when thinking about it makes me feel like I was there. I have a print of that iconic Sports Illustrated cover hanging on my wall, and I seriously cry at the end EVERY time I watch Miracle.)
It's not a stretch to call the Miracle On Ice the most significant moment in the history of the Winter Olympics. In fact, it's widely considered to be one of the most important events in the history of all sports. Ask anyone what the Miracle On Ice is, and they'll be able to tell you. If they're old enough, they'll be able to tell you where they were. As Al Michaels said, it's like the Kennedy assassination or 9/11. Except the difference is that the Miracle On Ice is a positive moment. It was a moment of pure joy. At a time when America needed it.
A lot has changed in the 40 years since the Miracle On Ice. But one thing hasn't and never will. The same feelings people had back then they still feel today. Even those of us who weren't alive at the time feel connected to the Miracle On Ice. Because what Al Michaels said on that day resonates with everyone. It's OK to believe in miracles. Because every once in a while, one just might happen.
One of the most beautiful things about the Miracle On Ice is that it can never happen again. It was the perfect combination of circumstances that came together and led to something truly special. Circumstances that are not possible in this day and age.
Let's first consider the most obvious element that won't be repeated. The American team was amateurs in the truest sense of the word. The Soviets were "amateurs" in name only. It was a bunch of 20-something college kids going against seasoned professionals who had been playing together for 10 years. They had no business being in the game, let alone beating them!
The Olympics have long since ceased being a strictly amateur event. It's the best athletes in the world, and the best athletes in the world are all professionals. Everyone's on equal footing. That's what people want and expect to see. Which is why the watered-down hockey tournament in PyeongChang, where the NHL chose not to participate, was so disappointing.
Cold War tensions also loomed large over that game. In fact, it took place just days after Jimmy Carter announced the U.S. would boycott the 1980 Summer Games in Moscow. The Soviets, of course, followed suit four years later when the Olympics were in LA. It's impossible to keep politics out of the Olympics completely, but we haven't seen a boycott since 1988. Countries have learned that they don't work and only the athletes suffer. Nations can still be hostile towards each other, but the athletes aren't held hostage anymore.
Then there's the fact that the game was at 5:00 in the afternoon. ABC wanted to move it to 8:00, but the IOC wouldn't let them. That obviously would never happen today. NBC has so much clout that they can dictate the start times of events to make sure they're on primetime TV in the U.S. Yet, with the Games IN the U.S., ABC was forced to show the game on tape delay.
Tape delay. It's a fact of life in televised sports. Especially when you're dealing with time differences. But with loads of information available at your fingertips instantaneously, people aren't going to wait hours to find out what happened. Not when they can watch it live on their phone or computer or tablet. Even NBC's own Olympic website has shown everything live since 2012, giving people the option to either watch it then or wait until it's on TV. Either way, even if you try, it's nearly impossible to avoid finding out the results ahead of time.
That wasn't even the final game, either. That's the crazy part. They pull off this monumental upset against the Soviets, but still have to beat Finland (in a game that was shown live on Sunday morning). That format has long since been replaced by the much more straightforward (and far less confusing) single-elimination medal round, capped by a winner-take-all gold medal game. There's more room for upsets, but there's also no anticlimactic final game that serves as nothing more than a postscript in the story.
And let's not forget the setting of this miracle--Lake Placid, New York. It's not exactly a metropolis. It's a village of 2,500 people in the middle of nowhere. It's in the Adirondacks, only about 90 minutes from the Canadian border. The closest cities are Plattsburgh, New York and Burlington, Vermont. Yet this small hamlet has hosted the Winter Olympics twice.
Compare that to recent Winter Olympic hosts. Salt Lake City: 200,000 (metropolitan area: 1.2 million). Turin: 875,000. Vancouver: 631,000 (metropolitan area: 2.4 million). Sochi: 343,000. PyeongChang: 43,000 (small by comparison). And the next two Winter Olympics are in Beijing (21.5 million) and Milan-Cortina (Milan's population: 1.4 million).
Lake Placid could never host the Olympics today. It was a different time then. It was a time when you could have the world literally come and take over a town for two weeks and be embraced with open arms! We haven't had that feeling since Lillehammer 1994. Since then, it's been large cities. Which makes sense because the Winter Olympics have outgrown these small villages. They have so many more events and so many more visitors from so many countries that they need the hotel rooms and facilities and resources that only cities can offer. I can't say I don't miss something about those quaint little hometown Olympics, though.
So, the Miracle On Ice is something that can never be repeated. Which only adds to how special it was. It's a moment that's truly etched in time, yet it's one that will never be forgotten. (The Miracle On Ice happened two years before I was born, but the emotion I get when thinking about it makes me feel like I was there. I have a print of that iconic Sports Illustrated cover hanging on my wall, and I seriously cry at the end EVERY time I watch Miracle.)
It's not a stretch to call the Miracle On Ice the most significant moment in the history of the Winter Olympics. In fact, it's widely considered to be one of the most important events in the history of all sports. Ask anyone what the Miracle On Ice is, and they'll be able to tell you. If they're old enough, they'll be able to tell you where they were. As Al Michaels said, it's like the Kennedy assassination or 9/11. Except the difference is that the Miracle On Ice is a positive moment. It was a moment of pure joy. At a time when America needed it.
A lot has changed in the 40 years since the Miracle On Ice. But one thing hasn't and never will. The same feelings people had back then they still feel today. Even those of us who weren't alive at the time feel connected to the Miracle On Ice. Because what Al Michaels said on that day resonates with everyone. It's OK to believe in miracles. Because every once in a while, one just might happen.
Thursday, February 20, 2020
Seven Playoff Teams, 17 Games
I can't say I was surprised by the news that the NFL is likely going to expand the playoffs to 14 teams and expand the regular season to 17 games once the new CBA goes into effect. The owners have been trying to get their 17th game for quite some time, and the extra wild card team in each conference is something that's been floated about for a few years, as well.
Unlike Rob Manfred's stupid proposal to completely change the MLB playoffs for absolutely no reason, I have no issue with the NFL adding two wild card teams. Is it necessary? No. Does the current system work? Yes it does. But will it be the end of Western civilization if the NFL suddenly went from 12 playoff teams to 14? No.
This is something we've seen coming for a while. And, frankly, it won't really change much. Instead of two games on Saturday and two on Sunday during Wild Card Weekend, it'll be three games on each day. Wild Card Weekend is currently the only week of the season without a Sunday night game, so you know NBC would be on board with this plan (even if it means they have to find a new date for the Golden Globes). And it would give the NFL two additional playoff games to sell to the TV networks, which puts more money in everybody's pocket.
A 7-seed increases the likelihood that there'll be a 9-7 playoff team (which there usually is anyway), but it also makes it nearly impossible for a 10-6 team to miss out. And there isn't much difference competitively between the last team in and the first team out, so it's not like the No. 7 seed will be overmatched in the playoffs. (BTW, the No. 6 seed is 5-1 against the No. 3 in the last three seasons.)
The other thing to like about the third wild card team in each conference is that the No. 1 seed will have that much more of an advantage. Not only will they be home as long as they keep winning, they'll be the only team that needs only two wins to get to the Super Bowl while everyone else needs three. And they'll be the only team with a bye, which could make a huge difference in the conference championship game.
Speaking of the playoff bye week, how is it possible that the players on teams with byes didn't get paid for Wild Card Weekend? That was the only thing that shocked me about this announcement. I'm sure it has something to do with the playoff revenues (you can't make any revenue if you're not playing), but that seems like a pretty weak reason to essentially penalize the players for being on a team that was good enough to get a playoff bye. That doesn't make much sense to me, and I'm glad to see that they've corrected that.
Now, as for the 17th game, it's not as easy to get me on board with that. I've been lukewarm about the prospect since they started talking about it, which seems like it's going on almost 10 years now. And I'm still not a fan of it today.
There are a number of reasons why I don't like the 17th game, but I'll start with the most obvious. It's an odd number! Right now teams play eight home games and eight road games. Now that split will be uneven. And how do you decide who gets the ninth home game? Will it alternate each year by conference? (That seems to make the most sense.) Or is this simply an excuse to make everyone play an international game every year without having to give up a home game?
Also, how are you figuring out that 17th opponent? The NFL's current schedule structure is perfect. Six division games, one against all four teams in another division in your conference, one against all four teams from a division in the other conference, and one game against each of the other two teams from your conference that finished in the same place as you the previous season. You can't apply that same formula when you need to find an extra random opponent for everybody!
When are you scheduling this game, too? The NFL doesn't like to start the season before Labor Day. That's why the Super Bowl is in February. But to keep the Super Bowl on the first Sunday in February, you have to start Labor Day Weekend. Otherwise, you're either eliminating the bye week (not happening), eliminating the bye week between the Conference Championships and Super Bowl (not impossible, but highly unlikely) or pushing the Super Bowl back.
And a mid-February Super Bowl would screw up schedules all over the place--impacting all of the NFL's TV partners! February Sweeps are a major period for the networks. That's why the NFL wants the Super Bowl in February. That's why the Oscars and Grammys are always on a Sunday night in February. That doesn't include the other major February Sunday sports events--the Daytona 500 and NBA All-Star Game, either. And, let's not forget, NBC has the Winter Olympics every fourth February. The Winter Olympics and Super Bowl will overlap for the first time in 2022, but I'm sure they would prefer that not becoming a trend.
But...and here's the big but...the 17th game gives the owners one additional home game every other year. And it gives the league 16 more games to sell to TV networks. That's enough for an entire package, isn't it? So, line up ABC, Turner and everybody else who wants a piece of that NFL ratings pie!
That's the real reason for all this. More games equals more money. More money for the players, more money for the owners, more money for the league. And for a league that basically prints money, you know what the bottom line is.
So, whether we like it or not, the 17th regular season game and two extra wild card games are coming. They've both been inevitable for some time, so there's no reason to get all worked up about them. And, frankly, it might not be all bad. After all, who can't get excited about back-to-back playoff tripleheaders?!
Unlike Rob Manfred's stupid proposal to completely change the MLB playoffs for absolutely no reason, I have no issue with the NFL adding two wild card teams. Is it necessary? No. Does the current system work? Yes it does. But will it be the end of Western civilization if the NFL suddenly went from 12 playoff teams to 14? No.
This is something we've seen coming for a while. And, frankly, it won't really change much. Instead of two games on Saturday and two on Sunday during Wild Card Weekend, it'll be three games on each day. Wild Card Weekend is currently the only week of the season without a Sunday night game, so you know NBC would be on board with this plan (even if it means they have to find a new date for the Golden Globes). And it would give the NFL two additional playoff games to sell to the TV networks, which puts more money in everybody's pocket.
A 7-seed increases the likelihood that there'll be a 9-7 playoff team (which there usually is anyway), but it also makes it nearly impossible for a 10-6 team to miss out. And there isn't much difference competitively between the last team in and the first team out, so it's not like the No. 7 seed will be overmatched in the playoffs. (BTW, the No. 6 seed is 5-1 against the No. 3 in the last three seasons.)
The other thing to like about the third wild card team in each conference is that the No. 1 seed will have that much more of an advantage. Not only will they be home as long as they keep winning, they'll be the only team that needs only two wins to get to the Super Bowl while everyone else needs three. And they'll be the only team with a bye, which could make a huge difference in the conference championship game.
Speaking of the playoff bye week, how is it possible that the players on teams with byes didn't get paid for Wild Card Weekend? That was the only thing that shocked me about this announcement. I'm sure it has something to do with the playoff revenues (you can't make any revenue if you're not playing), but that seems like a pretty weak reason to essentially penalize the players for being on a team that was good enough to get a playoff bye. That doesn't make much sense to me, and I'm glad to see that they've corrected that.
Now, as for the 17th game, it's not as easy to get me on board with that. I've been lukewarm about the prospect since they started talking about it, which seems like it's going on almost 10 years now. And I'm still not a fan of it today.
There are a number of reasons why I don't like the 17th game, but I'll start with the most obvious. It's an odd number! Right now teams play eight home games and eight road games. Now that split will be uneven. And how do you decide who gets the ninth home game? Will it alternate each year by conference? (That seems to make the most sense.) Or is this simply an excuse to make everyone play an international game every year without having to give up a home game?
Also, how are you figuring out that 17th opponent? The NFL's current schedule structure is perfect. Six division games, one against all four teams in another division in your conference, one against all four teams from a division in the other conference, and one game against each of the other two teams from your conference that finished in the same place as you the previous season. You can't apply that same formula when you need to find an extra random opponent for everybody!
When are you scheduling this game, too? The NFL doesn't like to start the season before Labor Day. That's why the Super Bowl is in February. But to keep the Super Bowl on the first Sunday in February, you have to start Labor Day Weekend. Otherwise, you're either eliminating the bye week (not happening), eliminating the bye week between the Conference Championships and Super Bowl (not impossible, but highly unlikely) or pushing the Super Bowl back.
And a mid-February Super Bowl would screw up schedules all over the place--impacting all of the NFL's TV partners! February Sweeps are a major period for the networks. That's why the NFL wants the Super Bowl in February. That's why the Oscars and Grammys are always on a Sunday night in February. That doesn't include the other major February Sunday sports events--the Daytona 500 and NBA All-Star Game, either. And, let's not forget, NBC has the Winter Olympics every fourth February. The Winter Olympics and Super Bowl will overlap for the first time in 2022, but I'm sure they would prefer that not becoming a trend.
But...and here's the big but...the 17th game gives the owners one additional home game every other year. And it gives the league 16 more games to sell to TV networks. That's enough for an entire package, isn't it? So, line up ABC, Turner and everybody else who wants a piece of that NFL ratings pie!
That's the real reason for all this. More games equals more money. More money for the players, more money for the owners, more money for the league. And for a league that basically prints money, you know what the bottom line is.
So, whether we like it or not, the 17th regular season game and two extra wild card games are coming. They've both been inevitable for some time, so there's no reason to get all worked up about them. And, frankly, it might not be all bad. After all, who can't get excited about back-to-back playoff tripleheaders?!
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Possible Uses For the 26th Man
In case you didn't already know, I'm pretty excited about the MLB rule changes for this season. I'm especially excited about the three-batter minimum (there was nothing worse than when the top of the seventh took a half hour because they made three pitching changes for five batters) and the fact that pitching staffs will be limited to 13. That means the 26th roster spot every team will have starting this season will likely go to a position player.
As the game became more and more specialized and teams began carrying more and more relievers, the number of spots on the bench became fewer and fewer. And since every team needs a backup catcher, that left them with only two or three other players available. Needless to say, that limited the options (which became even fewer if an AL team was DHing its starting catcher). But, since the 13th player will be a position player, that creates 30 more Major League jobs while also giving teams a lot more lineup versatility.
National League teams, which aren't bound by the DH, will now have five additional bats at their disposal. Just think about the possibilities that creates! And while AL teams don't need to pinch hit nearly as much, they'll have so many more options, too. They can pinch hit or pinch run without worrying about emptying their entire bench to make one move! One extra body can make that much of a difference.
Teams that have full-time DHs were especially limited in what they could do. Their benches, for the most part, consisted of the backup catcher, a utility infielder, and an outfielder who can play all three positions. The regulars essentially had to play every day. And since there weren't DH at bats available, they had to play the field everyday. Not anymore!
There are a number of ways teams can go with the extra position player, and I'm sure they'll all have different strategies for it when they construct their rosters. The days of teams carrying three catchers are probably a thing of the past (although I wouldn't be surprised to see a third catcher get one of the two extra roster spots in September, another long overdue change). But it's not out of the realm of possibility. Especially in the AL, where teams will be able to DH their catcher without worrying about it.
Likewise, National League teams may utilize the extra roster spot on a guy who's primary job is to pinch hit. There used to be those guys--Lee Mazzilli and Lenny Harris come to mind--but they were among the first to go when teams started carrying so many relievers. There is value in it, though. I'll use Jay Bruce as an example. The veteran guy who isn't good enough anymore to be an everyday player, but can still hit. Essentially a National League DH, except only used once in the game.
Thinking about this moving forward, the Edwin Encarnacions and Nelson Cruzes of the world would still be more likely to play for American League teams where they can be permanent DHs. But they wouldn't be limited to just 15 possible teams any longer. Or, more likely, career National Leaguers could latch on (or stay with their existing team) in a reduced role, knowing that their value will be primarily as a pinch hitter.
The professional pinch hitter is one use for the extra roster spot. The third catcher is another. Although, I'd figure most teams will take a different approach. Which is good news for the speedsters and glove guys.
Pinch running is all but nonexistent in the modern game. Not because teams stopped caring about the running game, but because with limited roster spots, you're not going to waste one on a guy who only does one thing (and burn two subs to replace one player). I'm not talking about going back to the 1970s A's who had a guy on the team whose only job was pinch running. But you don't have to keep your big, slow first baseman out there running the bases in the 8th inning of a 5-4 game if you have a speedster on the roster who can go in there to run for him.
Same thing with defensive replacements, who could be the same guy that does the pinch running. In the past, if you were a weak-hitting middle infielder and you wanted to make the team, you'd better have been good defensively at multiple positions. Because otherwise, there was no chance you're making the roster. I'm not saying that versatility will no longer be necessary. But with an extra roster spot, you can carry both that middle infielder AND another first baseman/DH. Or maybe even a second backup outfielder.
I'm curious to see how this will all play out in Spring Training. Because instead of fighting for two roster spots, the potential bench guys will be fighting for three (four in the NL). And 30 different teams will have 30 different approaches for how they want to fill that spot. Some will opt for speed, some will opt for defense, some will opt for more power.
Let's not forget, too, that there's a three-batter minimum for pitchers beginning this season. How much of an impact will that have on roster construction? Because now you can send up that lefty pinch-hitter without the other team automatically countering with a LOOGY. Knowing that, do you build your roster a certain way to regain that late-inning platoon advantage?
It's not just the position-position roster construction that will be different because of the new rules, either. Most teams carried 13 pitchers already, so the eight-man bullpens won't change. But who occupies those spots very well might. Do you still carry that pitcher who used to be your LOOGY now that he'll inevitably have to actually face some righties? Or do you go with someone who's more used to the less-specialized role and can get out both righties and lefties?
Spring Training just started. We're still a long way away from seeing what kind of an impact the new roster rules will have. But they're already making a difference just by their sheer existence. And that difference will be felt from now until October.
As the game became more and more specialized and teams began carrying more and more relievers, the number of spots on the bench became fewer and fewer. And since every team needs a backup catcher, that left them with only two or three other players available. Needless to say, that limited the options (which became even fewer if an AL team was DHing its starting catcher). But, since the 13th player will be a position player, that creates 30 more Major League jobs while also giving teams a lot more lineup versatility.
National League teams, which aren't bound by the DH, will now have five additional bats at their disposal. Just think about the possibilities that creates! And while AL teams don't need to pinch hit nearly as much, they'll have so many more options, too. They can pinch hit or pinch run without worrying about emptying their entire bench to make one move! One extra body can make that much of a difference.
Teams that have full-time DHs were especially limited in what they could do. Their benches, for the most part, consisted of the backup catcher, a utility infielder, and an outfielder who can play all three positions. The regulars essentially had to play every day. And since there weren't DH at bats available, they had to play the field everyday. Not anymore!
There are a number of ways teams can go with the extra position player, and I'm sure they'll all have different strategies for it when they construct their rosters. The days of teams carrying three catchers are probably a thing of the past (although I wouldn't be surprised to see a third catcher get one of the two extra roster spots in September, another long overdue change). But it's not out of the realm of possibility. Especially in the AL, where teams will be able to DH their catcher without worrying about it.
Likewise, National League teams may utilize the extra roster spot on a guy who's primary job is to pinch hit. There used to be those guys--Lee Mazzilli and Lenny Harris come to mind--but they were among the first to go when teams started carrying so many relievers. There is value in it, though. I'll use Jay Bruce as an example. The veteran guy who isn't good enough anymore to be an everyday player, but can still hit. Essentially a National League DH, except only used once in the game.
Thinking about this moving forward, the Edwin Encarnacions and Nelson Cruzes of the world would still be more likely to play for American League teams where they can be permanent DHs. But they wouldn't be limited to just 15 possible teams any longer. Or, more likely, career National Leaguers could latch on (or stay with their existing team) in a reduced role, knowing that their value will be primarily as a pinch hitter.
The professional pinch hitter is one use for the extra roster spot. The third catcher is another. Although, I'd figure most teams will take a different approach. Which is good news for the speedsters and glove guys.
Pinch running is all but nonexistent in the modern game. Not because teams stopped caring about the running game, but because with limited roster spots, you're not going to waste one on a guy who only does one thing (and burn two subs to replace one player). I'm not talking about going back to the 1970s A's who had a guy on the team whose only job was pinch running. But you don't have to keep your big, slow first baseman out there running the bases in the 8th inning of a 5-4 game if you have a speedster on the roster who can go in there to run for him.
Same thing with defensive replacements, who could be the same guy that does the pinch running. In the past, if you were a weak-hitting middle infielder and you wanted to make the team, you'd better have been good defensively at multiple positions. Because otherwise, there was no chance you're making the roster. I'm not saying that versatility will no longer be necessary. But with an extra roster spot, you can carry both that middle infielder AND another first baseman/DH. Or maybe even a second backup outfielder.
I'm curious to see how this will all play out in Spring Training. Because instead of fighting for two roster spots, the potential bench guys will be fighting for three (four in the NL). And 30 different teams will have 30 different approaches for how they want to fill that spot. Some will opt for speed, some will opt for defense, some will opt for more power.
Let's not forget, too, that there's a three-batter minimum for pitchers beginning this season. How much of an impact will that have on roster construction? Because now you can send up that lefty pinch-hitter without the other team automatically countering with a LOOGY. Knowing that, do you build your roster a certain way to regain that late-inning platoon advantage?
It's not just the position-position roster construction that will be different because of the new rules, either. Most teams carried 13 pitchers already, so the eight-man bullpens won't change. But who occupies those spots very well might. Do you still carry that pitcher who used to be your LOOGY now that he'll inevitably have to actually face some righties? Or do you go with someone who's more used to the less-specialized role and can get out both righties and lefties?
Spring Training just started. We're still a long way away from seeing what kind of an impact the new roster rules will have. But they're already making a difference just by their sheer existence. And that difference will be felt from now until October.
Monday, February 17, 2020
XFL 2.0's Lasting Power
We're two weeks in, and it's safe to say XFL 2.0 is nothing like its predecessor. The original XFL was all about the gimmicks, which were way too over-the-top and weren't enough to distract people from the fact that the football wasn't very good. XFL 2.0 is the complete opposite. Their tagline is "For the Love of Football," and, while there are still gimmicks, they're all about the football.
And, I've gotta say, I like the XFL's kickoffs. In the NFL, it's almost as if they don't want there to be any returns. In the XFL, the kickoff rules are designed precisely so that there will be. It's weird to see everybody lined up stationary on the line of scrimmage as the kicker approaches the ball, but it is nice to see the kickoff return being seen as the potential weapon it can be.
I wish the XFL thought the same about punts. Because while they want kickoffs to be returned, the XFL discourages punts. Teams are allowed to do it, but they want them to go for it on fourth down, so they made the punt touchbacks come out so far that there's little incentive to try and pin the other team deep. Of course, that's a staple of the NFL game.
Although, there's another thing that they could do, which I'm surprised hasn't caught on beyond its CFL origins. In the CFL, they have the "rouge," a play in which the kicking team gets one point on any punt, kickoff or missed field goal not returned out of the end zone. Now, CFL end zones are huge, so touchbacks are rare to begin with, but the rouge is something that screams "XFL!"
That's definitely a way to reduce the number of touchbacks. The return team has the choice--get the ball at the 25-yard line (am I the only one who thinks it's stupid that touchbacks on kickoffs come out to the 25, but they only come out to the 20 on punts and turnovers?) and concede the point OR take it out of the end zone and get it wherever the return man ends up. Now THAT would add to the strategy!
Of course, the XFL has their own ideas for how to add to the strategy with their three different point-after-touchdown options. Apparently Bill Belichick isn't the only one who hates extra points. Because the XFL has abandoned them entirely (at least they still have kickoffs, unlike their AAF brethren). Instead they have 1-, 2- and 3-point conversions, which move progressively further back. So, in the XFL, an 18-point deficit is technically a two-possession game.
Early returns are promising for XFL 2.0. They certainly seem better prepared this time than they were 20 years ago, and the product is far better. Is it NFL-quality football? No. But it's definitely better than some people were expecting. Is that enough to maintain interest, though?
There's one big difference between XFL 2.0 and the AAF, which failed miserably and didn't even complete its inaugural season last year. Unlike the AAF, the XFL actually has money. So, they're not going to run out of it and shut down immediately. But does XFL 2.0 actually have lasting power? Will there even be a second season? I'm not so sure.
The TV ratings for last week's opening games weren't bad. But a lot of that may have been the curiosity factor. After all, the original XFL drew amazing TV ratings for its inaugural games before they dropped off tremendously as the season went on. We won't see the Week 2 ratings for a while, but you know there's going to be a drop off. The question is how big? And will the XFL manage to maintain high enough ratings (and attendance) to make it worthwhile? Again, I'm not so sure.
Both versions of the XFL and the AAF were started because their founders, Vince McMahon and Charlie Ebersol, saw the American appetite for football and thought they would be filling a void in the spring. There's no NFL or college football from the week after the Super Bowl in February until the preseason starts in August. (That, of course, doesn't include the Combine, the Draft, and all of the other offseason events.) So, the thought is, the XFL will give people their football fix until late April (when the Draft is).
My skepticism about the lasting power of the XFL (or any spring football league) is about how great that appetite is. Especially for football that isn't nearly as high quality. It's true that most people's Sunday afternoons are freed up once the Super Bowl is over, but that gap really isn't as large as it's made out to be. Sure, Sundays in February are pretty light in non-Winter Olympic years, but March Madness isn't too far off, then baseball season starts. And the XFL plans to be done by May, anyway, so the weeks they're looking to fill are already taken up by other sports, mainly college basketball.
Every time a spring football league has popped up, it has ultimately failed. In fact, none has lasted longer than the USFL's three years (I'm not counting NFL Europe since that was essentially an NFL developmental league). The reasons for those failures has varied, but you can't discount some people just needing a break from football after the Super Bowl. Except for European soccer, there isn't a single year-round sport...and there's a reason for that.
This version of the XFL isn't fooling itself. It doesn't view itself as a competitor to the NFL (at least not yet) and is offering itself as an alternative for those fans who do want more football once the season's over. And they're smarter than they were last time by letting the football do the talking. Because that's ultimately going to be the deciding factor. People won't tune in to watch a bad product, so you need to worry about that first otherwise your lasting power will be nonexistent.
Can XFL 2.0 work long term? I doubt it. It's nothing against the league. It's just something about spring football. I'm just not sure there's the appetite for it that some people think there is. But even if XFL 2.0 doesn't last, it'll leave a legacy. Because some of their ideas aren't bad. And you know the NFL is watching, looking for ways they can improve their own product. Just like they did with the original XFL 20 years ago.
And, I've gotta say, I like the XFL's kickoffs. In the NFL, it's almost as if they don't want there to be any returns. In the XFL, the kickoff rules are designed precisely so that there will be. It's weird to see everybody lined up stationary on the line of scrimmage as the kicker approaches the ball, but it is nice to see the kickoff return being seen as the potential weapon it can be.
I wish the XFL thought the same about punts. Because while they want kickoffs to be returned, the XFL discourages punts. Teams are allowed to do it, but they want them to go for it on fourth down, so they made the punt touchbacks come out so far that there's little incentive to try and pin the other team deep. Of course, that's a staple of the NFL game.
Although, there's another thing that they could do, which I'm surprised hasn't caught on beyond its CFL origins. In the CFL, they have the "rouge," a play in which the kicking team gets one point on any punt, kickoff or missed field goal not returned out of the end zone. Now, CFL end zones are huge, so touchbacks are rare to begin with, but the rouge is something that screams "XFL!"
That's definitely a way to reduce the number of touchbacks. The return team has the choice--get the ball at the 25-yard line (am I the only one who thinks it's stupid that touchbacks on kickoffs come out to the 25, but they only come out to the 20 on punts and turnovers?) and concede the point OR take it out of the end zone and get it wherever the return man ends up. Now THAT would add to the strategy!
Of course, the XFL has their own ideas for how to add to the strategy with their three different point-after-touchdown options. Apparently Bill Belichick isn't the only one who hates extra points. Because the XFL has abandoned them entirely (at least they still have kickoffs, unlike their AAF brethren). Instead they have 1-, 2- and 3-point conversions, which move progressively further back. So, in the XFL, an 18-point deficit is technically a two-possession game.
Early returns are promising for XFL 2.0. They certainly seem better prepared this time than they were 20 years ago, and the product is far better. Is it NFL-quality football? No. But it's definitely better than some people were expecting. Is that enough to maintain interest, though?
There's one big difference between XFL 2.0 and the AAF, which failed miserably and didn't even complete its inaugural season last year. Unlike the AAF, the XFL actually has money. So, they're not going to run out of it and shut down immediately. But does XFL 2.0 actually have lasting power? Will there even be a second season? I'm not so sure.
The TV ratings for last week's opening games weren't bad. But a lot of that may have been the curiosity factor. After all, the original XFL drew amazing TV ratings for its inaugural games before they dropped off tremendously as the season went on. We won't see the Week 2 ratings for a while, but you know there's going to be a drop off. The question is how big? And will the XFL manage to maintain high enough ratings (and attendance) to make it worthwhile? Again, I'm not so sure.
Both versions of the XFL and the AAF were started because their founders, Vince McMahon and Charlie Ebersol, saw the American appetite for football and thought they would be filling a void in the spring. There's no NFL or college football from the week after the Super Bowl in February until the preseason starts in August. (That, of course, doesn't include the Combine, the Draft, and all of the other offseason events.) So, the thought is, the XFL will give people their football fix until late April (when the Draft is).
My skepticism about the lasting power of the XFL (or any spring football league) is about how great that appetite is. Especially for football that isn't nearly as high quality. It's true that most people's Sunday afternoons are freed up once the Super Bowl is over, but that gap really isn't as large as it's made out to be. Sure, Sundays in February are pretty light in non-Winter Olympic years, but March Madness isn't too far off, then baseball season starts. And the XFL plans to be done by May, anyway, so the weeks they're looking to fill are already taken up by other sports, mainly college basketball.
Every time a spring football league has popped up, it has ultimately failed. In fact, none has lasted longer than the USFL's three years (I'm not counting NFL Europe since that was essentially an NFL developmental league). The reasons for those failures has varied, but you can't discount some people just needing a break from football after the Super Bowl. Except for European soccer, there isn't a single year-round sport...and there's a reason for that.
This version of the XFL isn't fooling itself. It doesn't view itself as a competitor to the NFL (at least not yet) and is offering itself as an alternative for those fans who do want more football once the season's over. And they're smarter than they were last time by letting the football do the talking. Because that's ultimately going to be the deciding factor. People won't tune in to watch a bad product, so you need to worry about that first otherwise your lasting power will be nonexistent.
Can XFL 2.0 work long term? I doubt it. It's nothing against the league. It's just something about spring football. I'm just not sure there's the appetite for it that some people think there is. But even if XFL 2.0 doesn't last, it'll leave a legacy. Because some of their ideas aren't bad. And you know the NFL is watching, looking for ways they can improve their own product. Just like they did with the original XFL 20 years ago.
Friday, February 14, 2020
New Season, New Rules, New Playoffs?
Pitchers and catchers have reported to Florida and Arizona, which only means one thing. Baseball season is close! And that also means the rules changes that were first announced last season are now official.
Sorry fans of the LOOGY, but pitchers must face a minimum of three batters (or end the inning) now. No more half innings where the manager feels the need to make three pitching changes to get through four batters! Likewise, rosters expanded by one, but teams are limited to 13 pitchers. So, no more eight-man bullpens and two-man benches! And they finally did something about the September rosters! Now it's only 28 guys instead of 40. So, no more ridiculous unlimited number of relievers that turn the most important games of the season into Spring Training!
My favorite new rule is the wrinkle they added to the injured list and Minor League options. Too many teams were taking advantage of the 10-day injured list and option time and using it as a shuttle to have fresh arms in the bullpen every day. Not to mention those suspicious "injuries" to fifth starters so that they can miss a start and their team had an extra reliever for 10 days!
MLB caught on, though, and went back to the old 15-day injured list for pitchers (while keeping it at 10 for position players), which will make it a lot harder to play those games. Teams can still try it, but there's a big difference between not having a guy for 10 days and not having him for two weeks. Hopefully this means we won't have the daily pitcher transactions anymore and teams will be more selective with their use of the injured list for pitchers. Who knows? Maybe they'll even use it for its intended purpose moving forward!
I also like that they made clear rules about when position players can pitch. It was definitely getting out of control. Last season set a record for the most pitching appearances by position players, and it wasn't just in mop-up duty at the end of blowouts or deep into extra innings. Teams can still do it. They're just limited as to when. I'd like to see a similar rule implemented where pitchers can't play the field or pinch hit unless their team is out of position players, but one thing at a a time.
There is one new rule that I'm very much NOT on board with, however. In fact, I think it's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time! I'm, of course, talking about the idea of expanded playoffs, which has evidently "gained traction."
Why, oh why, is this idea even seeing the light of day?! There's not a single thing about it that sounds at all appealing. Nothing can be as bad as the NBA's dumb proposal with the midseason tournament and play-in round to for the lowest seeds (that's exactly what the NBA needs, more sub- or at .500 playoff teams!). This comes close, though.
One of the best and worst things about youth sports is that everybody gets a trophy. And that's exactly what this feels like. The MLB season is six months long for a reason. After six months, you know which are the best teams. And only those teams make the playoffs. It's not like every other sport (especially basketball and hockey) where seemingly everyone qualifies and the regular season feels like nothing more than jockeying for playoff seeding.
But too many owners feel left out, so they want to expand the playoffs from 10 teams to 14. This way baseball can be just like basketball and hockey and reward mediocre teams with playoff berths! Instead of limiting it to the top 33 percent of baseball, they'd like to see the top 47 percent keep playing beyond the regular season. Do we really need that? Especially when you have a number of teams that are intentionally non-competitive so that they can stockpile draft picks?
And if that wasn't bad enough, the proposed format is just as dumb! The No. 1 seed gets a bye into the Division Series, but with the Wild Card round being expanded to a best-of-three, that would mean they're sitting around for a week between the end of the regular season and their first game of the postseason. As teams with long layoffs between the LCS and the World Series have shown us, more rest doesn't always equate to an advantage.
Hang on, it gets worse. The other two division winners would get to choose their opponent in MLB's very own "Selection Sunday" TV special after all the game are finished on the final day of the regular season. The No. 2 seed gets the first choice, then the third division winner, with the other two wild card teams left to face each other. And instead of a single Wild Card Game like they have now, these would be best-of-three series with all three games at the higher-seeded team.
Hopefully this is all just a distraction to get people talking about something other than the Astros and not something they're actually seriously thinking about. Because there are so many reasons why this is ridiculously dumb that I've lost count! And some fans are still getting used to the idea of the Wild Card Game. Now you want to throw four wild card teams at them?!
Then there's the No. 1 seed. As I already mentioned, you've got them sitting around for a week between the end of the regular season and the start of the playoffs. But they would have "home field advantage" yet not play the most home games in their league! Assuming the Division Series went five and the LCS went seven, the 1-seed would play seven home games (the same as they do now). But since the No. 2 seed would potentially have three home games in the wild card round, they'd get nine if every round went the distance (10 if the 1-seed loses in the Division Series).
Meanwhile, with half the teams making the playoffs, you'd have everybody thinking they're in contention well into August. The whole point of going to a single trade deadline on July 31 was to make teams decide if they're contenders or not! This would make that trade deadline practically irrelevant. Because so many teams would think they have a chance that none of the teams that are actually good would have a chance to get better for the stretch run.
Would it make for fewer meaningless games in August and September? Yes. But is it worth that trade-off? I don't think so. Especially since you'd have three "playoff" teams that don't even get the revenue that comes with the 40,000 fans in attendance at a home playoff game (even if it's in the afternoon, which some would have to be since we'd be going from two Wild Card games to as many as 18!).
You know TV has something to do with this, too. More playoff teams means more playoff games to sell to FOX or TBS or ESPN or somebody else (or to even keep for themselves on MLB Network). And that means more money in the owners' pockets (and more revenue sharing funds to be distributed to the smaller-market teams). So, no, I don't think it's a coincidence that they're talking about 2022 as the year these expanded playoffs would go into effect. Because TBS' contract for half of the postseason expires after the 2021 season.
Predictably, reaction to this is lukewarm. Some people think it's a great idea. But there are also a lot of players and fans who agree with me and think this is the dumbest idea Rob Manfred has had yet (and he's had some dumb ones).
Right now it's just something that's being discussed. Hopefully it doesn't get any farther than that. Because MLB needs expanded playoffs about as much as college football needs more bowl games. (Oh wait, that's happening too.)
Sorry fans of the LOOGY, but pitchers must face a minimum of three batters (or end the inning) now. No more half innings where the manager feels the need to make three pitching changes to get through four batters! Likewise, rosters expanded by one, but teams are limited to 13 pitchers. So, no more eight-man bullpens and two-man benches! And they finally did something about the September rosters! Now it's only 28 guys instead of 40. So, no more ridiculous unlimited number of relievers that turn the most important games of the season into Spring Training!
My favorite new rule is the wrinkle they added to the injured list and Minor League options. Too many teams were taking advantage of the 10-day injured list and option time and using it as a shuttle to have fresh arms in the bullpen every day. Not to mention those suspicious "injuries" to fifth starters so that they can miss a start and their team had an extra reliever for 10 days!
MLB caught on, though, and went back to the old 15-day injured list for pitchers (while keeping it at 10 for position players), which will make it a lot harder to play those games. Teams can still try it, but there's a big difference between not having a guy for 10 days and not having him for two weeks. Hopefully this means we won't have the daily pitcher transactions anymore and teams will be more selective with their use of the injured list for pitchers. Who knows? Maybe they'll even use it for its intended purpose moving forward!
I also like that they made clear rules about when position players can pitch. It was definitely getting out of control. Last season set a record for the most pitching appearances by position players, and it wasn't just in mop-up duty at the end of blowouts or deep into extra innings. Teams can still do it. They're just limited as to when. I'd like to see a similar rule implemented where pitchers can't play the field or pinch hit unless their team is out of position players, but one thing at a a time.
There is one new rule that I'm very much NOT on board with, however. In fact, I think it's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time! I'm, of course, talking about the idea of expanded playoffs, which has evidently "gained traction."
Why, oh why, is this idea even seeing the light of day?! There's not a single thing about it that sounds at all appealing. Nothing can be as bad as the NBA's dumb proposal with the midseason tournament and play-in round to for the lowest seeds (that's exactly what the NBA needs, more sub- or at .500 playoff teams!). This comes close, though.
One of the best and worst things about youth sports is that everybody gets a trophy. And that's exactly what this feels like. The MLB season is six months long for a reason. After six months, you know which are the best teams. And only those teams make the playoffs. It's not like every other sport (especially basketball and hockey) where seemingly everyone qualifies and the regular season feels like nothing more than jockeying for playoff seeding.
But too many owners feel left out, so they want to expand the playoffs from 10 teams to 14. This way baseball can be just like basketball and hockey and reward mediocre teams with playoff berths! Instead of limiting it to the top 33 percent of baseball, they'd like to see the top 47 percent keep playing beyond the regular season. Do we really need that? Especially when you have a number of teams that are intentionally non-competitive so that they can stockpile draft picks?
And if that wasn't bad enough, the proposed format is just as dumb! The No. 1 seed gets a bye into the Division Series, but with the Wild Card round being expanded to a best-of-three, that would mean they're sitting around for a week between the end of the regular season and their first game of the postseason. As teams with long layoffs between the LCS and the World Series have shown us, more rest doesn't always equate to an advantage.
Hang on, it gets worse. The other two division winners would get to choose their opponent in MLB's very own "Selection Sunday" TV special after all the game are finished on the final day of the regular season. The No. 2 seed gets the first choice, then the third division winner, with the other two wild card teams left to face each other. And instead of a single Wild Card Game like they have now, these would be best-of-three series with all three games at the higher-seeded team.
Hopefully this is all just a distraction to get people talking about something other than the Astros and not something they're actually seriously thinking about. Because there are so many reasons why this is ridiculously dumb that I've lost count! And some fans are still getting used to the idea of the Wild Card Game. Now you want to throw four wild card teams at them?!
Then there's the No. 1 seed. As I already mentioned, you've got them sitting around for a week between the end of the regular season and the start of the playoffs. But they would have "home field advantage" yet not play the most home games in their league! Assuming the Division Series went five and the LCS went seven, the 1-seed would play seven home games (the same as they do now). But since the No. 2 seed would potentially have three home games in the wild card round, they'd get nine if every round went the distance (10 if the 1-seed loses in the Division Series).
Meanwhile, with half the teams making the playoffs, you'd have everybody thinking they're in contention well into August. The whole point of going to a single trade deadline on July 31 was to make teams decide if they're contenders or not! This would make that trade deadline practically irrelevant. Because so many teams would think they have a chance that none of the teams that are actually good would have a chance to get better for the stretch run.
Would it make for fewer meaningless games in August and September? Yes. But is it worth that trade-off? I don't think so. Especially since you'd have three "playoff" teams that don't even get the revenue that comes with the 40,000 fans in attendance at a home playoff game (even if it's in the afternoon, which some would have to be since we'd be going from two Wild Card games to as many as 18!).
You know TV has something to do with this, too. More playoff teams means more playoff games to sell to FOX or TBS or ESPN or somebody else (or to even keep for themselves on MLB Network). And that means more money in the owners' pockets (and more revenue sharing funds to be distributed to the smaller-market teams). So, no, I don't think it's a coincidence that they're talking about 2022 as the year these expanded playoffs would go into effect. Because TBS' contract for half of the postseason expires after the 2021 season.
Predictably, reaction to this is lukewarm. Some people think it's a great idea. But there are also a lot of players and fans who agree with me and think this is the dumbest idea Rob Manfred has had yet (and he's had some dumb ones).
Right now it's just something that's being discussed. Hopefully it doesn't get any farther than that. Because MLB needs expanded playoffs about as much as college football needs more bowl games. (Oh wait, that's happening too.)
Sunday, February 9, 2020
An NHL Olympic Return?
When Doc Emrick mentioned at the end of the NHL All*Star Game that they were thinking about tweaking the format, my first thought was "Why?" The four-division 3-on-3 tournament has been fantastic, far better than any 5-on-5 incarnation of the event, so why mess with something that's working? And what could they possibly come up with to replace it?
But now that two weeks have passed, more details have come out. And they have to do with the never-ending saga of the NHL's Olympic participation. Which makes the idea that's been thrown around the most--some sort of international 3x3 event--suddenly make a lot more sense.
To be clear, I'm NOT in favor of any sort of international element at the NHL All*Star Game. The big problem when they did the North America vs. the World format from 1998-2002 is that a majority of NHL players are either Canadian or American, so the World team was drawing from a much smaller pool of players.
I also wonder how you'd decide what your teams for this international 3x3 tournament would be. Part of what makes the current format work is that there are four teams, so it works perfectly to have the first two 20-minute "games" be semifinals before the third period is the final. But there are significantly more than four nations represented in the NHL. They'd obviously have to have a Team Canada and Team USA, but what about the other two? "Team Europe" would be an easy one, but it would also be a cop out with so many Czechs and Swedes and Russians and Finns. And that still doesn't solve the problem of the fourth team.
Apparently those discussions came about because the NHL and the NHLPA couldn't come to an agreement about the next World Cup of Hockey. The original idea was to hold the tournament next February, but with the CBA expiring after the 2021-22 season, that's no longer on the table. Instead, they're targeting 2024 for the next World Cup (an event that's 24 years old and has been held a grand total of three times!).
Those discussions are what led to the talks about changing up the All*Star Game format. The players like the 3-on-3 and they like the $1 million that goes to the winners, but playing for divisional pride (where they're teammates with a lot of guys they don't particularly like from rival teams) doesn't get them going the way playing for their countries does. Which is why the Union seems to be in favor of giving the All*Star Game "a distinct international flavor."
Which brings us to the elephant in the room. The Olympics. The players love going to the Olympics and representing their countries. The IOC and IIHF love it, since NHL players are the best hockey players on the planet. The fans love it, too. The only people who don't seem to love it are Gary Bettman and his bosses, the NHL owners. Who, unfortunately, are the only ones with any power in the situation.
After playing in every Winter Olympics from 1998-2014, the NHL didn't send its players to PyeongChang. The league had some issues with the IIHF and IOC that it was able to use as its excuse, with Bettman also claiming that the two-week Olympic break was "too disruptive" to the season. (Although, it should be noted that the NHL gives every team a bye week during the course of the season, and, if you factor in no All*Star Break in Olympic years, we'd only be talking about a few extra off days they'd need to build into each team's schedule.)
So the owners got what they wanted in 2018 and the Olympic hockey tournament consisted mainly of Minor Leaguers and European professionals. That decision, however, wasn't made until the summer of 2017. The IOC and IIHF told the league that they needed much more notice this time. With the qualifying tournaments for the final three spots (nine have already been secured) set for this summer, they want to know if teams like Slovakia and Germany will have their NHLers available. As a result, they gave the league a summer deadline for a "yes" or "no."
At first, all indications were that it was unlikely NHL players would participate in Beijing. The league's issues regarding insurance, travel costs and the ability to cross-promote still existed, and their position wasn't going to change unless something else did. Well, according to Hockey Night In Canada's Elliotte Friedman, something HAS changed. The IOC and IIHF are apparently willing to meet the NHL's conditions (something they weren't willing to do in 2018), which has caused the NHL to rethink its position. Now, it looks like we may see NHL players in Beijing after all.
The NHL has been contradicting itself on Olympic participation for a while now. They complain about the disruption to the season that the Olympics causes, but also want to grow the NHL internationally. And there's no bigger untapped market than China! The NHL has been salivating at the idea of exposing its product to 1.4 billion potential Chinese fans ever since Beijing was awarded the 2022 Games. Even when they didn't go to PyeongChang, many experts thought it was just a one Olympic break before the NHL came back for Beijing.
With these recent developments, it appears those predictions many have been right after all. Now the big challenge might be getting the NHL and the NHLPA on the same page. The players' position hasn't changed. They want to go. Everyone knows that. Including the league. Which is why the owners want to make Olympic participation a talking point in the upcoming CBA negotiations. The players, however, aren't too receptive to that idea.
Their argument, which is a valid one, is that since the CBA doesn't expire until after the 2022 Olympics, that should have nothing to do with the negotiations. Working in Olympic participation in 2026, 2030, 2034, etc., sure. But 2022 falls under this CBA, not the new one, and shouldn't be tied to it.
Is an agreement between the owners and players that applies to just the 2022 Olympics possible? Of course. In fact, it's probably the most likely scenario. Especially if that's the only thing standing between the players and representing their countries in Beijing. Something that has gone from a pipe dream to a distinct possibility in a matter of days. It's what they want. They'll find a way to get it done.
But now that two weeks have passed, more details have come out. And they have to do with the never-ending saga of the NHL's Olympic participation. Which makes the idea that's been thrown around the most--some sort of international 3x3 event--suddenly make a lot more sense.
To be clear, I'm NOT in favor of any sort of international element at the NHL All*Star Game. The big problem when they did the North America vs. the World format from 1998-2002 is that a majority of NHL players are either Canadian or American, so the World team was drawing from a much smaller pool of players.
I also wonder how you'd decide what your teams for this international 3x3 tournament would be. Part of what makes the current format work is that there are four teams, so it works perfectly to have the first two 20-minute "games" be semifinals before the third period is the final. But there are significantly more than four nations represented in the NHL. They'd obviously have to have a Team Canada and Team USA, but what about the other two? "Team Europe" would be an easy one, but it would also be a cop out with so many Czechs and Swedes and Russians and Finns. And that still doesn't solve the problem of the fourth team.
Apparently those discussions came about because the NHL and the NHLPA couldn't come to an agreement about the next World Cup of Hockey. The original idea was to hold the tournament next February, but with the CBA expiring after the 2021-22 season, that's no longer on the table. Instead, they're targeting 2024 for the next World Cup (an event that's 24 years old and has been held a grand total of three times!).
Those discussions are what led to the talks about changing up the All*Star Game format. The players like the 3-on-3 and they like the $1 million that goes to the winners, but playing for divisional pride (where they're teammates with a lot of guys they don't particularly like from rival teams) doesn't get them going the way playing for their countries does. Which is why the Union seems to be in favor of giving the All*Star Game "a distinct international flavor."
Which brings us to the elephant in the room. The Olympics. The players love going to the Olympics and representing their countries. The IOC and IIHF love it, since NHL players are the best hockey players on the planet. The fans love it, too. The only people who don't seem to love it are Gary Bettman and his bosses, the NHL owners. Who, unfortunately, are the only ones with any power in the situation.
After playing in every Winter Olympics from 1998-2014, the NHL didn't send its players to PyeongChang. The league had some issues with the IIHF and IOC that it was able to use as its excuse, with Bettman also claiming that the two-week Olympic break was "too disruptive" to the season. (Although, it should be noted that the NHL gives every team a bye week during the course of the season, and, if you factor in no All*Star Break in Olympic years, we'd only be talking about a few extra off days they'd need to build into each team's schedule.)
So the owners got what they wanted in 2018 and the Olympic hockey tournament consisted mainly of Minor Leaguers and European professionals. That decision, however, wasn't made until the summer of 2017. The IOC and IIHF told the league that they needed much more notice this time. With the qualifying tournaments for the final three spots (nine have already been secured) set for this summer, they want to know if teams like Slovakia and Germany will have their NHLers available. As a result, they gave the league a summer deadline for a "yes" or "no."
At first, all indications were that it was unlikely NHL players would participate in Beijing. The league's issues regarding insurance, travel costs and the ability to cross-promote still existed, and their position wasn't going to change unless something else did. Well, according to Hockey Night In Canada's Elliotte Friedman, something HAS changed. The IOC and IIHF are apparently willing to meet the NHL's conditions (something they weren't willing to do in 2018), which has caused the NHL to rethink its position. Now, it looks like we may see NHL players in Beijing after all.
The NHL has been contradicting itself on Olympic participation for a while now. They complain about the disruption to the season that the Olympics causes, but also want to grow the NHL internationally. And there's no bigger untapped market than China! The NHL has been salivating at the idea of exposing its product to 1.4 billion potential Chinese fans ever since Beijing was awarded the 2022 Games. Even when they didn't go to PyeongChang, many experts thought it was just a one Olympic break before the NHL came back for Beijing.
With these recent developments, it appears those predictions many have been right after all. Now the big challenge might be getting the NHL and the NHLPA on the same page. The players' position hasn't changed. They want to go. Everyone knows that. Including the league. Which is why the owners want to make Olympic participation a talking point in the upcoming CBA negotiations. The players, however, aren't too receptive to that idea.
Their argument, which is a valid one, is that since the CBA doesn't expire until after the 2022 Olympics, that should have nothing to do with the negotiations. Working in Olympic participation in 2026, 2030, 2034, etc., sure. But 2022 falls under this CBA, not the new one, and shouldn't be tied to it.
Is an agreement between the owners and players that applies to just the 2022 Olympics possible? Of course. In fact, it's probably the most likely scenario. Especially if that's the only thing standing between the players and representing their countries in Beijing. Something that has gone from a pipe dream to a distinct possibility in a matter of days. It's what they want. They'll find a way to get it done.
Friday, February 7, 2020
MLB's Most Improved
Now that the Super Bowl has come and gone, it's time to start thinking about baseball season! In fact, most teams begin Spring Training next week (even though the Red Sox still don't have a manager). And, while Yankees-Dodgers seems to be the consensus preseason World Series pick, a number of teams besides those two Goliaths have, on paper at least, vastly improved heading into 2020.
While they might not be World Series-ready just yet, I'm looking for teams like the White Sox, Rangers and Reds to be much more competitive this season than they've been recently. On the flip side, the Red Sox, Astros and Braves aren't exactly "better" as they head for camp.
"Improved" is a relative term, of course. No one will argue that the Yankees aren't a better team right now than they were last season. But matching (or topping) last year's 103 wins will be a challenge. Same thing with the Twins, who could easily win the AL Central again and are in many ways "better" than last season, even though another 100-win season seems unlikely in a division that figures to be much more competitive.
With that in mind, here are the 10 teams that certainly appear to have gotten better during the offseason. We'll have to wait and see how many of those big moves pay off. Because for every J.D. Martinez to the Red Sox, you've got a Bryce Harper to the Phillies. And the Phillies, last year's big offseason spenders, didn't even make the playoffs.
Yankees: This one comes as no surprise to anybody. Their top priority was Gerrit Cole, and they landed their big fish to the tune of nine years and $324 million. They finally have that stud No. 1 pitcher for the first time since landing CC Sabathia as a free agent in 2009. And suddenly, the one weakness the Yankees had (which wasn't nearly as bad as people were making it out to be) is arguably their biggest strength.
Dodgers: First off, I think it's absolutely crazy that the Red Sox were even considering trading Mookie Betts! It's even crazier that the Dodgers took on his entire contract for what's essentially a one-year rental before he hits free agency. But the addition of Betts makes the Dodgers' lineup that much more ridiculous, and David Price, who was merely a throw-in, could be reborn in LA. He also gives the Dodgers a solid third starter to replace Hyun-Jin Ryu, who signed with Toronto.
Angels: LA's other team made the full-court press for Cole, but didn't get him. In fact, they fell short in their pursuit of a starting pitcher--any starting pitcher--entirely. And that figures to be their glaring weakness again. So how are they "improved"? Because they finally got Mike Trout some help and could very easily win a bunch of games 10-8! They threw a lot of money at Anthony Rendon and added Joc Pederson, who's coming from across town. Plus, Joe Maddon's calling the shots now, so you know he'll come up with some sort of crazy plan that'll end up working.
White Sox: The White Sox evidently had a lot of money to spend and decided to spend it. But it sure paid off for Dallas Keuchel. And Gio Gonzalez. And Yasmani Grandal. And Edwin Encarnacion. The White Sox are the prime candidate to be this year's version of the 2019 Phillies. But I can also see them making a lot of noise in what figures to be a much more competitive AL Central.
Twins: Even with the Indians and an improved White Sox team in the mix, it's hard to go against the Twins in the AL Central. Because Minnesota got better, too. I must say, it was a surprise that Josh Donaldson chose Minnesota as his new home, but the offense didn't exactly need much help after setting a Major League record for home runs last season. Where they needed to improve was on the pitching staff. And they did that with the additions of Homer Bailey and Rich Hill, giving them four quality, veteran starters including 2019 All-Stars Jose Berrios and Jake Odorizzi.
Phillies: Last year didn't go exactly as the Phillies had planned. So they went for a bit of a do-over, signing Didi Gregorius to bolster the lineup even more and Zack Wheeler, who makes the rotation that much deeper. You can never have too much starting pitching, especially in the NL East. And Wheeler was a bit of a double-bonus because they got him away from the Mets. Plus, in Joe Girardi, they'll actually have a manager who knows what he's doing instead of Gabe Kapler (who somehow got the Giants job!).
Mets: I repeat--you can never have too much starting pitching. And the Mets now have like seven legitimate Major League starters. It's going to be quite a battle between Rick Porcello and Michael Wacha for that fourth spot in the rotation behind Jacob deGrom, Noah Syndergaard and Marcus Stroman. Their bullpen also got better with the addition of Dellin Betances. They'll need to figure out a place for all the bats to play, and the NL East is always tough, so I can easily see the Mets winning 78 games. Or winning 95.
Braves: It's easy to forget that Atlanta won the NL East last season. And, on paper, they'll have the hardest time repeating of any 2019 division winner. But, the addition of Marcel Ozuna more than makes up for the loss of Josh Donaldson. Dallas Keuchel for Cole Hamels is basically a 1-for-1 swap on the mound. And Travis d'Arnaud is back in the NL East after reviving his career in Tampa.
Reds: Cincinnati was going so crazy with its offseason moves that it was enough to give you whiplash. But the Reds think this is the time to strike in the NL Central, so they're going for it. They went big on Mike Moustakas, went big again on Nicholas Castellanos, and, in the biggest surprise of all, ended up snagging Japanese outfielder Shogo Akiyama. The lineup wasn't the problem, either. And it only got that much better.
Rangers: Everyone knew that, with their new park opening, the Rangers were going to be major players this offseason. They didn't land either Donaldson or Rendon, which frankly was a surprise, so they had to settle for Todd Frazier as their new third baseman. But their improved pitching will be the biggest difference. It'll be weird to see Corey Kluber in something other than an Indians uniform, but he's got plenty left in that right arm. And, don't forget, Yasiel Puig is still unsigned, so don't be surprised to see him end up in Texas.
While they might not be World Series-ready just yet, I'm looking for teams like the White Sox, Rangers and Reds to be much more competitive this season than they've been recently. On the flip side, the Red Sox, Astros and Braves aren't exactly "better" as they head for camp.
"Improved" is a relative term, of course. No one will argue that the Yankees aren't a better team right now than they were last season. But matching (or topping) last year's 103 wins will be a challenge. Same thing with the Twins, who could easily win the AL Central again and are in many ways "better" than last season, even though another 100-win season seems unlikely in a division that figures to be much more competitive.
With that in mind, here are the 10 teams that certainly appear to have gotten better during the offseason. We'll have to wait and see how many of those big moves pay off. Because for every J.D. Martinez to the Red Sox, you've got a Bryce Harper to the Phillies. And the Phillies, last year's big offseason spenders, didn't even make the playoffs.
Yankees: This one comes as no surprise to anybody. Their top priority was Gerrit Cole, and they landed their big fish to the tune of nine years and $324 million. They finally have that stud No. 1 pitcher for the first time since landing CC Sabathia as a free agent in 2009. And suddenly, the one weakness the Yankees had (which wasn't nearly as bad as people were making it out to be) is arguably their biggest strength.
Dodgers: First off, I think it's absolutely crazy that the Red Sox were even considering trading Mookie Betts! It's even crazier that the Dodgers took on his entire contract for what's essentially a one-year rental before he hits free agency. But the addition of Betts makes the Dodgers' lineup that much more ridiculous, and David Price, who was merely a throw-in, could be reborn in LA. He also gives the Dodgers a solid third starter to replace Hyun-Jin Ryu, who signed with Toronto.
Angels: LA's other team made the full-court press for Cole, but didn't get him. In fact, they fell short in their pursuit of a starting pitcher--any starting pitcher--entirely. And that figures to be their glaring weakness again. So how are they "improved"? Because they finally got Mike Trout some help and could very easily win a bunch of games 10-8! They threw a lot of money at Anthony Rendon and added Joc Pederson, who's coming from across town. Plus, Joe Maddon's calling the shots now, so you know he'll come up with some sort of crazy plan that'll end up working.
White Sox: The White Sox evidently had a lot of money to spend and decided to spend it. But it sure paid off for Dallas Keuchel. And Gio Gonzalez. And Yasmani Grandal. And Edwin Encarnacion. The White Sox are the prime candidate to be this year's version of the 2019 Phillies. But I can also see them making a lot of noise in what figures to be a much more competitive AL Central.
Twins: Even with the Indians and an improved White Sox team in the mix, it's hard to go against the Twins in the AL Central. Because Minnesota got better, too. I must say, it was a surprise that Josh Donaldson chose Minnesota as his new home, but the offense didn't exactly need much help after setting a Major League record for home runs last season. Where they needed to improve was on the pitching staff. And they did that with the additions of Homer Bailey and Rich Hill, giving them four quality, veteran starters including 2019 All-Stars Jose Berrios and Jake Odorizzi.
Phillies: Last year didn't go exactly as the Phillies had planned. So they went for a bit of a do-over, signing Didi Gregorius to bolster the lineup even more and Zack Wheeler, who makes the rotation that much deeper. You can never have too much starting pitching, especially in the NL East. And Wheeler was a bit of a double-bonus because they got him away from the Mets. Plus, in Joe Girardi, they'll actually have a manager who knows what he's doing instead of Gabe Kapler (who somehow got the Giants job!).
Mets: I repeat--you can never have too much starting pitching. And the Mets now have like seven legitimate Major League starters. It's going to be quite a battle between Rick Porcello and Michael Wacha for that fourth spot in the rotation behind Jacob deGrom, Noah Syndergaard and Marcus Stroman. Their bullpen also got better with the addition of Dellin Betances. They'll need to figure out a place for all the bats to play, and the NL East is always tough, so I can easily see the Mets winning 78 games. Or winning 95.
Braves: It's easy to forget that Atlanta won the NL East last season. And, on paper, they'll have the hardest time repeating of any 2019 division winner. But, the addition of Marcel Ozuna more than makes up for the loss of Josh Donaldson. Dallas Keuchel for Cole Hamels is basically a 1-for-1 swap on the mound. And Travis d'Arnaud is back in the NL East after reviving his career in Tampa.
Reds: Cincinnati was going so crazy with its offseason moves that it was enough to give you whiplash. But the Reds think this is the time to strike in the NL Central, so they're going for it. They went big on Mike Moustakas, went big again on Nicholas Castellanos, and, in the biggest surprise of all, ended up snagging Japanese outfielder Shogo Akiyama. The lineup wasn't the problem, either. And it only got that much better.
Rangers: Everyone knew that, with their new park opening, the Rangers were going to be major players this offseason. They didn't land either Donaldson or Rendon, which frankly was a surprise, so they had to settle for Todd Frazier as their new third baseman. But their improved pitching will be the biggest difference. It'll be weird to see Corey Kluber in something other than an Indians uniform, but he's got plenty left in that right arm. And, don't forget, Yasiel Puig is still unsigned, so don't be surprised to see him end up in Texas.
Thursday, February 6, 2020
A Superb Halftime
Before moving ahead with today's post, I need to tell you all about The Great Super Bowl Blackout of 2020. I went to my sister's house to watch the game and everything started off normal...then the power went out five minutes into the game! And this was no glitch. It was a legit power outage that knocked out the entire block! So, my brother-in-law and I ended up huddling around his phone and watched the game that way...until the power came back on just after the two-minute warning!
At halftime, I ceded my seat on the couch to my sister, who wanted to watch J Lo and Shakira. Fortunately I also DVRed the game and was able to watch the halftime show in all its HD glory when I got home. And all I have to say is "Wow!" J Lo is 50 and Shakira is 42! Let that sink in for a second!
That halftime show was right up there among the best in Super Bowl history. I understand that ranking something as "THE Best" ever is a completely subjective exercise, but it was a pretty common consensus that this one was at or near the top of the list. In fact, I've got it ranked at No. 4. I think you can all see where this is going...
My list of the Top 10 Super Bowl Halftime Shows starts at Super Bowl XXVII, when the modern age of music superstars headlining began. That's the year the NFL got Michael Jackson in response to FOX's effective counterprogramming with a live episode of In Living Color (starring none other than Jennifer Lopez) the year before. Since then, they've made a concerted effort to make people actually WATCH halftime. Thus the big-name music stars.
But some of those performances have definitely been better than others. Here, in my opinion are the five worst (This list also starts at Super Bowl XXVII, so Up With People and all those ridiculous themes in the late 80s are off the hook):
Now on to the best. These are in rank order, so there's obviously going to be a lot of disagreement with my rankings. And, truth be told, my level of enjoyment of Super Bowl halftime shows generally correlates to how much I like the artist. So, with that, on to the rankings...
At halftime, I ceded my seat on the couch to my sister, who wanted to watch J Lo and Shakira. Fortunately I also DVRed the game and was able to watch the halftime show in all its HD glory when I got home. And all I have to say is "Wow!" J Lo is 50 and Shakira is 42! Let that sink in for a second!
That halftime show was right up there among the best in Super Bowl history. I understand that ranking something as "THE Best" ever is a completely subjective exercise, but it was a pretty common consensus that this one was at or near the top of the list. In fact, I've got it ranked at No. 4. I think you can all see where this is going...
My list of the Top 10 Super Bowl Halftime Shows starts at Super Bowl XXVII, when the modern age of music superstars headlining began. That's the year the NFL got Michael Jackson in response to FOX's effective counterprogramming with a live episode of In Living Color (starring none other than Jennifer Lopez) the year before. Since then, they've made a concerted effort to make people actually WATCH halftime. Thus the big-name music stars.
But some of those performances have definitely been better than others. Here, in my opinion are the five worst (This list also starts at Super Bowl XXVII, so Up With People and all those ridiculous themes in the late 80s are off the hook):
- Coldplay (50): Not the right type of band for the Super Bowl, especially such a historic one
- Maroon 5 (53): J Lo and Shakira certainly made up for that hot mess last year. Question: Does Adam Levine own any shirts?
- Patti LaBelle (29): It was only two years after Michael, so they hadn't quite figured out the whole "headliner" thing yet
- The Blues Brothers (31): Did a Blues Brothers movie come out in 1996-97? That's the only reason I can think of why Dan Aykroyd, John Goodman and Jim Belushi were considered a "musical act"
- Janet Jackson (38): I'm not saying it was "bad" per se, but it was certainly controversial, thus it has to rank towards the bottom. Fun fact: Nipplegate is what inspired the founders of YouTube to create a video-sharing website.
Now on to the best. These are in rank order, so there's obviously going to be a lot of disagreement with my rankings. And, truth be told, my level of enjoyment of Super Bowl halftime shows generally correlates to how much I like the artist. So, with that, on to the rankings...
10. Michael Jackson (27): How could the Halftime Show that started it all NOT be on the list? The NFL knew they had to do something big, and they got the biggest star in music. Super Bowl halftime would never be the same. And Michael's performance was more entertaining than the game itself--the Cowboys' 52-17 rout of the Bills.
9. Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers (42): Super Bowl XLII will always be remembered for David Tyree's "Helmet Catch" and the Giants' historic upset of the Patriots. Since the Giants were playing, I was significantly more excited about the game than the halftime show. Then Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers took the stage and absolutely killed it! Of course, it was still just the second-best part of that memorable night.
8. Paul McCartney (39): After Janet Jackson and her boob the year before, the NFL played it safe with Paul McCartney. And, in true Paul McCartney fashion, he showed up! He did some solo stuff, some Beatles, and the "Hey Jude" finale was simply amazing!
7. Justin Timberlake (52): In a year with that ridiculous "controversy" where people wanted all of their favorite performers to boycott the halftime show because of the NFL's treatment of Colin Kaepernick, they still managed to land Justin Timberlake! It wasn't his first time doing halftime (he's the one who ripped off Janet Jackson's corset, after all), but it was by far the best. Some people didn't like it, but I thought it was great.
6. Katy Perry (49): "Left Shark" may have gone viral after the game, but this is widely considered one of the best Super Bowl halftime shows ever. It was also the most-watched, attracting 120 million viewers worldwide (more than the game itself). They saw an awesome show, too. Katy was on fire! And so were her guest performers Lenny Kravitz and Missy Elliott.
5. Bruno Mars (48): Want to know how terrible Coldplay's halftime show was? They brought back Bruno Mars as basically a co-headliner just two years after he crushed it at Met Life Stadium! I know a lot of people rate this one right at the top, while others didn't like it at all. Bruno Mars is ridiculously talented, though. There's no question about that. Points deducted for the guest appearance by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, who were totally unnecessary and seemed like they didn't even care.
4. Jennifer Lopez & Shakira (54): Call it recency bias if you want, but I thought this year's halftime show ranks right near the top. I love both of them and know a lot of their songs, so that definitely helped. But J Lo and Shakira both showed why they're global superstars. They brought it from the first moment and didn't stop for the entire 15 minutes! And the fact that they're both ridiculously hot certainly helped, too.
3. Lady Gaga (51): Gaga's ridiculously amazing national anthem the year before (which made the fact that Coldplay was the halftime act even worse) inspired the NFL to bring her back as the headliner for the halftime show. Needless to say, it was a good call! It was just like an actual Lady Gaga concert, and she managed to cram all of her biggest hits into 14 minutes. Plus, that opening!
2. U2 (36): One of the most beautiful moments in Super Bowl history was U2's somber tribute to the victims of 9/11. It was exactly what America needed just four months after that unspeakable tragedy. No one was in the mood for them to overdo it, which made U2 the perfect choice. And the scrolling of the names while the band played "Where the Streets Have No Name" was enough to make anybody cry!
1. Prince (41): If you think U2 was the greatest Super Bowl halftime show in history, I'm not going to disagree with you. But my all-time favorite is Prince, and it'll take an awful lot to move that performance from the top spot. Prince always brought it in live shows (have you seen the video of him at the SNL 40th Anniversary after party?!). This performance was no exception. And can there be anything more iconic than Prince singing "Purple Rain" during an actual pouring rain?!
Sunday, February 2, 2020
I'll Take Joe Montana's Team
Is it just me, or is this year's Super Bowl a refreshing change of pace? It's not just because the Patriots finally aren't playing in it. It's because of the two teams that are. The Kansas City Chiefs were last year's up-and-coming darlings. This year they finally put it all together and earned their first Super Bowl appearance in 50 years. And the 49ers made an incredible turnaround from 4-12 last season to NFC champions this year.
Once we get to this point, the game has been analyzed to death. Everything has been broken down to the point where you're wondering what else they could possibly find to talk about (yet they always find something). And you've also heard so much about them that you feel like you know both teams backwards and forwards...even though you can still only name a handful of players on each!
Well, we've finally made it! The hype is over, and it's time for the actual game. I'm gonna go out on a limb, too, and make a pair of bold predictions. I like the red team and the team that Joe Montana played for! (BTW, has there ever been a more perfect Tweet than Montana's "guarantee"?)
Most people are focusing on the matchup between the Chiefs offense and the 49ers defense. It's true that each team's strength is on that side of the ball. But if you think the 49ers are going to completely shut down Patrick Mahomes and Co., you're crazy! So, it really won't be a matter of stopping Kansas City's offense as much as keeping up with them, which falls squarely on Jimmy Garoppolo's hands.
Garoppolo--unfairly--got a lot of slack for throwing only eight passes in the NFC Championship Game. But the 49ers were totally dominating the game on the ground so he didn't need to pass! And why mess with what's working? Although, while that criticism was unfair, the general point behind it is correct. The 49ers are a running team. In the Super Bowl, they'd like to continue doing what got them there. The Chiefs, on the other hand, would love to see Garoppolo throw 35-40 passes.
I also don't think the Kansas City defense gets nearly enough credit. I said that in December when they went on that run, and I've said it throughout the playoffs. Look at what they did in the AFC Championship Game. Derrick Henry had run all over both the Patriots and the Ravens in Tennessee's upset wins, and everyone was expecting him to do the same against Kansas City. But the Chiefs completely shut down the run and Henry was a non-factor (of course, the Titans had to throw in the fourth quarter when they were behind).
While the Titans and 49ers are both rushing teams, there's a big difference between the two. Tennessee is pretty much a one-trick pony. San Francisco has three different running backs they can throw at you, and stopping all three of them is very difficult. Raheem Mostert is technically No. 3 on the depth chart, yet he's the one who ran for 220 yards and four carries against Green Bay while Matt Breida and Tevin Coleman had just seven carries for 23 yards combined. Yet Kansas City could easily shut down Mostert in the Super Bowl, only to see Breida or Coleman go off.
Of course, it's easier to run the ball when you have the lead, which is where the concerns about Garoppolo come in. Because San Francisco's only real receiving threats are Emmanuel Sanders and George Kittle...who combined for one catch in the NFC Championship Game! The Chiefs know this. Which means they'll be able to pound the line, play the corners 1-on-1 against the wide receivers, and leave the Honey Badger free to deal with Kittle. And they can play to stop the run until the 49ers show them something in the passing game. So, it'll be up to Garoppolo to keep Kansas City honest.
The Chiefs, meanwhile, have no such problems on offense. They have so many weapons and can hurt you in so many ways that you have no idea what they're going to do. Case in point, Patrick Mahomes' tightrope-walking TD run down the sideline that was the turning point of the AFC Championship Game. There aren't many quarterbacks in the NFL who can do that. Which is part of what makes Kansas City so hard to defend. You have to respect Mahomes' ability to run, but you can't forget about his arm.
And Mahomes has plenty of weapons at his disposal. Travis Kelce is the best tight end in football, Tyreek Hill might be the fastest player in the game, and Sammy Watkins can hurt you if you forget about him. I haven't even mentioned the running game yet. It's the forgotten part of the Chiefs' offense. But if Damien Williams and/or LeSean McCoy gets going, Mahomes won't be the only Kansas City rusher the 49ers have to worry about.
That's why the Chiefs are favored in the game. And that's why they're my pick. They're simply too explosive. This is a team that went from down 20 to a 20-point win in the Divisional Playoffs, then went had a halftime lead after trailing 17-7 midway through the second quarter in the AFC Championship Game. Simply put, Kansas City is never out of the game. If San Francisco is able to run the ball effectively and keep it out of Mahomes' hands, though...
Let's not forget the experience factor, either. This is new to both teams. But the Chiefs have been preparing for this game since they lost to the Patriots last January. The moment's not going to overwhelm them the way it clearly did the Rams last year. Kansas City is ready and knows they belong. I'm not saying the 49ers don't feel the same way. But they're much more likely to be "happy to be there" than the Chiefs, who had one goal entering the season and are 60 minutes away from achieving it.
How can you not want to see Andy Reid win a Super Bowl too? Much like Tony Dungy 13 years ago, he's the sentimental favorite. Reid has achieved so much in his career, both in Philadelphia and Kansas City, but he's still missing one thing. I'm not saying he needs a Lombardi Trophy to cement his legacy. But it's the only bullet point left to check on an otherwise Hall-of-Fame-caliber resume.
So, yes, I want the Chiefs to win. I think they deserve it. But that's not the reason I'm picking them. I'm picking them because I truly think they're the better team. (And we all know what Andy Reid can do when he has two weeks to prepare!) Kansas City wins 31-24 and Tyreek Hill scores two touchdowns (one return, one receiving) to take home MVP honors.
Saturday, February 1, 2020
NFL 100 Hall Call
For me, the highlight of Super Bowl Saturday is always the Hall of Fame vote. A group of football writers being locked in a room for hours, then, after they come out, the President of the Hall of Fame knocking on five doors in the hotel to give the good news to the newest Hall of Famers. Then, the public finds out who made it for the first time when they're introduced as a group and brought out onto the stage at the NFL Honors.
Of course, this year's Hall of Fame class is supersized. As a part of the NFL's Centennial Celebration, they've already announced 15 of the 20 honorees. Only Bill Cowher and Jimmy Johnson will join the five Modern Era Hall of Famers on the main Hall of Fame stage in August, while the historical players and contributors will be recognized at the special NFL Centennial event in September.
The super-sized element will change the dynamic of the induction ceremony, but it doesn't impact the traditional pre-Super Bowl Modern Era vote, which is good. Because, while very much a flawed process, the Pro Football Hall of Fame is unique in its presentation. And I hope that part never changes. I'd love to know who they are immediately, but there's definitely something special about seeing the class for the first time all at once.
Anyway, I have a feeling my streak of going 4-for-5 two years in a row may be in jeopardy. Because beyond obvious first-ballot choice Troy Polamalu, I have no idea who's getting in. Beyond Polamalu, though, it's wide-open. And, this election really does seem to be the best opportunity for many of the finalists. Especially with first-ballot locks Peyton Manning, Charles Woodson and Charles Johnson entering the fray next year.
It's also a very interesting combination of positions. Polamalu's one of four safeties on the final ballot. Safety is one of the most under-represented positions in Canton, so it's good that they're finally doing some clean up. But, since they'll all be compared relative to each other, it seems unlikely that more than one additional safety will be selected.
Likewise, there are a bunch of wide receivers. They did Randy Moss and Terrell Owens in the same year just two years ago, so I doubt they'll put multiple receivers in at the same time again so soon after. Which means they'll likely determine a pecking order and go with one. The others will probably have to wait at least two years, since Megatron will take next year's spot. I'll throw Edgerrin James in here, too, since he's the only non-wide receiver skill position player finalist.
We all know how much the Hall of Fame voters love their offensive linemen. There's only three this year. Which either bodes well or means this could be the rare year we don't get a Modern Era offensive lineman in the Hall of Fame class.
Which leaves us with the rest of the defensive guys. That group includes two linebackers and two defensive linemen. None jump off the page as an obvious "why isn't he in yet?" selection. But they were all solid defensive forces for an extended period, and none of them would be a remotely controversial choice. It seems likely at least one of the defensive players will get that knock on his door.
I broke it down into those four groups on purpose. Because that's exactly how I think the vote's going to break down. Polamalu and one guy from each group.
Troy Polamalu, Safety (2003-14 Steelers): If I had to guess, I'd say it's a safe bet the Pittsburgh Steelers will be playing in the Hall of Fame Game. Bill Cowher's going in, and Troy Polamalu will join him. I hope they already started sculpting his bust. Because they'll need these six months just to get the hair right! Polamalu wasn't as good as Ed Reed, last year's first-ballot safety. But he was pretty damn close! More importantly, he was the leader of that Steelers defense that led Pittsburgh to seven playoff appearances, five division titles and two Lombardi Trophies.
John Lynch, Safety (1993-2003 Buccaneers, 2004-07 Broncos): With the 49ers in the Super Bowl, I think now is the time for their General Manager's long wait to finally end. This is Lynch's seventh consecutive year as a finalist! The two best players on that Bucs defense were Derrick Brooks and Warren Sapp. They've both been Hall of Famers for a while. Lynch should join them. Now that the safety backlog has been cleared up a bit, he's next in line. Put him in, then move on to the next deserving Bucs defensive back--Ronde Barber.
Isaac Bruce, Wide Receiver (1994-2007 Rams, 2008-09 49ers): He's the only one I missed on last year. Just like the safeties, that wide receiver group is getting a little crowded. And it's only going to get worse next year when Megatron becomes eligible. I can easily see Reggie Wayne getting the wide receiver nod, but I can also see them making Peyton's No. 2 receiver wait for his QB. And, frankly, Bruce deserves to go in first. He's been eligible for six years and a finalist four times. Bruce should certainly get in ahead of his "Greatest Show On Turf" sidekick Torry Holt. Holt and Wayne were both No. 2 receivers. Bruce was a No. 1. To me, that's what makes the difference.
Tony Boselli, Tackle (1995-2001 Jaguars): Do you sense a theme here? Boselli's been waiting a while. It's his 14th year on the ballot and fourth straight time as a finalist. This time, however, he's the best offensive lineman under consideration. His career was cut short by injury, but he's a huge reason why the Jaguars were so good out of the gate. Boselli was the face of an expansion franchise that went to the AFC Championship Game in its second season and the playoffs three straight years after that. (He's already in Miami to do the radio broadcast of the Super Bowl, which has nothing to do with the Hall of Fame, but is cool nonetheless.)
Sam Mills, Linebacker (1986-94 Saints, 1995-97 Panthers): Choosing the front seven defensive guy proved to be tougher than I thought. Zach Thomas is obviously the sentimental choice with the Super Bowl taking place in Miami. And I think Richard Seymour is likely to get in soon (if not this year, he probably gets one of those other two spots next year). But, for my final choice this year, I'm going with the late Sam Mills, who, incredibly, has never been a finalist before! When he and Chris Doleman showed up, the Saints went from also-rans to contenders. He then left New Orleans for expansion Carolina and the Panthers went to the NFC Championship Game in their second season. Simply put, Sam Mills was a difference-maker at middle linebacker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)