MLB's Super Sized Postseason

As one postseason ends (what a tremendous job the NHL did with every element of the Stanley Cup Playoffs), another one is set to begin.  Remarkably, Baseball made it through the 60-game regular season.  Now it's time for the expanded postseason, something that I'm still not a fan of in a full season (we don't need 83-79 teams being rewarded for their mediocrity over the previous six months).  But for this 60-game sprint, I get it.  Although, if you look at the seedings, the six division winners very well might've been there after 162 games, too.

From the 16-team field to the best-of-three Wild Card Series to the neutral sites to the lack of off days, this postseason will be unlike any other.  Because of that, I've decided to do my MLB playoff preview a little differently, too.  Instead of breaking down each series and picking a World Series winner, I've decided to rank the teams in order of how likely I think it is that they'll end up as World Series champions.  Because, let's face it, some of these teams aren't anywhere near the same class as others.

16. Brewers: Milwaukee went 29-31 this season, but snuck into the playoffs as the No. 8 seed in the National League.  They're like that 36-46 NBA team that gets the 8-seed in the Eastern Conference and promptly gets swept in the first round.  Same thing will happen here.  Does anyone really think the Brewers are gonna take two out of three at Dodger Stadium against a 43-17 juggernaut that will have Walker Buehler and Clayton Kershaw pitching?  I didn't think so.

15. Astros: You take away their garbage can, and suddenly the Astros hitters turn into mere mortals.  Great job by Dusty Baker getting Houston back to the playoffs, but they only backed into a spot because second-place teams were guaranteed one.  Seriously, they finished below .500 in a terrible division!  With a number of key players set to become free agents after this season, this will likely be the last hurrah for the defending AL champs.

14. Marlins: Every time the Marlins qualify for the playoffs, they win the World Series!  So, let's congratulate a team that's never won its division on its third championship!  In all seriousness, though, it's remarkable that the Marlins made it after everything they've gone through this season.  Although, sadly, they'll likely no longer be undefeated in postseason series by the end of October (probably by the end of the week actually).

13. Cardinals: Just like the Marlins, the Cardinals made the postseason against all odds after having to deal with their own COVID outbreak this season.  And now that St. Louis is in the playoffs, they'll be a very tough out.  As usual.  However, I don't think the Cardinals are deep enough in a very top-heavy National League.  In fact, I'd be surprised if they beat the Padres.

12. Blue Jays: A third team that made the playoffs after overcoming some extraordinary circumstances this season.  Although, if any team's built for a bubble, it's the one that hasn't been home since July.  The Blue Jays are ahead of schedule in their rebuild, but playing division rival Tampa Bay at Tropicana Field won't be easy.  Against another team, I'd like Toronto's offense to maybe pull an upset.  But not against Rays pitching.
  
11. Reds: Cincinnati was that sleeper team that people thought might be good this season.  And they're perhaps the lower-seeded team most capable of a Wild Card Series surprise.  Why?  Because they've got three really good starting pitchers.  If they can keep the Braves in the ballpark and hit some homers of their own, look out!  I don't think that strategy will work for three rounds, though.

10. White Sox: This time last week, the White Sox were the No. 2 seed in the AL.  They're still playing in the 2-7 series, but on the road!  If the team that ended the season on an eight-game losing streak shows up, they'll be back on the South Side by the weekend.  If the team that played the season's first 52 games does, they could go all the way.  They might get swept in the Wild Card Series.  They might end up in the ALCS.  Either way, it seems unlikely they'll reach the World Series.

9. Twins: We came thisclose to another postseason series between the Twins and their perennial foil, the Yankees.  But alas, Minnesota didn't just avoid the Yankees, they won the division, which means they get to play their Wild Card Series at Target Field, where they went 24-7 this season.  At the very least, the Twins should earn their first postseason win since 2003 (the Marlins have won a postseason game more recently than Minnesota).  A World Series berth is possible, but one thing at a time.  Let them win a game, then a series first.

8. Athletics: If not for Minnesota's playoff woes, we'd be talking about the A's and their lack of postseason success.  That could change this season, though.  Because Oakland, which has been surprisingly good for a few years now, put it all together and wrestled the AL West crown away from the Astros.  And they're plenty capable of making a deep run, even though it'll likely fall short of the World Series.  (Although, as I said earlier, I can just as easily see the White Sox winning that series.)

7. Padres: After San Diego's electric regular season, what do the Padres have in store for their first playoff appearance in 14 years (the 2007 NL Wild Card Game against Colorado was a tiebreaker, so it doesn't count)?  As you know, I've been high on the Padres all season.  And they made moves at the deadline to set themselves up for the playoffs.  Only to see two of those additions--Mike Clevinger and Mitch Moreland--go down with injuries.  Which leaves San Diego with the team it had for most of the season, which is still pretty damn good!  Good enough to beat the Dodgers in the Division Series, though?  Probably not.

6. Cubs: Don't sleep on the Cubs.  They've got plenty of star power and plenty of postseason experience.  Most importantly, they've got the starting pitching, which takes on extra significance this year.  Although, Yu Darvish will have to pitch the way he did in the 2020 regular season, not the way he has in his previous postseason appearances.  Throw in co-ace Kyle Hedricks and grizzled veteran Jon Lester, and that's as good as any rotation in the National League east of Los Angeles.  If nothing else, the Cubs should make MLB history as the first team ever to win a playoff series against the Marlins.

5. Indians: Shane Bieber, Carlos Carrasco and Zach Plesac.  They're the reason Cleveland was the team nobody wanted to draw as their postseason opponent.  And the Indians will go as far as that pitching trio will take them.  Which could be pretty far.  Especially if Jose Ramirez, Francisco Lindor and Franmil Reyes hit the way they can.  The Indians and Yankees, in fact, are very similar.  Whoever wins that series could easily win the pennant.

4. Yankees: Talk about a streaky team.  The Yankees started 16-6, then lost 15 of 20, then won 10 straight, then lost six of their last eight.  So it really depends on which team shows up.  Because everyone agrees that they can beat anybody if the one that went 10-0 shows up.  And Gerrit Cole is pitching like the ace he's paid to be.  Although, one of the craziest things about this Yankees team is that they were so good at home and so terrible on the road.  And it's because of that that they'll have to go on the road.  They could easily lose to the Indians.  They could just as easily get hot and make their way to Arlington for the World Series.

3. Rays: It's a great time to be a Tampa Bay sports fan.  The Lightning just won the Stanley Cup, the Bucs are in first place, and the Rays are coming off arguably the best season in franchise history.  They went 40-20 and enter the playoffs as the favorites for the AL pennant.  They'll only have their biggest advantage--Tropicana Field--in the first round, but the Rays were such an adept road team that the playoffs being played mainly at neutral sites shouldn't faze them much.  They've got the pitching to beat anybody.  The question is: Will they hit enough?
 
2. Braves: In my opinion, there's only one team in the National League that belongs in the same conversation as the Dodgers.  And that team is Atlanta.  Sure, the Braves have some question marks in the starting rotation, but they have an incredibly strong bullpen and we all know how good their lineup is.  They'll score plenty, so the pitching staff's job is really just to make sure the Braves outscore their opponent.  It's been a long time since they've won a playoff series, and Cincinnati is a tough draw.  If they get by the Reds, though, the Braves have all the tools to play deep into October.

1. Dodgers: The Dodgers have had a singular focus for the past few seasons.  We all know what that is, so I don't need to say it.  And this season they played like what they are--the best team in baseball.  It really is a shame that we didn't get to see what they might do over the course of 162 games.  Because they might've challenged the MLB record of 116 wins.  It's seriously kinda unfair how much better the Dodgers are than everybody else, and adding Mookie Betts only made them better.  They aren't just the favorites.  They're the overwhelming favorites.  It's not just World Series or bust.  It's World Series title or bust.  After some close calls and painful playoff losses in recent years, it's finally time.  The 32-year championship drought will come to an end.  The Dodgers are simply too good.

NFL 2020, Week 3

Seriously, how good are the prime time games this week?!  Packers-Saints in a rematch of that great playoff game on Sunday night, then the best Monday night matchup ESPN has had in years with Chiefs-Ravens (which evidently the NFL's reward for how well the virtual draft went).  Those two are such good games, in fact, that I'm willing to overlook the fact they subjected us to Dolphins-Jaguars on Thursday.

Thursday Night: Jacksonville (Loss)

Bears (2-0) at Falcons (0-2): Chicago-They haven't exactly run the NFL gauntlet, but the Bears are 2-0 after victories over the Lions and Giants.  The Falcons, meanwhile, decided that they didn't actually want to win last week in Dallas, so they didn't.  (How else can you explain why they socially distanced themselves from the football in the fourth quarter?)  That's the type of loss that can cost you later in the season, especially in an NFC South that projects to be very competitive at the top.  The question is: Will they fall to 0-3?

Rams (2-0) at Bills (2-0): Rams-The Rams didn't just go into Philadelphia and beat the Eagles last week.  They went into Philadelphia and CRUSHED the Eagles!  Now they make their second straight cross-country trip for a matchup with the Bills.  Buffalo is 2-0, but this is their first real test after playing the Jets and Dolphins in their first two games.  Let's see if the back-to-back 1:00 games have any impact on the Rams.  I'm guessing no.

Washington (1-1) at Browns (1-1): Cleveland-It's hard to judge both of these teams.  The Browns got crushed in Baltimore, then rebounded to beat the Bengals four days later.  Washington, meanwhile, upset Philadelphia in its opener before losing in Arizona.  So I still can't really put my finger on what I think the future holds for either one.  Since the game is in Cleveland, I'll go with the Browns.

Titans (2-0) at Vikings (0-2): Tennessee-What happened to the Minnesota Vikings?  They were a popular pick to make the playoffs, maybe even win the NFC North.  Yet through two games, they look nothing like one.  They had no defense in Week 1 against Green Bay, and their offense forgot to travel to Indianapolis last week.  Now they take on a Titans team that has won both of its games by a combined five points.  But, hey 2-0 is 2-0!  The Vikings really need this one, but I think Ryan Tannehill does his thing again and game manages Tennessee to another victory.

Raiders (2-0) at Patriots (1-1): New England-Allegiant Stadium is gorgeous!  I think I may even like it better than SoFi.  I can only imagine what it'll be like once the Black Hole fills it up!  Anyway, that was an impressive win over the Saints, a team nobody thought they would beat.  Was it a statement win?  It might've been.  If they follow it with a win in New England it definitely would be.  And, I couldn't let this fun fact pass me by: the last time Jon Gruden took the Raiders into Foxboro, a dynasty was born.  Yes, that's right, Gruden's last game in New England as Raiders coach was the Tuck Rule Game!

49ers (1-1) at Giants (0-2): San Francisco-After seeing virtually their entire starting lineup injured against the Jets, the 49ers return to the scene of the crime for a matchup with the Giants.  The Giants, of course, have a major injury of their own to deal with, as Saquon Barkley tore his ACL and is lost for the season.  Seeing as 85 percent of the Giants' offense runs through him, that's really going to be problematic.  Especially since they scored only 16 and 13 points in their first two games.

Bengals (0-2) at Eagles (0-2): Philadelphia-There isn't a single person who thought the Eagles would enter this game at 0-2.  The most common prediction was that they'd be 2-0 when they faced Cincinnati.  The Bengals, I must say, are significantly better.  They lost each of their first two games, but were competitive in both and arguably should've won both (especially the Charger game).  They'll keep this one close, too, but it's almost a must-win for Philly.  They know they can't start 0-3, and they'll play like it.

Texans (0-2) at Steelers (2-0): Pittsburgh-Has any team had it tougher than Houston to start the season?  The Texans are 0-2 through absolutely no fault of their own.  They just had the unfortunate task of playing the Chiefs, then the Raiders.  It doesn't get any easier this week, as they have to travel to Pittsburgh for a matchup with the resurgent Steelers.  The good thing is that, even if they lose and fall to 0-3, their three hardest games will be out of the way, so the playoffs are still a real possibility.

Jets (0-2) at Colts (1-1): Indianapolis-Most NFL power rankings have the Jets at either No. 31 or 32 after the first two games.  Understandably so, since their offense was virtually nonexistent against the Bills and 49ers.  Now they go to Indianapolis, where the Colts rebounded nicely after that surprising loss to Jacksonville by dominating Minnesota last week.  Has Phillip Rivers found his groove with his new team?  Perhaps.  In any case, they can't afford a letdown against a team they should beat.

Panthers (0-2) at Chargers (1-1): Chargers-Do you also think the Chargers' team doctor wanted Justin Herbert to play so bad that he intentionally committed malpractice by injuring Tyrod Taylor?  I'm not sure Taylor gets the starting job back.  Because Herbert sure looked like he belongs against the Chiefs.  So what if the Chargers lost!  Herbert should get his first NFL victory this week, as lowly Carolina pays a visit to SoFi Stadium.

Buccaneers (1-1) at Broncos (0-2): Tampa Bay-At some point, Denver's gonna have to hold on to one of those fourth quarter leads, right?  That was their problem last season, and it's been the same story so far in 2020, as the Broncos suffered one-possession losses to Tennessee and Pittsburgh.  Now their old friend Tom Brady visits.  And I think this week will be more of the same for the Broncos.  Denver has the lead in the fourth quarter, but Brady marches the Bucs down for the game-winning field goal in the last minute.

Lions (0-2) at Cardinals (2-0): Arizona-Last season, these two met in the opener, and Kyler Murray led that crazy comeback that resulted in the game ending in a tie.  It was then that the Cardinals knew they have someone special on their hands.  And he's continued to live up to the hype ever since.  To the tune of an impressive 2-0 start this season.  Make that 3-0, as they take on a Lions team that hasn't looked very good at all so far.

Cowboys (1-1) at Seahawks (2-0): Seattle-Is it too early to start the Russell Wilson for MVP talk?  Because he's been outstanding in Seattle's first two games.  He'll need to keep it up, too.  Because the NFC West is loaded!  It's a good thing the Cowboys managed to come back last week.  They didn't want to be 0-2 while making their second West Coast trip in the season's first three weeks.  Although, the Cowboys won the last time they went to Seattle, and with no fans in attendance, the 12th Man obviously can't have an impact.  This should be one of the best games of the week.  And the winner will have a potentially important playoff tiebreaker.

Packers (2-0) at Saints (1-1): New Orleans-At the end of the game last Monday night when it was clear the Raiders were going to win, Steve Levy spouted off the most fascinating stat.  As good as they've been over the past few years, they haven't started 2-0 since 2013, which is just crazy!  Also crazy is the amount of points the Green Bay Packers have put up in their first two games.  Look for a shootout in the Superdome.  This could be one of those games where whoever has the ball last wins.

Chiefs (2-0) at Ravens (2-0): Kansas City-Saving the best for last!  I just wish this game was later in the season.  Not only is it the defending Super Bowl champions against the team that had the best record in the league last season, you've got the last two MVPs (and new faces of the league).  Remember that Monday night game the Chiefs played against the Rams at the LA Coliseum a few years ago?  I think this one can be just as classic as that one!  And the winner will have a huge edge, knowing that they'll have the tiebreaker over the other.  I know it's early, but could this determine AFC home field (and the only AFC bye)?  Quite possibly.  Either way, this game should be awfully entertaining.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 13-3
Season: 26-7

Autumn In Paris

I'm still amazed at how well the US Open went.  They weren't just able to pull it off, they pulled it off perfectly!  The tournament went off without a hitch, and the tennis was better than I expected.  Sure, it would've been better if fans were there, but there was no shortage of intensity without them.  Best of all, it didn't feel watered-down at all, which was a concern for some heading in.

Now we move on to the rescheduled French Open, which will be vastly different.  They'll have fans in attendance.  The number has gradually been reduced.  It was originally going to be 11,500 a day, then 5,000, and now it's been reduced further to 1,000 per day.  The prospect of having fans is both exciting and scary for the players, but they just pulled off the Tour de France successfully, so we'll see how it goes.

This French Open will be vastly different for a number of other reasons, too.  The biggest change, of course, is the time of year in which it's being played.  Instead of late spring, it's being played in early autumn.  That means cooler temperatures and, perhaps more importantly, less light.  Although, that's less of an issue than it would've been in years past, since they'll have lights on four courts for the first time, and the retractable roof on Court Phillipe Chatrier (the last Grand Slam center court to get one) also debuts this year.

The other thing with the timing is that it completely changed the players' schedules.  The French Open traditionally marks the end of the European clay court season that lasts most of the Spring.  This year, they had a grand total of one clay court tune-up after the US Open.  For those who played the US Open, I'm curious to see how they transition from the hardcourts to the clay.

Perhaps not surprisingly, a number of European-based players who decided not to travel to New York for the US Open will be in Paris.  The reasons varied.  Some of them were questionable, some were virus-related (which is understandable).  It also went the other way (US Open champion Naomi Osaka, for example, decided not to play the French Open), but, for the most part, the French Open fields will have more of the top names than the US Open did.

One of those top players who didn't play in New York but is miraculously ready to go for the French is Rafael Nadal.  Is anybody surprised by this news?  Clay Boy can make history here.  If he wins again it would be his 20th Grand Slam title, tying Roger Federer's all-time record.  It would also be the 13th Roland Garros crown for the New England Patriots of tennis.

While he's the obvious favorite, Rafa's annual French Open championship isn't preordained, though.  As I mentioned earlier, this'll be the first time he's playing the tournament in September/October instead of May/June (the tournament organizers evidently consulted him before postponing and rescheduling).  More importantly, though, his decision not to play the US Open, coupled with Djokovic's DQ, opened the door for a new Grand Slam champion.  And Dominic Thiem was already widely considered the second-best clay court player in the world before he won the US Open.

Then there's that Djokovic guy, who's creeping up on the all-time Grand Slam record himself.  He's actually the last guy to beat Nadal here--in the 2015 quarterfinals.  Djokovic, of course, had his undefeated 2020 record spoiled with his shocking fourth round default at the US Open.  While what happened obviously can't be changed, I think it's a good thing that there's another Grand Slam so soon after that unfortunate incident.  Djokovic was immediately able to turn the page, return to Europe, and get ready for the French Open.  And I think we may end up seeing some of his best tennis as a result.

And let's not forget Thiem, the two-time Roland Garros finalist who now has a Grand Slam title on his resume.  That's an exclusive club that the Big Three have been reluctant to let anyone else join.  Now that he's broken through, does he have a chance of finally knocking off Nadal on the slow, red stuff?

After so many top women were absent from the US Open (Naomi and Vika were so good that it didn't matter they weren't there, those two would've been in the final anyway), most of them ARE in the field here--with one notable exception.  World No. 1 and defending champion Ashleigh Barty has decided not to travel out of Australia during the pandemic.  Even without her, this field is loaded, though.

Serena Williams is still sitting on 23, one shy of tying Margaret Court for the all-time women's record.  I don't see her making it 24 here.  Clay has always been her weakest surface, and she reached the semifinals of the US Open.  With all those matches on her body, plus the travel, I'm not sure how much she'll have left for the clay court specialists who've been in Europe this whole time.

Those players include top-seeded Simona Halep, the 2018 champ and 2017 finalist.  Halep can regain the No. 1 ranking if she wins, and she enters as the pre-tournament favorite.  With good reason.  I'm just not sure whether not playing the US Open (and thus not getting the match play) was a good thing or a bad thing.

On the bottom half of the women's draw, most of the higher seeds did play the US Open, although not with much success.  They'll all be looking to rebound, but really only Garbine Muguruza (the 2016 champion) has the clay court pedigree.  This is Sofia Kenin's first French Open since her Grand Slam breakthrough, though, so I'm curious to see how well she does.  And I'm still waiting on Karolina Pliskova, who lost in the second round of the US Open as the No. 1 seed.

Call me crazy, but I think this might finally be the time for Pliskova.  I'll probably crash and burn with this pick, but I just have a feeling.  I don't know why.  But I see her beating Angie Kerber in quarters, Muguruza in the semis, and Elina Svitolina (who beats Halep in the other semi) for her first Grand Slam title.

If we've learned anything over the past 16 years, it's that picking against Rafael Nadal at the French Open is a fool's errand.  Thiem and Djokovic won't make it easy for him, but taking three sets from him at Roland Garros is easier said than done.  After all, the guy has only lost twice in his entire French Open career.  So, as much as it pains me to say it, I think he joins Roger at the top of the all-time men's Grand Slam list (silver lining, by skipping the US Open, it made it so that he can't break the record).

So the stage is set for a French Open that will be unlike any other.  It's in the fall for the first time.  It's the final Grand Slam of the year for the first time.  It has a roof and lights for the first time.  But, as they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.  So don't expect the result to be any different.  At least on the men's side.

Leave the Rule Changes In 2020

As incredible as it may seem, we've almost reached the end of this most unusual of baseball seasons.  And with it, hopefully, will go the rule changes that were put into place for this season.  They were necessary for the dumpster fire of a year that is 2020.  That's where they should remain.  Once the calendar flips to 2021, let's go back to the rules that we all know and love.

I've already made my feelings on the seven-inning doubleheaders known.  This is the one that broadcasters seem to love the most, but I think is highly unlikely to continue.  Nor should it.  Because not only is it stupid, it's unnecessary.

Seven-inning doubleheaders make sense when you're trying to play 60 games in 66 days and teams need to play multiple doubleheaders in a week.  When you're playing 162 games over the course of six months, they do not.  In fact, doubleheaders have become increasingly rare.  Last season, seven teams didn't play any and seven others only played one.  That's nearly half of baseball!  And it's not really asking too much from your pitching staff to play two nine-inning games in one day two or three times over the course of a 181-day season.

All of the logistical issues with split doubleheaders aside, the popular argument in favor of the seven-inning twinbills seems to be that it would allow MLB to schedule more throughout the season and give teams additional off days.  But I think if you were to ask the players, they'd prefer fewer off days to more doubleheaders.  Especially since rosters will go back to 26 men next season.

While I'm on the subject, the 28-man roster is definitely a 2020-only change.  The initial plan for this season was to gradually go from 30 to 28 to 26, which was set to become the new standard roster size this season.  After all of the issues with positive tests early in the season, though, they decided to leave it at 28 all year.  This gave teams the extra pitchers that were needed for all those doubleheaders.  Extra pitchers they won't need available for every game next season.

Regarding pitchers, they were originally going to implement a rule this year with a maximum number that each team could have on its roster, so as to prevent the ridiculous overloading of bullpens that has become all too commonplace.  But because of everything that went on and wanting to make sure pitchers stayed healthy, that maximum wasn't implemented.  Teams could have as many pitchers as they wanted on the 28-man roster.  Next year when it goes back to 26, expect the 13-pitcher limit to be in place.

The other major rule change this season was the extra inning rule.  As soon as a game goes into extra innings, teams have an automatic runner at second base to start each inning.  This is the tiebreaker that has been used internationally, at the college level, and in the Minor Leagues for a few years now, but no one thought it would ever make its way to Major League Baseball.  Until 2020 came along, when it was implemented as a way to hopefully prevent those 15- or 16-inning games that last all night.

Fortunately, this rule change only applied to the regular season.  Once the postseason starts on Tuesday, it's back to normal.  Teams won't get a free runner.  They'll have to manufacture runs all on their own.  Just like they always have.

This was perhaps the most controversial of the 2020 rule changes.  Some of the critics have come around, while others still don't like it and never will.  I fall into the latter category. 

On the surface, I don't have an issue with the international tiebreaker.  In short tournaments like the World Baseball Classic or Olympics, it's necessary in order to keep the event on schedule (or at least as close to on schedule as possible).  But it doesn't belong in Major League Baseball.  Even if it did lead to some new dynamics and scenarios we never thought we'd see (such as leadoff two-run homers).

My biggest problem with it in the Majors is that they immediately go to the tiebreaker as soon as the game goes to the 10th (or eighth).  If this change becomes permanent (which I hope it doesn't), that's one element of it I'd like to see changed.  Don't go to it right away.  Let them play the 10th and maybe even the 11th, then if it's still tied, go to the tiebreaker in the 12th.  (It's like when Wimbledon finally implemented the final set tiebreaker last year.  It doesn't take effect until 12-12, so they still have a chance to resolve things the regular way before going to the tiebreaker.)

Then there's the expanded postseason.  This year's bracket, of course, has been extended from five teams per league to eight, with the best-of-three Wild Card Series on the home fields of the top four seeds set for next week.  This was originally intended to be another 2020-only change.  And it was put in because of how short the season was.  Teams only played 60 games, which didn't leave much margin for error.  So the postseason field was expanded as a fail safe to protect the good teams from being eliminated because of a bad two weeks.

But, we should've figured that, of course, there'd immediately be a push among some owners to make it permanent.  At the very least, they should wait and see how next week goes before pushing for a permanent change, but even then I don't like it. 

Baseball is the one sport that doesn't have half the teams make the playoffs!  Because there's no need for it!  In a 60-game season, there isn't enough time for teams to separate themselves the way they normally would, so the expanded postseason is appropriate.  It gives all 16 teams an equal chance.  But it should be pretty clear after 162 games which handful of teams are legitimately good and have a chance of winning the World Series.  And, sorry, but if you finish 79-83, you shouldn't be guaranteed a playoff spot just because you finished second in your division! 

One last change that was put into place for 2020 will almost certainly become permanent, which will be controversial to some and long overdue to others.  I'm, of course, talking about the DH in the National League.  It's something that many considered inevitable, and the time has come.  And, as people have seen this season, it may change the "National League game," but it doesn't necessarily hurt it.  People don't want to watch pitchers hit.  It's as simple as that.

That's perhaps the one good thing we can take away from this season.  The DH made its way to the National League and the world didn't end (I understand that's probably not the most appropriate analogy to be using right now, but I couldn't think of a better one).  Pitchers might get one last hurrah at the plate next season.  But once the new CBA takes effect, they can turn in their bats and helmets forever.

It's All Interconnected

I saw an article the other day that was basically trying to trash the NHL for its playoff ratings.  Game 5 of the Lightning-Islanders series was one of the lowest-rated ever, and the ratings for the Western Conference Final between Dallas and Vegas weren't particularly high either.  I think this was meant to be treated as news, but it's not really anything that should've surprised anybody.  There IS a reason they don't typically play hockey in September, after all.

Comparing this year's ratings to last year's or any other year's is patently ridiculous.  As we all know, this is an unusual year, so it needs to be treated as such.  Especially when you're talking about the TV ratings for a sport that's playing out of season (and typically draws the lowest ratings of the four major sports anyway).  In a normal year, the NHL wouldn't have afternoon playoff games on weekdays (let alone multiple afternoon games every weekday).

The NHL obviously would've loved to not go up against the NFL.  Just like they would've preferred not to take a four-month break and play during the summer.  And, obviously, they would much rather be traveling all over North America with fans in the stands.  But these are the cards they've been dealt, and I think the NHL has done a tremendous job.

As expected, the ratings for the NBA playoff games are better than those for the NHL.  There are more NBA fans than NHL fans, and they're gonna watch the games whenever they're on.  And the NBA doesn't seem nearly as bothered by the summer time frame, which some NBA owners have been public about their desire to explore prior to the pandemic.  This essentially has given them a free test run to see if it'll work.

However, while the NBA moving to the summer permanently might sound like a great idea to some owners, it could present a major logistical challenge.  Because one of the things that our months without sports taught us is how interconnected everything is.  And making such a dramatic change would upset that balance tremendously.

Let's start by looking at the arenas.  Whether they host teams in both sports or not, these arenas know that they've got 40-80 dates already booked between October-April that they have to schedule around.  Then they fill more dates with college basketball, concerts and other events.  While that can lead to some busy days for the arena staffs, it also makes it easier to plan a schedule for May-September.

Yes, they'll obviously need to keep dates open into June for possible playoff games, but they'll also know that they'll have the rest of the summer free.  That's when a lot of big-name musical artists tour.  If you book concert dates in July, chances are you won't have to change them.  Likewise, if the arena needs to go offline for any sort of renovations or upgrades, when is the best time to do it?  In December, when you lose all the sports revenue?  Or in July when the arena's dark anyway?

College basketball, meanwhile, can't really deviate from its November-March schedule.  So, if the NBA were to move its season to the summer, when would the draft be?  Likewise, what are guys going to do during the months they'll have between competitive games?  (This year's draft has been moved to November, but next season might not start until January, a full 10 months since their last game.)

Then there's the elephant in the room--next summer's Olympics.  The NBA doesn't seem to care too much about the rescheduled Tokyo Olympics.  In a way, I get why they don't.  But they should.  Because a number of countries that are relying on having their NBA players available for the qualifying tournament and the Olympics themselves suddenly won't, which obviously greatly impacts their chances.  And Spurs coach Gregg Popovich is also the head coach of the U.S. Olympic team, so I'm not sure how that's expected to work out.

European soccer provided a great example of how these schedule changes can trickle down.  When all the domestic leagues suspended their seasons, the Champions League was in the middle of the quarterfinal round.  And, since finishing the domestic leagues was prioritized, the conclusion of the Champions League had to wait until those were done.

Those European soccer teams got a whopping six weeks off between the end of the 2019-20 season and the start of the 2020-21 season.  (And during that gap, they played group stage games of the ridiculous UEFA Nations Cup for some reason.)  The reason they weren't given a longer break was because they didn't change the date for the Champions League Final.  They couldn't.  Because the rescheduled Euro 2020 is scheduled for the same June-July dates next year.

But by condensing this season, it gets European soccer back on schedule.  They'll be able to have a "normal" 2021-22 season that starts in mid-August and ends with the Champions League Final in early June.  That's even more important when you consider the 2022-23 schedule has already been thrown off by the late World Cup.

Both the NBA and NHL originally set a goal of December 1 for the opening of next season.  Neither one thinks that's realistic anymore.  The NHL's main concern is whether the border will be open.  That's less of a concern in the NBA, which only has the one Canadian team, but Commissioner Adam Silver has still indicated next season may not start until January at the earliest (although I have a hunch they'll want to preserve the Christmas dates they're so protective of).

They've also both indicated that it's their intention to play a full 82-game schedule, followed by the standard four rounds of playoffs.  I'm not sure if that's possible without playing deep into the summer again (when the Olympics become a problem).  And the later they go, the more of an impact it'll have on the 2021-22 season (which, for the NHL, may include an Olympic break).

It's also worth remembering that the leagues' TV partners set their schedules months in advance.  I give NBC, TNT and ESPN a lot of credit for adjusting everything on the fly to broadcast the playoffs, but we've already seen a number of conflicts between the NBA/Stanley Cup Playoffs and other major events, both regularly scheduled and rescheduled.  That was unavoidable in this crazy year when just playing those events is the priority.  But would you rather play your finals in June, when the only other major sport going on is baseball?  Or in the already oversaturated September/October?

When this season was interrupted and the playoffs were moved to the summer, everyone knew next season would be impacted.  But the later next season starts, the more it impacts 2021-22.  Which means it won't be until the 2022-23 season, at least, that things are back to "normal."

NFL 2020, Week 2

I have to admit, Week 1 surprised me.  I didn't expect the football to be as good as it was.  I thought the quality of play would be something like Week 3 of the preseason.  But I was pleasantly surprised to see that it wasn't.  Despite not having a typical offseason or playing any preseason games (and some defenders having not tackled anybody since December), there were plenty of good, entertaining openers.

Some teams certainly surprised, too.  I was very impressed with the Chicago Bears, and the Arizona Cardinals sure looked like a team that, at the very least, no one will want to play.  Meanwhile, what happened to the Colts and Eagles?  Maybe it was a one-week glitch.  Or maybe they aren't as good as we thought they'd be.  We'll see how well they rebound in Week 2, and we'll also see if any of those teams that had surprise wins last week can keep that momentum. 

Also, a fun note about this week: every team that was home last week is home this week and vice versa.  This was done intentionally as a fail safe against pandemic-related delays, but I like it.  It's something the NFL might want to consider doing permanently (if possible).

Thursday Night: Cleveland (Win)

Giants (0-1) at Bears (1-0): Chicago-Even though they lost, the Giants really showed me something against the Steelers.  Like most people, I thought it would be a Pittsburgh blowout.  But the Giants played well and were in the game the whole way.  And the Bears looked good in their opener, too.  Granted they were playing the Lions, but a win's a win.  And following that up with a matchup against the Giants is a recipe for going 2-0 and gaining some confidence before the schedule gets tougher.

Falcons (0-1) at Cowboys (0-1): Dallas-Yes, they lost to the Rams.  But there's nothing that happened in that game to make me change my opinion about the Dallas Cowboys.  I still think they're the second-best team in the NFC.  And they'll get a chance to show it in their first game at Jerry's World this season.  Atlanta has the offense to hang with them, but the Falcons' defense simply isn't good enough.

Lions (0-1) at Packers (1-0): Green Bay-Green Bay's offense sure was ready for the season to start!  If the Packers can do that every week, they'll be very tough to beat (and you know their defense will come around).  Of course, they were in Minnesota's dome last week, while this week they'll be on the Frozen Tundra at Lambeau.  Not that it should matter much against Detroit.  They don't need to score 43 points to beat the Lions.

Jaguars (1-0) at Titans (1-0): Tennessee-Despite Stephen Gostkowski doing his best to give it away, the Titans held on to beat the Broncos on Monday night.  Now they take on a Jaguars team that had perhaps the most surprising result of Week 1.  It's not just that Jacksonville won.  It's that they made Indianapolis look so bad in doing so.  As a result, this is an early battle for first place in the AFC South.  That'll be a huge edge for the winner, especially since it could give them a two-game edge on the the Colts and Texans, who both have tough games this week.

Vikings (0-1) at Colts (0-1): Minnesota-Call me crazy, but I'm still high on the Vikings even after they gave up 43 points against the Packers.  Their offense had a ton of question marks entering season, but hung with Green Bay score for score.  Sure the defense couldn't stop anybody, but that's not going to be the case every week.  And after the Colts' performance against Jacksonville, I've got no confidence in them whatsoever.

Bills (1-0) at Dolphins (0-1): Buffalo-It was only one game, but the Bills looked every bit like the AFC East favorites after a dominant victory over the Jets to start the season.  As for Miami, I don't know what's going on there!  Against the Patriots, the Dolphins looked just as lost as they have over the past couple of seasons.  They just can't get it together!  I can only imagine how bad things will be for them this week.

49ers (0-1) at Jets (0-1): San Francisco-Evidently, as part of the COVID protocols, West Coast teams that have back-to-back games on the East Coast can't stay out there for that whole week like they normally would.  The 49ers are an exception to that rule, though.  Since they're playing the Jets and Giants in consecutive weeks, they can create their own bubble environment, which the NFL said was acceptable.  Last year, the Bills went 2-for-2 at MetLife.  The 49ers will be halfway there after this one.

Rams (1-0) at Eagles (0-1): Philadelphia-As expected, the Rams put on a pretty good show in the opener of their new stadium (although, what's with those white uniforms?  They're horrible!).  A cross country trip to Philadelphia will be tough test, even after the Eagles laid an absolute egg in their opener.  I'd expect we'll see a much better performance out of the Eagles in Week 2.

Broncos (0-1) at Steelers (1-0): Pittsburgh-What a difference a healthy Ben Roethlisberger makes!  The Steelers looked like the Steelers on Monday night, not the team that wore Steelers jerseys for most of last season.  Denver's Monday night game, meanwhile, followed a script that's become all too familiar to Broncos fans.  Have the lead late, only to give up a field goal in the final minute to lose a close one.  At least this week, they'll lose by more than a field goal.

Panthers (0-1) at Buccaneers (0-1): Tampa Bay-Brady and Gronk's Bucs debut wasn't their best performance ever.  But it's not like they were horrible either!  And let's not forget, they were playing the Saints.  Troy Aikman said at the end of the game that he could still see that being the NFC Championship Game.  While I'm not willing to go that far, I do think Tampa Bay will fare far better in its home opener against a Carolina team it's better than.

Washington (1-0) at Cardinals (1-0): Arizona-Raise your hand if you thought both of these teams would be 1-0 entering this matchup.  Anybody?  Didn't think so!  But here we are.  And not only did they both win, they both had impressive victories over playoff teams from last season.  Which one will move to 2-0?  I'm still not completely sold on Washington, so I think the Cardinals are the safer bet.

Chiefs (1-0) at Chargers (1-0): Kansas City-Doesn't it seem like forever since the Chiefs last played?  That always happens with the Thursday night teams, but it feels even longer between Weeks 1 & 2 for some reason.  Anyway, they're back in action for the Chargers' first home game at SoFi Stadium.  It won't get nearly as much fanfare as the Rams' opener (which it shouldn't, since it's the Rams owner who got the stadium built).  At least they won't be in a stadium full of the other team's fans anymore, though.  But, of course, that beats no fans at all.  As for how their first home game will go, I don't think it'll be as successful as their stadium mates'.  The Super Bowl champs go to 2-0.

Ravens (1-0) at Texans (0-1): Baltimore-Lamar Jackson picked up right where he left off, as the Ravens crushed the Browns in their opener.  They'll face a far tougher test against J.J. Watt and Co.  The Texans continue their brutal stretch to start the season (Kansas City, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Minnesota) and would really like to show they deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as the Chiefs and Ravens.  I just think Baltimore will be too much for them, though.

Patriots (1-0) at Seahawks (1-0): Seattle-All week, I wondered if this game would even be played.  I'm still not sure it's smart.  Especially after the Mariners moved their series against the Padres to San Diego.  Seattle is literally ON FIRE!  The NFL is "monitoring the situation," but it appears that they're still planning on playing.  If they do, I've gotta give the nod to the Seahawks, who've had to deal with the air quality all week.

Saints (1-0) at Raiders (1-0): New Orleans-Monday Night Football's 50th anniversary will be celebrated with a three-network broadcast.  It'll be the first regular season game broadcast on ABC in 15 years, and it'll be historic for another reason, too.  The Raiders' opener is the first-ever NFL game in Las Vegas.  Although, like the Rams, they'll open their new football palace without the traditional fanfare that comes with a full house.  Once the game starts, that might be a good thing.  Because Drew Brees is usually good for at least three touchdowns every time he plays on Monday night.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 13-3
Season: 14-3

Only Two Left In the Bubble

Seventeen months later, the Tampa Bay Lightning are finally doing what they were supposed to do last postseason.  The Lightning had a historic regular season in 2018-19, only to be shockingly swept out of the playoffs by Columbus in the first round.  You can tell that's been on their minds.  Because ever since they arrived in the NHL's bubble, they've been playing like they have something to prove.

Meanwhile, I don't think there's any question that Dallas has been the best team in the league since the restart.  They've got plenty of star power (pardon the pun), and it's been on full display.  They seemingly score at will, and they get production from all four lines!  Throw in the outstanding goaltending they've gotten from Anton Khudobin and it's no surprise that they've worked their way to the Stanley Cup Final.

Tampa Bay, of course, has plenty of its own star power.  The Lightning are one of the most talented teams in the league.  And, like Dallas, they can beat you in different ways.  They had a seven-goal game against Boston and scored eight in Game 1 vs. the Islanders, but they've also played six games where Andrei Vasilevskiy only allowed one goal, including the East Final clincher. 

So it's fitting that these are the last two teams standing.  Because they really have been the best teams in their respective bubbles.  Dallas has been especially impressive in the last two rounds, beating the No. 2 seed Colorado in an entertaining series with a ton of goals, then taking all of the top-seeded Golden Knights' best shots in the West Final.  They scored just nine times and still won the series in five (and the game they lost was a shutout)!

Where does that leave us as we get ready for the Cup Final though?  Well, we've got two evenly-matched teams with solid goaltenders, who've both proven they can win different types of games.  Which means that we'll see a 5-4 game one night, then a 2-1 game the next.  It'll be interesting to see who ends up having the advantage in each type.  Either way, it looks like we're in for a fun, competitive series.

When the last two games of the East Final went to overtime, they made the point that Tampa Bay has played 19 postseason games including the round robin, but it's the equivalent of 23 once you factor in all the overtimes.  Dallas has played more games (21), but they've only played four overtime periods, and one of those barely counts since they scored like 25 seconds in or something like that!

More importantly, the Stars last played on Monday, so they'll enter the Final having had four days off.  They've also been in Edmonton the entire time.  Despite being done with their second-round series on Aug. 1, the Lightning had to stay in Toronto until the Islanders-Flyers series was over, then have played every other day since arriving in Edmonton.  Now, after getting one day off, they're looking at potentially playing seven in 12 days, including Games 4 & 5 back-to-back.  (For the record, I hope it doesn't go the distance, since Game 7 would be on the same night as all eight baseball Wild Card series.)

That may not actually make any difference at all.  (After all, everybody had three months off before this.)  But the deeper the series goes, the more it could become a factor.  Especially for Tampa Bay.  The Lightning haven't just played more in a shorter amount of time, they played a very physical series against the Islanders.  The Stars, meanwhile, haven't left Edmonton since this whole thing started.

On paper, Tampa Bay is the better team.  The Lightning were considered serious Cup contenders throughout the regular season and finished with the third-most points in the league.  And they've really picked up right where they left off.  Is that something even worth taking into consideration, though?  Especially since Dallas has been the hottest team in the playoffs.  And, as we see seemingly every year, it's not always the best team that wins the Cup.  It's usually the hottest.

And I have a feeling that with the way Dallas has been playing, especially with how good Khudobin was against Vegas, the Stars won't just roll over.  The Lightning know this.  After all, they saw first-hand what Dallas did to the Golden Knights (one of the perks of the bubble: live scouting!).  I think they're preparing themselves for a long series.

But who wins?  That's the $1 million question.  I wouldn't be surprised if Dallas does.  If you'd asked me back in March when the season was paused if the Stars had any chance of winning the Cup, my answer would've been an emphatic "No way!"  But the team that's spent the last two months in the NHL bubble?  They've absolutely got a shot.  A good one in fact.

With all that being said, though, I just get that Team of Destiny feeling from the Lightning.  They know they should've won last year, when they were embarrassed in the first round.  So, of course, their first-round opponent this year is the same team--Columbus.  And, of course, the first game goes five overtimes!  That game set the tone for this entire playoff run, too.  The Lightning have played six overtime games (two in each series), three of which have gone to multiple OTs.  They're 5-1 in those games, including all three series clinchers.

They remind me a lot of two recent championship teams.  The 2018 Washington Capitals and the 2019 Kansas City Chiefs.  The Capitals were such a great regular season team for so long, but couldn't get past Pittsburgh in the playoffs.  Once they finally did, you just knew they were going all the way.  Same thing with last season's Chiefs.  After they lost the AFC Championship Game to the Patriots, it was Super Bowl or Bust.  And once they got there, you knew they weren't gonna lose (even when the 49ers had that fourth quarter lead I still thought Kansas City was gonna come back and win).

There isn't really any rhyme or reason behind my pick.  The teams are so evenly matched that I think it's going seven games either way.  But I've just got that feeling about the Tampa Bay Lightning.  They best team of the 2018-19 regular season hoists the Cup as the champions in 2020.

A Different October

In a baseball season that has felt like something from another planet, it should come as no surprise that the playoffs are going to be completely different too.  We already knew they would be when they announced that the postseason field was being expanded from 10 to 16 teams, a change that many were hoping would only last this year but the owners, of course, want to make permanent (I'm more willing to make my peace with that than either the runner on second or seven-inning doubleheaders becoming permanent, but I digress).  Now they've announced more changes to further guarantee that this October will be unlike anything we've ever seen before.

Back in June and July when they were trying to come to an agreement over what the regular season was going to look like, the idea of a bubble was brought up and quickly rejected.  The players didn't want to spend that much time away from their families, so they balked and the owners, knowing it was a deal-breaker, dropped it. 

However, after seeing multiple teams suffer outbreaks and the mess it made of the schedule, and knowing that no such adjustments would be possible in the playoffs, MLB pushed harder for the bubble.  This time, the players were more receptive.  So, after the first-round, we're gonna have an entirely neutral-site postseason, capped by the first-ever neutral-site World Series at the Rangers' brand new Globe Life Field.

The NL will play in Houston and Arlington, while the AL will play at Dodger Stadium and San Diego's PETCO Park.  This is presumably so no one will have home field advantage, and it makes complete sense.  That's not the interesting part, though.  The schedule is.

There won't be any off days within a series during the first three rounds of the playoffs.  The first round is a best-of-three all in the same ballpark, so there's no need for any off days.  But the Division Series and LCS won't have any either.  Only the World Series will have the built in off days, which is probably only because FOX already had those dates locked in (and because FOX can't broadcast Thursday Night Football and a World Series game at the same time).

On the surface, I get the rationale.  Since nobody will be traveling, there's no need for travel days.  But changing the schedule so dramatically--and this close to the start of the postseason--will definitely have a major impact.  Teams will have to build their postseason rosters in a completely different way.

Because there's always at least two off days within a series, teams ordinarily never have to play more than three days in a row at any point during the postseason.  That makes it easier for managers to use the same relievers over and over.  However, that won't be an option this year.  The Division Series will be five games in five days.  The LCS will be seven in seven.  If a team plays the maximum number of games in both series, they'll play 12 games in 13 days.

Of course, 12 games in 13 days is something every team is used to in the regular season.  So, in a way, the new postseason schedule will more closely emulate the regular season, which some would argue is a good thing.  You won't be able to get by with just a handful of your top relievers.  You'll have to use your entire pitching staff, just like you do throughout the season.

While most people focused on how this new format will affect bullpen management (which it will), that's not the only area where teams will have to adjust their postseason pitching plans.  Because it'll impact who starts the games just as much.  If not more so.

Teams typically use only four starters throughout the postseason.  Sometimes they can get away with using only three.  This year, that won't be possible until the World Series.  You might see a No. 1 go on three-days' rest for Game 5 of the Division Series, but it's definitely not gonna happen in the LCS.  So, instead of figuring out who to drop from the postseason rotation, teams will go in knowing they need to use everybody.  Now it's a matter of figuring out when everybody's gonna go.

That's especially true with the first round series.  You're playing three days in a row.  Do you want your No. 1 guy in Game 1, or do you save him for Game 2, which will be a guaranteed elimination game?  And when does your No. 2 start?  A lot of that could depend on whether or not you want your third-best starter pitching in the potential winner-take-all Game 3.

Where you are in your rotation at the end of the regular season will obviously have a lot to do with that, but even the teams that have their spots clinched early enough and can line starters up will have to think about that.  Then, if you win your first-round series, you've gotta think about it all over again for the Division Series.

Assuming your No. 1 goes in Game 1 of the first round, he'd be on regular rest for Game 1 of the Division Series, and thus could theoretically pitch a Game 5 on three days' rest.  I'm sure that's exactly what Clayton Kershaw and Gerrit Cole and Max Scherzer will do (at the very least, they'd be available in relief).  But not every team will have that luxury.  And what do you do then?  Because if you just stick with your rotation in order, you've got your No. 4 and 5 starters pitching the elimination game/potential clincher.  Some teams may be OK with that.  I'm assuming others will not.

Then however your rotation ends up after the Division Series will have a direct impact on your LCS rotation.  Because you'll definitely need all five starters then!  Sure, some teams would likely opt for an opener at some point.  But then you're using bullpen guys who you're now taking out for multiple games.

Simply put, pitching depth has never been as important as it will be in this postseason.  We likely won't be seeing relievers going multiple innings on back-to-back days or starters coming out of the bullpen.  The Dodgers famously used Brandon Morrow in all seven games of the 2017 World Series.  That's definitely not gonna happen!  (Although I can still see relievers being used all three days in the first round.)

I'd also bet there will be some position players (mainly catchers) who don't start all seven games of the LCS, but that's not going to have nearly as much of an impact as the changes to pitching strategy.  The point is, this is will be a vastly different October.  In more ways than one.  And whoever manages it best could be the team that ends up hoisting the Commissioner's Trophy.

Well-Intentioned, but Not Realistic

It didn't take long for the NCAA to shoot down Mike Krzysewski's idea of an all-inclusive NCAA Tournament.  Less than a day in fact.  They gave Coach K the respect that he deserves and listened to his idea, as far-fetched as it might have been, but had no plans of actually implementing it.  Because, no matter how well-intentioned it was, the plan was illogical and, frankly, kinda stupid.

Krzyzewski came up with his plan on the premise that most, if not all, college basketball teams won't be playing non-conference games this season.  The start date is also up in the air, but many schools won't begin until January either way.  It's going to be a unique season.  Krzyzewski called it an "irregular season" and said that it'll require "something different."  And, in his eyes, there's "no better way" to celebrate college basketball than "involving every team in the most prestigious basketball tournament on the planet."

Evidently, support among ACC coaches was so strong that it was officially the conference that put the proposal forward.  But, of course coaches are going to be in favor of an expanded NCAA Tournament!  Especially in a conference like the ACC, many of them have performance-based bonuses.  One of those is usually an NCAA Tournament appearance.  Likewise, job security is often tied to whether or not they make the Tournament.  So you're not going to find a coach in America who's opposed to a guaranteed NCAA Tournament bid (which may trigger a bonus, save a job, or both).

Sorry, but this isn't "everybody gets a trophy."  And it shouldn't be.  The NCAA Tournament is meant to be exclusive.  It's only for the 68 best teams.  Expanding the field to include all 357 teams would take that away.  Reaching the tournament wouldn't mean what it's supposed to.  This isn't how Army, Citadel, St. Francis Brooklyn and William & Mary envision getting there for the first time.

And, let's be honest here.  There are plenty of bad college basketball teams out there.  Some of these teams aren't even good enough to qualify for their conference tournaments, so why should they be invited to the national tournament?  That turns it into BCS football with its unwieldy number of bowl games, resulting in too many unworthy teams playing in bowls.  

Even in a 68-team tournament, you know a vast majority of them have absolutely no realistic chance of winning the championship.  You know how many fewer championship contenders we're talking about if we increase the field to 357?  To add, what, three or four additional bubble teams who might have a chance of winning a game or two?

None of that even takes into account the sheer logistical nightmare of accommodating 289 additional tournament teams!  I'll start with the most obvious logistical issue: 357 is not evenly divisible by anything, let alone two!  The closest they can get is 256, which would be eight rounds.  That leaves 101 extra teams.  I tried several different permutations, and there's no way to get from that to a nice, (somewhat) tidy 256-team bracket without multiple rounds of byes!

That problem could probably be addressed by playing the early rounds on a regional basis, but even then, you'd have competitive issues.  (Some regions would have more smaller-conference teams than others, and some regions would have more teams, thus requiring more games.)  While some people might consider that a good thing, and it would certainly be beneficial from a travel perspective, it wouldn't lead to a balanced bracket!  And you know there would be some major conference teams crying "foul" because their regional road is more difficult than some of their conference rivals.

This would also completely devalue the conference tournaments.  Outside of the 10 conferences that get multiple bids, most schools know their only chance of getting into the Big Dance is winning their conference tournament.  It's part of what makes Championship Week so awesome!  All of that would be gone if the conference tournaments are rendered essentially meaningless.

Then there's the issue of all those extra games and where they would be played.  The NCAA is committed to holding a men's basketball tournament in 2021 at all costs, even if that means isolating the teams in a bubble.  The bubble concept has been so successful in the NBA, and the NCAA seems willing to utilize its own bubbles for its championship events, including basketball, once they resume. 

A lot can change between now and March (just look at how quickly everything fell apart this year), but a bubble does seem doable in theory.  The NCAA Tournament consists of 67 games played at 14 different sites.  However, they could conceivably cut that to four regional sites, which would each have their own 17-team bubble, then a separate bubble for the Final Four.

If everybody was included, the number of games would increase to 356!  I'm not even gonna begin to guess how many sites that would require, but you'd have to think they'd have to create some sort of "bubble" environment at each.  Simply put, both of those numbers are unmanageable, especially when you consider half of the teams would be eliminated after just 40 minutes!

Lastly, how would they handle testing?  Every campus and every state is doing something different, and each conference has its own different protocols, too.  And who pays for the testing?  As we know, the pandemic has hurt everyone financially, but the impact has been worse for some than for others.  Some schools can afford it, while others can't.  And what happens if someone tests positive?  Would the game be cancelled or postponed?  Would they be required to play with who's available?  Or be required to forfeit?

While it's a noble idea, Mike Krzyzewski had to know an all-inclusive NCAA Tournament was never going to fly.  It sounds great in theory, but it's not realistic.  Instead, we'll have to be content with the 68-team field that we're accustomed to.  And, after the tournament's abrupt cancellation in 2020, those 68 berths will be even more precious in 2021.

NFL 2020, Week 1

Football's back!  It seems crazy that the last time there was an NFL game, the world as we knew it was still normal.  Yet here we are, ready for a new season, which is starting right on time.  It's actually pretty remarkable if you think about it.  We've gone through six of the craziest months of our lives, yet our fall Thursday nights, Sundays and Monday nights will still include NFL football, just like they always have.

With the start of the season marks the return of my weekly picks.  For those of you who are new to this, I pick straight winners.  I don't care about the spread.  The spread is irrelevant to who actually wins the game.  If the team that's favored by 6.5 only wins by six, they don't take the win away!  And, with that out of the way, it's on to the Week 1 picks (I'll make a pick for the Thursday game, which I'll count in the results, but normally won't post until Sunday)...

Texans at Chiefs: Kansas City-After doing Bears-Packers last year to celebrate the 100th anniversary season, we're back to the traditional Thursday night opener hosted by the reigning Super Bowl champions.  And the Chiefs begin their defense with a matchup against the Texans.  I'm glad this one is early in the season when all of Houston's starters are still healthy, because it should be a terrific showdown worthy of the marquee primetime showcase.  This is the type of game that usually bites Houston at the end of the season, so a win would be huge for the Texans.  Fans or not, I don't see the Chiefs not following through with a victory on the night they raise their championship banner, though.

Seahawks at Falcons: Seattle-Starting the season with a cross country road trip is never an easy thing, but I'd rather do it in Week 1 than Week 15.  And the Seahawks have proven over the past few years that these long road trips aren't much of an issue for them.  A Falcons win would be a huge statement for an Atlanta team that's looking to bounce back after going 7-9 last year.  While that wouldn't be a total surprise, I still see the Seahawks making that long flight home as winners.

Jets at Bills: Buffalo-For the first time in two decades, the rest of the AFC East heads into the new season legitimately thinking they have a chance of winning the division.  That's especially true for the Bills, who've made the playoffs in two of the last three seasons and probably should've won their Wild Card Game last year.  The no fans thing, while disappointing for their rabid fan base, could be good for the Bills' players.  Because they won't feel the pressure nearly as much as they would in a stadium full of people.

Bears at Lions: Chicago-The NFC North's other two teams square off in a season opener that has the potential to say a lot about the direction of their seasons.  A Week 1 win would be a huge springboard, while a loss could get some "here we go again" feelings to start setting in.  The Lions have added Adrian Peterson, but can he get up to speed on Detroit's system quickly enough to make a difference?  I'm not sure, which is why I'm taking Chicago.

Packers at Vikings: Green Bay-They both made the playoffs last season, and they're the NFC North co-favorites again.  Although, I'm not sure Minnesota is as good this year.  We'll get to see it right away, though, since the Packers are still just as good and the Vikings will need to bring their A-game.  That means Kirk Cousins will need to be the guy they paid big money for.  I'm just not sure he'll be able to without a big-play receiver.  As such, I expect the Packers' defense to take advantage and come away with a road win.

Dolphins at Patriots: New England-How will New England begin the Cam Newton Era?  Honestly, I think the Patriots will be fine, even if they won't be the dominant force they've been over the past several years.  And a home game against the Dolphins is about as soft a landing as they could've hoped for in Game 1 Post-Brady.  Miami got slaughtered at home by Baltimore in its opener last year and things only got worse from there.  Here's hoping their 2020 opener goes a little better, even though the result will probably be the same.

Eagles at Washington: Philadelphia-Philadelphia has gotten off to a horrible start in each of the last two seasons before rallying to finish 9-7 and make the playoffs both times.  Maybe this year they can get some wins in September to make things a little easier for themselves at the end of the season.  Starting with Washington is certainly a good way to do that.  Question: If Washington scores a touchdown, will they sing "Hail to the Football Team?"

Raiders at Panthers: Las Vegas-I'd normally pick against the Raiders in a 1:00 game under any circumstances.  But these aren't regular circumstances.  Plus, they're playing the Panthers, who are definitely one of the weaker teams in the league.  The Raiders will put up a lot of points and look like a playoff team, but the real test will come next week when they play the Saints in the first-ever NFL game in Las Vegas.

Colts at Jaguars: Indianapolis-Philip Rivers is a Colt?!  Sorry...that's still a weird thing to think about.  Anyway, the Jaguars are not good.  The Colts are a potential playoff team.  So losing to Jacksonville is not really an option, especially since this division is going to be a dogfight between those three top teams.  I expect to see a fully reinvigorated Philip Rivers show he's got plenty left in the tank and lead the Colts to a season-opening victory.

Browns at Ravens: Baltimore-How will Lamar Jackson and the Ravens follow up their record-setting 2019 campaign?  Will they be like the Chiefs and use that as motivation for a Super Bowl run of their own?  I'm also curious to see what 2020 has in store for the Browns.  Cleveland was a popular playoff pick heading into last season, but had a brutal schedule to start and never recovered.  Unfortunately, beginning this season in Baltimore won't be much easier.

Chargers at Bengals: Chargers-Joe Burrow's Bengals debut comes against a Chargers team that has a new quarterback of its own (although I'm not sure Tyrod Taylor is actually an improvement over Philip Rivers).  Nevertheless, the Chargers are a better team than Cincinnati.  The Bengals will be much more competitive than they were last season, but all that means is the score will be closer.  It won't change the result.

Buccaneers at Saints: New Orleans-Two of the four active quarterbacks that are locks for Canton square off in Brady's Bucs debut.  Tampa Bay was obviously one of the most talked-about teams during the offseason, and rightfully so.  And, since there was no preseason, this will be our first chance to see the new-look Bucs.  Unfortunately for them, the Saints are the best team in the NFC.  It'll be high-scoring (most NFC South games are), but I expect Brees to get the better of Brady in their first matchup as division rivals.

Cardinals at 49ers: San Francisco-It's Year 2 for Kyler Murray and Kliff Kingsbury in Arizona.  I know I'm not the only one who's curious to see how it'll go (especially since teams weren't able to do anything except watch video for months).  They can make an early statement against last year's NFC champions (who I think are a little overrated).  But, alas, the game is in Santa Clara, so I'll go with the 49ers in a close one.

Cowboys at Rams: Rams-You've gotta feel for Stan Kroenke a little bit.  He moved the Rams back to LA, spent a billion dollars of his own money on a gorgeous new stadium, got a Sunday night matchup against the Dallas Cowboys to open it up...and no fans will be there!  They can still make a statement, though.  I picked Dallas to reach the NFC Championship Game, but they'll open the season with a loss.  The Rams finally havce a new home, and they'll put on quite a show to christen it with a victory!

Steelers at Giants: Pittsburgh-Last season was obviously a rough one for the Steelers.  They couldn't stay healthy, and by the time they got everything together, Baltimore was already running away with the division.  Well, Big Ben is back, and so is the optimism in Pittsburgh.  I wish I could say there's similar optimism around the Giants, but there isn't.  And, with Eli retired, this is officially Daniel Jones' team now.  Can he lead them to a .500 record (or at least 7-9)?  Maybe.  But he'll start this season 0-1.

Titans at Broncos: Tennessee-Week 1 concludes in Denver, where it might be 80 degrees or it might snow.  The Broncos went 7-9 last season, but had so many close losses that they easily could've been 9-7 or even 10-6.  The Titans have gone 9-7 for years in a row, which has gotten them into the playoffs twice and to the AFC Championship Game last season.  That run included road wins over New England and Baltimore, so they obviously know how to perform in big games.  And the second half of the Week 1 Monday night doubleheader certainly qualifies as a big game.

2020 NFC Preview

Before getting into Part II of my NFL preview, there's one thing about the upcoming season that I need to get off my chest.  Some teams are planning on allowing fans into their games this season (while observing social distancing of course).  Others aren't.  That shouldn't be allowed.  Over the summer, the NFL said teams couldn't reopen their facilities until all 32 had gotten the OK from government officials.  It should be the same thing here.  If one team can't have spectators, nobody should.

Anyway, while the AFC has a clear favorite in Kansas City, the NFC is much more wide open.  On paper, the Saints are probably the best team, but the last two Super Bowl participants have come out of the West--and neither is the Seahawks, who may be better than both of them!  And Dallas made a fantastic coaching hire in Mike McCarthy.  All the pieces are there.  Can he end the Cowboys' NFC Championship Game drought?

I don't want to call the NFC top-heavy, though.  Because even some of the "bad" teams are pretty good.  Arizona is the fourth-best team in a division that might have three playoff teams.  In fact, I'd argue that there will only be three real bottom-feeders in the NFC--Washington, Carolina and the Giants.  And even the Giants will probably be better this season.

So, that extra wild card is going to be a huge prize.  Because there are realistically 10 or 11 teams that have legitimate playoff aspirations.  And that doesn't include the Cardinals, who could easily emerge as a sleeper team.  Which means that everybody needs to bring their A game every week.  Because that random home loss to the Lions where you just laid a complete egg could end up being what knocks you out of the playoffs.

East: Cowboys (11-5), Eagles (9-7), Giants (5-11), Washington (3-13)
The NFC East has been a two-horse race between Dallas and Philadelphia over the past few seasons, and this year should be no different.  Except this time, it should be the Cowboys who end up on top.  Frankly, I think Dallas is the most talented team in the entire NFC with the exception of New Orleans.  And, like I said, Mike McCarthy is the perfect coach for that team.  Which leaves the Eagles fighting for a wild card, which is certainly a possibility.  And if Carson Wentz can actually stay healthy for the entire season, who knows what might happen?

Then there are the other two teams, who likely won't be improving from their also-ran status.  The Giants aren't nearly as bad as they've been over the past few years, but they still aren't at the level that will make them competitive for a playoff berth.  And I'm not excited at all about the Joe Judge coaching hire.  I think he'll be in way over his head.  The Artists Formerly Known as the Redskins, meanwhile, made an excellent coaching hire in Ron Rivera.  They have way too much off-the-field turmoil to worry about, in addition to the fact that they don't have nearly enough talent.  Washington is more likely to contend for the No. 1 pick than the playoffs.

North: Packers (10-6), Vikings (8-8), Bears (6-10), Lions (5-11)
Green Bay will either go 12-4 and battle for the No. 1 seed, go 10-6 and win the division, or go 6-10 and miss the playoffs.  The Packers seem to be a team of extremes.  But as long as Aaron Rodgers is their quarterback, it would be foolish to think they won't end up in the postseason.  I give them the edge in the division because the Vikings simply aren't as good as Green Bay.  Minnesota traded its best offensive weapon in Stefon Diggs, so now Kurt Cousins is really gonna need to prove he's worth that contract.

It's almost become a running joke with the Chicago Bears.  They suck for a few years, randomly win the division, then go back to sucking.  It's been a little while since their last playoff appearance, so this could easily be the random 10-6/11-5 year.  I expect more of the same from them, though.  Which will be the case until they figure out their quarterback situation.  And I don't know what to make of Detroit.  The Lions will beat some good teams, but they'll also have some head-scratching losses.  If everything goes right, they could be a playoff team.  What are the odds of that happening, though?

South: Saints (12-4), Buccaneers (9-7), Falcons (7-9), Panthers (4-12)
One guy suddenly made the NFC South a lot more interesting.  Because Tom Brady signing with Tampa Bay was a clear indication that the Bucs are going for it.  They were already on the way, then after they got Brady, they added pieces to compliment their new QB.  Suddenly the Bucs are relevant again, and the whole division is going to be better because of it.

Tampa Bay certainly looks like a playoff team, but that playoff berth will likely come in the form of a wild card.  Because the Saints are the class of the division.  In fact, I'd argue New Orleans is the best team in the NFC.  Thanks to some wacky plays late in playoff games, they've come up short the past few years.  Their goal is obvious, though: one more Super Bowl appearance for Drew Brees and Sean Payton.  Atlanta is capable of joining them in the playoffs, too, but the Falcons are the third-best team in the division.  And there will almost certainly be some growing pains as Carolina adjusts to a new head coach and a new system.  Can Matt Rhule's system that was so successful at Baylor translate to the NFL?  Or will he be another Chip Kelly?

West: Seahawks (11-5), 49ers (10-6), Rams (9-7), Cardinals (6-10)
If you're looking for a more competitive division than the NFC West, you're not gonna find one.  In fact, it wouldn't be a stretch to see all four teams finishing .500 or better.  There are three legitimate playoff contenders, all of whom are capable of winning the division, and Arizona probably would be if they were in any other division.  Instead, the Cardinals will settle for being the best last-place team in football.

But which of the other three is the division favorite?  I've gotta go with Seattle.  The Seahawks have been a consistent playoff team ever since Pete Carroll and Russell Wilson arrived.  Don't expect that to change this year.  San Francisco, of course, is coming off a Super Bowl season.  I think the 49ers overachieved mightily in 2019, though, so I'm curious to see how they back it up.  And I fully expect a bounce back from the Rams after their disappointing 2019 campaign (that still would've resulted in a playoff spot had the extra wild card been in place).  They've got a new home and would love to christen it with a wild card berth.

Division Winners: 1-Saints (South), 2-Cowboys (East), 3-Seahawks (West), 4-Packers (North)
Wild Cards: 49ers, Buccaneers, Rams
Expect a dogfight both for seeding among the division winners and for the wild card berths.  In fact, I've got the Eagles finishing with the same record as both the Bucs and Rams (with LA's win over Philly in Week 2 giving the Rams the final spot), with Minnesota just one game back.  So, yeah, it'll be that close.

With so many good teams in the NFC, those playoffs will be a battle.  I think New Orleans and Dallas are the two best teams, so I'm making that my call for the NFC Championship Game matchup.  And, after so many near misses, the Saints get back to the Super Bowl 11 years after their last appearance.  This one won't end as well, though.  They lose to the Chiefs, who become the first reigning Super Bowl champion to defend its title since the Patriots 15 years ago.

2020 AFC Preview

The last time an NFL game was played, the world as we knew it was still normal.  A stadium full of people watched the Chiefs win the Super Bowl, while millions more watched on TV, many doing so together at Super Bowl parties (I went to my sister's house for the game, but her power went out early in the first quarter and didn't come back on until the 2-minute warning, so my brother-in-law and I huddled around his phone for three hours.  I should've known then that 2020 would be 2020).  Obviously, a lot has changed since then.

In a way, the NFL got lucky with the timing of the pandemic.  They had to conduct the draft virtually and couldn't conduct any in-person workouts or meetings, but, unlike virtually every other sporting entity in the world, they didn't have to adjust their schedule at all.  Sure, they cancelled the preseason, but that was on the verge of going away anyway.  The players hate preseason games and fans don't really care about them.  So I doubt they were missed by too many people.

Although, I must admit, it was weird not to have a preseason.  As meaningless and terrible as the games are, they're still a reminder that football season is on its way.  And they're a chance to see rookies and free agents in their new uniforms for the first time, even if its only for a few series (which is really the only benefit to them).  I have no idea what kind of evaluation process coaches used when determining the final cuts without preseason games, but they figured it out somehow!

Preseason games also gave us that little glimpse of what each team might look like with its starters on the field.  It's obviously very difficult to take anything away from preseason games as a basis for predictions, but they're better than nothing!  This year, we're all going into the season completely blind.  We haven't seen anybody play, so we can only guess who might be good.

Throughout the spring and summer, the NFL was committed to starting the 2020 season on time, and, sure enough, that's exactly what's going to happen.  And it'll be a different season to say the least.  Games will be played in empty stadiums (at least to start) and the threat of a second outbreak shutting the season down looms.  They built the schedule with that in mind and are willing to delay the Super Bowl until the end of February.  Here's hoping that doesn't happen...and that the Super Bowl will be played in a sold out stadium like it should!

However, there's plenty of reason to be excited, too.  For starters, the long-awaited playoff expansion is here.  Starting this season, there will be three wild cards per conference and only the No. 1 seed will have a first-round bye.  While this will likely increase the number of 9-7 or 8-8 playoff teams, I actually think it'll create a lot more excitement.  The better teams will be less likely to sit starters knowing only the No. 1 seed gets a bye, the No. 1 seed gets much more of an advantage than in the past, and more teams will be in contention.  All of those are good things.

There should be plenty of candidates for those extra playoff berths, too.  The Chiefs are the clear class of the AFC, but there should be solid battles in each of the other three divisions.  And, thanks to a certain quarterback's relocation, one team that views division titles as its birthright may see its run of dominance come to an end.  Don't count them out for a wild card, though.

East: Bills (11-5), Patriots (10-6), Jets (6-10), Dolphins (4-12)
While it might be premature to declare the Patriots dead, there's no question that they aren't the prohibitive division favorites for the first time any of us can remember.  And that might've been the case anyway this season even if Brady had stayed in New England.  The Buffalo Bills were a playoff team last year and only got better with the addition of a No. 1 receiver in Stefon Diggs.  Their first home playoff game since 1996 is definitely a realistic goal.

New England is still good enough to make the playoffs, though.  Cam Newton was a great signing for the Patriots.  It's a marriage I predicted as soon as he was cut by Carolina, and it makes sense on both sides.  With Cam under center, I expect the Patriots to return to the postseason...as a wild card team this time.  Give the Jets another year or two and they'll be in the discussion with the Bills and Patriots, too.  Miami, meanwhile, still has plenty of issues.  The Dolphins aren't the worst team in the AFC, but it's close.

North: Steelers (11-5), Ravens (10-6), Browns (7-9), Bengals (5-11)
Lamar Jackson set the league on fire last season, winning MVP and leading Baltimore to the best record in the NFL.  Only for it to all come crashing down in the playoffs.  I'm curious to see if he'll be able to keep it going or if the other coaches (after having nothing to do for months except watch film) have figured out a way to stop him.  Either way, they're a damn good team, and they're definitely one of the seven best in the AFC.  Will they have another dominant regular season, though?  That's the million-dollar question.

Expect a huge bounce back season for the Pittsburgh Steelers, too.  Don't forget, the Steelers started four different quarterbacks last season and went through enough turmoil for two teams.  And they still almost made the playoffs!  With a healthy Big Ben and a healthy defense, Pittsburgh could easily reclaim the division title.  The Cleveland Browns, meanwhile, are capable of being a sleeper playoff team.  Last year, the expectations might've been too high for the Browns, who were unable to recover from a rough start against a brutal early schedule.  So, lower expectations could be a good thing in Cleveland.  Things will be better in Cincinnati this season, too, especially if Joe Burrow can live up to the hype.

South: Texans (11-5), Titans (10-6), Colts (9-7), Jaguars (3-13)
Without a doubt, the AFC South is the most competitive in the AFC.  It's the most top-heavy in the entire league, too.  Jacksonville might be the worst team in the league and will battle Washington for the No. 1 pick, but the other three are all legitimate playoff-caliber teams.  It's even conceivable that all three could make it.  So, really, it might be injuries (or the lack thereof) that determines things in the AFC South.

On paper, Houston has the most talent in the division.  The Texans are the team that needs to keep its stars on the field the most, though.  Because they don't have the depth of the Titans or the Colts.  But if J.J. Watt and DeShaun Watson can stay healthy, Houston's the team to beat.  It'll be tough for the Titans to return to the AFC Championship Game, especially since everyone knows they're a one-trick pony.  They've consistently overachieved under Mike Vrabel, though, so it would be foolish to count them out.  And expect the Colts to be in the thick of the race all season, too.  Upgrading at quarterback was their top priority, and I'll say they succeeded in that with the addition of Philip Rivers (although it'll certainly be odd to not see him in a Chargers uniform).

West: Chiefs (13-3), Raiders (8-8), Broncos (7-9), Chargers (6-10)
I think it's safe to say that we've officially seen the passing of the torch.  Patrick Mahomes has become the face of the league after winning league MVP and Super Bowl MVP over the past two seasons.  Kansas City's title was a long time coming, and it might not be their last.  Because the Chiefs aren't going anywhere.  They're just as good this season as they were over the last two years.  They could easily become the new Patriots.

Kansas City's first title defense in 50 years will feature trips to a pair of brand new, state-of-the-art venues.  The Raiders left Oakland for the second time (this time likely for good) for greener pastures in Las Vegas.  They're certainly capable of earning a wild card, but Jon Gruden's gonna need that bet on Marcus Mariota to pay off.  The Chargers begin a new era.  Philip Rivers is in Indy and, after three years in a soccer stadium, they move into their new home, SoFi Stadium, which they'll share with the Rams.  Unfortunately, it's the Rams who'll see more success in the stadium.  And the Broncos really need to figure out what they're doing at quarterback!  It's been an issue since Peyton Manning retired, and it's really the only thing keeping Denver out of serious wild card conversations.

Division Winners: 1-Chiefs (West), 2-Steelers (North), 3-Texans (South), 4-Bills (East)
Wild Cards: Ravens, Patriots, Titans
Yes, I have all six of last season's playoff teams returning, with the Steelers joining them thanks to that extra berth.  They'll have a razor-thin margin for error, though.  Because the Colts and Raiders will be right there on the cusp, and don't count out Cleveland.  If you're looking for a sleeper team, the Browns might be it!  It's really no matter, though.  The Chiefs are the champions and will be the hunted.  They'll be ready, though, and should be making their second February trip to Florida in a row.

My LA 2028 Logo

It definitely caught me off guard when LA 2028 unveiled its Olympic logos the other day.  Olympic logos are generally revealed five years in advance (Paris 2024's only came out last year), so it was quite a surprise to see already see LA's a full eight years before the Games.  Ordinarily, we wouldn't even find out the host of an Olympics until seven years prior!

Anyway, one of the reasons they released the logo so early is because they hope it can help them stay relevant over the next eight years.  With that in mind, there isn't one official logo.  In fact, there are infinite possibilities.  The base of the logo is a black "L", "2" and "8", but the "A" is up to each person's individual creativity.  So, everybody's "A" is literally different.

To be honest, I'm lukewarm about the idea.  I'm not completely opposed to the concept, and it's definitely a way to get people to take ownership and feel excited for the LA Olympics, even if they aren't for another eight years.  But you need one, official mark to create a consistent brand, especially for something as high-profile as an Olympics (although, I have a feeling they will settle on one when the time comes to put it on signage, tickets, etc.).

LA 2028 asked a number of athletes and celebrities to create their own versions of the logo, and those were among the designs that were included in the reveal.  Some aren't bad.  Others are horrible.  (None of them compare to their beautiful bid logo, however.)

Even though I'm not a fan of the ever-changing logo, it got me thinking about what my version would look like.  And, once I decided what that would be, I took to Photoshop and brought it to life.  Before I show it to you, though, I want to tell you about my source of inspiration.

I've never been to LA (I, of course, plan on changing that in 2028).  Whenever I think of the city, though, I think glitz.  I think glamour.  I think Hollywood.  Most of all, I think stars.  Which, of course, immediately made me think of two things: the Hollywood Walk of Fame and the color gold.  And that's what led me to create this logo, my version of the LA 2028 emblem:

My star looks like one of the stars you'd see on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and I wanted it to be gold because of how much the color means to both the city and the Olympics.  It's the color of the ultimate prize.  All of the entertainment awards are gold.  And, of course, every Olympian's goal is to win a gold medal.  So, considering both of those things, it was very important to me that the star be gold.

If you think the star being gold is the only symbolism here, you'd be wrong.  In fact, every element of the star was chosen deliberately.  Even my decision to go with a five-pointed star was on purpose.  That one's pretty straightforward.  The five points on the star are for the five Olympic rings, which themselves represent every continent and every flag.

The star is outlined in red, white and blue.  That's a nod to the 1984 Olympics.  The logo for those Games was red, white and blue stars streaking across the page.  (And those three colors, obviously, are also on the American flag, a nod to the host country.)

In the middle of the star, I have a black disc with three white streaks.  That's where I really took inspiration from the Walk of Fame.  Those stars, of course, have the circle with the star's industry underneath their name.  In this case, I don't have a name to put above the disc, but it's a nod to the Walk of Fame.  I made it black to match the text elements of the logo.

Originally, I was going to put the Olympic rings in the middle of the black disc.  Then I realized that would be redundant since the Olympic rings are already prominently displayed at the bottom of the logo.  That also would've made it look way too similar to the London 2012 logo.  So instead I settled on three lines (or "streaks"), which are arranged to make it look like a shooting star.  Those streaks also have a hidden meaning.

That hidden meaning is actually three-fold.  LA will become the third city to host the Olympics three times, so each streaks represents one of those Games.  The LA Coliseum was one of the primary venues at each of those Olympics.  The streaks are also a nod to the LA Coliseum's signature columns.  Finally, the streak in the middle is slightly higher to signify the medals stand, where the gold medalist stands on the top step.

For the Paralympics, there are only slight changes.  The order of the red, white and blue would be reversed (it would go, from the inside, blue, white red on the Paralympic version, as opposed to red, white, blue on the Olympic version), and the Olympic rings would obviously be replaced by the Paralympic agitos.  The middle of the black disc, meanwhile, would have only two streaks, arranged horizontally, signifying that the Paralympics are equal to the Olympics.

While I'm not a fan of the "everlasting A" concept, there are elements of it that are cool.  I like hearing the stories of why different people designed their "A" a certain way.  And now you know the inspiration for mine.