San Francisco: Olympic City

When Santa Clara County announced its new restriction on contact sports yesterday, I got to thinking about where the 49ers may play.  It looks like they've settled on Arizona, but there were also plenty of options elsewhere in the Bay Area.  In fact, the Bay Area is so flush with sports facilities that it would be the perfect host for the Olympics.

I've said this before, and I'm not the only one.  I love San Francisco.  I've only been there once, but I enjoyed every minute of it.  That's not the reason why I think San Francisco would make the perfect Olympic host, though.  It's got everything the IOC is looking for and then some.  Which is why it's the American city that many IOC members would prefer.  And it could very well be the next American city to bid.

Of course, that won't be for a while.  We're still eight years from LA hosting, and the next North American Olympics after that will probably be in Toronto.  But, once enough time has passed and everyone's ready for an Olympics in the United States again (say somewhere in the 2044-52 range), San Francisco is the easy choice.

San Francisco has bid before, but has never been the chosen American candidate.  New York's bid was the one chosen for the 2012 Games, while San Francisco dropped out of the running for 2016 because it ran out of funding.  Then, in the debacle that was the 2024 bid process, the USOPC chose Boston over San Francisco for some reason.  That, of course, had a silver lining, though, as Boston was replaced with Los Angeles, and LA will host in 2028.

Anyway, San Francisco is the ideal Olympic city.  Everything is in place for a Bay Area Olympics right now.  Between San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose and all of the area colleges, they wouldn't need to build a single venue (except for maybe the Olympic Village, which could easily become affordable housing or college dorms afterwards).

As such, my venue plan includes all existing facilities.  A lot will obviously change between now and whenever San Francisco might host, but there's no way to foresee what those changes might be, so my venues are all ones that are currently standing.  It's a mixture of pro sports arenas and historic San Francisco landmarks and public parks, as well as the world-class venues at the many Division I colleges in the Bay Area (primarily Stanford).

Before getting into the venue selection, a few notes on some of them.  The biggest of which is swimming.  I was shocked to find out that there isn't a 50-meter pool in the entire Bay Area.  I thought for sure Stanford had one!  But, since a full-scale Aquatic Center isn't necessary, I'm taking a page out of the U.S. Olympic Trials' book.  The 2012 and 2016 Swimming Trials were held in Omaha, with a pool plopped onto the arena floor.  So I'm doing the same thing.  In an Olympic first, swimming wouldn't be in an aquatic center.  It would be in the San Jose Sharks' 18,000-seat SAP Center.

There's also no need for a custom-built Olympic Stadium.  San Francisco doesn't have a stadium like the LA Coliseum, which was designed with a track.  And, with the way NFL stadiums are built these days, I'm not sure they could fit a 400-meter track around the field at Levi's Stadium.  However, it's expandable for major events like the Super Bowl and College Football Playoff.  It's also one of the likely venues for the 2026 World Cup, so I think there's a configuration that would work.  So, because of that, it's the most logical choice for Olympic Stadium.

My last note is regarding the soccer venues.  All of the soccer venues for LA 2028 will be in the State of California.  That makes so much sense for a lot of reasons.  And really, there's no reason not to copy it.  Especially with a new Sacramento team joining MLS in a new stadium.  The primary soccer venue is Stanford Stadium, with the other five all located within the state (and two others in the Bay Area).

So, with that, here's my venue plan for the San Francisco Olympics (they'd be spread across the entire Bay Area, but "San Francisco" would be the designated host city).  The sport program changes every Olympics and I don't want to speculate what might be added/removed for future Games (sorry, but esports are NOT sports!), so I'm going with the sports we'll see next year in Tokyo.

SAN FRANCISCO
Baker Beach: Beach Volleyball
Candlestick Point: Triathlon
Chase Center: Basketball
Crissy Field: Shooting
Golden Gate Park: 3x3 Basketball, Cycling (BMX), Skateboarding, Sport Climbing
Great Highway: Cycling (Road Finish), Track & Field (Marathon/Race Walk Finish)
Kezar Stadium: Archery
Moscone Center: (Arena 1 - Badminton, Table Tennis; Arena 2 - Judo, Taekwondo; Arena 3 - Karate, Wrestling)
Ocean Beach: Surfing
Olympic Club: Golf
Oracle Park: Baseball
San Francisco Bay: Sailing, Marathon Swimming
War Memorial Gym: Weightlifting

BERKELEY
Haas Pavilion: Handball
Memorial Stadium: Field Hockey

CONTRA COSTA
Mount Diablo State Park: Mountain Biking

EL DORADO
South Fork American River: Canoe/Kayak (Slalom)

MORAGA
University Credit Union Pavilion: Boxing

OAKLAND
Oakland Coliseum: Rugby
Oracle Arena: Gymnastics, Rhythmic Gymnastics, Trampoline

SAN JOSE
Earthquakes Stadium: Modern Pentathlon
Hellyer Park Velodrome: Cycling
Mubadala Stadium/San Jose State Tennis Center: Tennis
Provident Credit Union Events Center: Fencing
SAP Center: Swimming, Water Polo (Medal Round)

SANTA CLARA
Levi's Stadium: Track & Field

STANFORD
Arrillaga Family Rowing & Sailing Center: Canoe/Kayak, Rowing
Avery Aquatic Center: Artistic Swimming, Diving, Water Polo
Boyd & Jill Smith Family Stadium: Softball
Maples Pavilion: Volleyball
Stanford Red Barn Equestrian Center: Equestrian
Stanford Stadium: Soccer

Additional Soccer Venues: Berkeley (Edwards Stadium), Los Angeles (Banc of California Stadium), Sacramento (Railyards Stadium), San Diego (Aztec Stadium), San Jose (CEFCU Stadium) 

NFL 2020, Week 12

We've reached the annual point in the season where people complain about the Lions playing on Thanksgiving every year.  Because it's tradition, that's why!  Frankly, I have no issue with Detroit playing the Thanksgiving early game.  Every team gets at least one nationally-televised game a year.  The 12:30 game on Thanksgiving is theirs.  And, you know what?  People are gonna watch the game anyway, so clearly it doesn't make a difference who's playing!

Although, I will admit that this isn't exactly the strongest Thanksgiving schedule we've ever seen.  Losing Ravens-Steelers certainly didn't help, either.  Because the two afternoon games leave a lot to be desired.  The NFC East is so bad, though, that the Dallas-Washington winner will be in first place, so that game actually does have some relevance.

Texans (3-7) at Lions (4-6): Detroit-Believe it or not, the Lions actually have the best record of the four teams playing on Thanksgiving.  The Texans finally got their first win over a team other than Jacksonville on Sunday, upsetting the Patriots.  Detroit, meanwhile, got shut out in Carolina.  That result really surprised me since I think the Lions are a better team than the Panthers.  I also think the Texans are a better team than the Lions, but I'm taking Detroit anyway.

Washington (3-7) at Cowboys (3-7): Dallas-It's amazing what a difference an actual quarterback makes!  The Cowboys get Andy Dalton back and once again resemble an NFL football team!  And, frankly, you've gotta say they're the favorites in the NFC East again.  They've got the easiest remaining schedule in the division.  I don't think they'll win out, but I do think 8-8 is possible.  At the very least, going from 2-7 to 4-7 in five days is pretty good.

Raiders (6-4) at Falcons (3-7): Las Vegas-The Raiders are that team that nobody's gonna want to play in the postseason.  Just ask Kansas City how annoying an opponent Las Vegas is.  That loss to the Chiefs didn't do anything to clear up the wild card confusion, as the Raiders are now in a three-way tie for the final AFC spot.  Their four losses are all against pretty good teams, though, which means they beat the opponents they should.  Teams like Atlanta.

Chargers (3-7) at Bills (7-3): Buffalo-Pictures have been circulating on social media showing the Bills practicing in their beautiful standing buffalo helmets from the 60s.  So that will be a fun treat this week!  It's also an anniversary of sorts for the Bills.  Their real coming out party was last Thanksgiving, when they went into Dallas and dominated the Cowboys.  They rode that momentum into the playoffs.  One year later, they'll move one step closer to their first division title in 25 years with a home win over the Chargers.

Giants (3-7) at Bengals (2-7-1): Giants-Isn't it interesting that Colin Kaepernick suddenly started whining about "being denied employment" again the same day we found out Joe Burrow is out for the season?  I'm sure that timing is purely a coincidence!  I'm not going to waste anymore time talking about that Publicity Hound (who, by the way, has a pretty hefty endorsement deal with Nike).  Instead, I'll focus on the fact that the Giants have a real chance to both win their third straight game and tie the Dallas-Washington winner for first place.

Titans (7-3) at Colts (7-3): Indianapolis-They met two weeks ago in Nashville and the Colts won to move into the division lead.  Then they followed it up by beating the Packers.  Now Indianapolis can really put themselves in the driver's seat if they complete the season sweep of the Titans, who earned their own big overtime win last week.  Regardless of who wins, they're both in good shape for the playoffs.  A Colts victory will make it very tough on Tennessee to win the division, though.

Panthers (4-7) at Vikings (4-6): Carolina-Minnesota's on a roll after starting 1-5.  The Vikings even have people thinking that if anybody currently on the outside can jump in and steal one of the three wild cards, it's them.  Carolina's a potential sleeper, too.  The Panthers have looked incredibly bad against stronger opponents, but play well against teams of their own caliber.  Minnesota's in that group, which is why I like Carolina in this one.

Cardinals (6-4) at Patriots (4-6): New England-I really don't get what's going on in New England this season.  We all knew this was going to be a different Patriots team, but I don't think anyone was expecting to be this confused.  They pull the upset over the Ravens to remind us not to count them out yet.  Then they go and lose in Houston to basically destroy their playoff chances.  Which Patriots team will show up against Arizona?  I'm not even sure Belichick knows!

Dolphins (6-4) at Jets (0-10): Miami-Jets fans really need to start worrying (more than they already do).  Because 0-16 is starting to look like a real possibility.  With the exception of the finale at New England, every team remaining on their schedule is in the playoff hunt.  Which means they're gonna have to pull off an upset at some point to avoid joining the 2008 Lions and 2017 Browns.  This week may actually be one of their better opportunities for that upset.  Don't count on it, though.

Browns (7-3) at Jaguars (1-9): Cleveland-Don't look now, but the Cleveland Browns are in second place.  This is what everybody thought Cleveland would do last year.  They've got a couple big ones coming up (at Tennessee, vs. Baltimore), which makes this one even more important.  You can't overlook the 1-9 team that's lost nine in a row...and just benched its quarterback.  Besides, a win guarantees the Browns of at least a .500 record.

Ravens (6-4) at Steelers (10-0): Pittsburgh-No team has had worse luck with COVID this season than the Steelers.  First they lost their bye week because their Titans game was rescheduled at the last minute.  Now they lose their Thanksgiving game for the same reason.  It obviously hasn't shown on the field, of course, as Pittsburgh is 10-0.  At first, I thought this might be the one where they finally lose, but now I just don't see it happening.  Not with the Steelers pissed off and not with the Ravens playing short-handed.

Saints (8-2) at Broncos (4-6): New Orleans-Maybe starting Taysom Hill wasn't such a bad call after all!  Of course, New Orleans was playing Atlanta at home, so that may have had something to do with it.  But it certainly gave people confidence that the Saints will be just fine without Drew Brees.  Now they go on the road to the altitude of Denver.  This will be a real test.  Especially since the Broncos are playing well and coming off a win over Miami.  New Orleans should have enough to hold them off, though.

49ers (4-6) at Rams (7-3): Rams-How big was the Rams' win on Monday night?  Right now, they're sitting on the No. 2 seed in the NFC.  If they'd lost, they would've been the 7.  So, yeah, it was important, especially when you consider how competitive the NFC West is.  The Rams will get to see that first hand over the final month of the season.  Four of their last six games are within the division.  Which means their playoff fate is in their own hands.

Chiefs (9-1) at Buccaneers (7-4): Tampa Bay-Tom Brady had a bad game against the Rams.  He rarely has two bad games in a row.  The Chiefs have been playing with fire for the past few weeks.  To me, that adds up to a bad combination for Kansas City.  Call me crazy, but I'm on upset alert in this one.  The Bucs get to 8-4 heading into their ridiculously late bye (why are there post-Thanksgiving byes this season?).

Bears (5-5) at Packers (7-3): Green Bay-You lose one game and you go from No. 1 to No. 3 in the conference!  Fortunately, the Packers' lead in the NFC North appears to be safe.  Also fortunate for Green Bay is the fact that they haven't played Chicago yet.  Remember when the Bears were 5-1 and everyone was saying their record was a mirage?  Turns out they were right!  Their offense is horrible.  It's certainly not good enough to hang with Green Bay's.

Seahawks (7-3) at Eagles (3-6-1): Seattle-On Monday night, one set of birds flies cross-country to play another.  And it's a big game for both of them.  The Seahawks know how big the difference between winning the division and being a wild card will be (although the 5-seed will be a road favorite against the NFC East champion, I'm sure).  The Eagles, meanwhile, have a brutal schedule remaining.  They could very easily steal one of their next four games against opponents currently in the playoff field, but saying they'll get any more than that is a stretch.  Philly's half-game lead in the division will be gone, as Seattle will maintain its position in the NFC West.

Last Week: 6-8
Overall: 102-58-1

Annoying NFL Rules

As I was watching the football games this weekend, some of my big pet peeves with the NFL again came to the forefront.  There are some NFL rules that aren't just stupid, they don't make any sense.  Some are even downright unfair.

This, of course, happens every year.  And the NFL, by and large, has done a good job of addressing any rules and loopholes that need to be changed during the offseason.  For example, teams no longer need to kick the meaningless extra point if they score a touchdown on the final play of regulation.  Likewise, they were quick to close the loophole regarding intentional penalties that Mike Vrabel exploited in the playoffs last season.  And in the past, we've seen them address the tuck rule and the constantly-changing definition of what constitutes a catch.

That doesn't mean things are perfect, though.  Not by a long shot.  There are probably some other rules that I wouldn't mind seeing changed (or, at least, amended).  But these are the big ones that really stick out in my mind that I'd like to see changed sooner rather than later.

Touchbacks: A few years ago, they changed the rule on touchbacks.  Now the ball comes out to the 25 on kickoffs.  That would be fine if they hadn't kept it at coming out to the 20 on all other touchbacks.  Why?  There's absolutely no reason for them to be different!  What about a kickoff warrants an additional five yards that you don't get on a punt or turnover?  I know they're all about player safety and don't want kickoffs returned, which may have been the whole point.  But why is returning a punt OK then?  It doesn't make any sense!

There's obviously a very simple and logical solution to this problem.  Bring all touchbacks to the same place.  If it's the 25, great.  If it's the 20, that's fine too.  But pick one!  Because it makes absolutely no sense that you only need to go 75 yards after a kickoff, but 80 after a punt or turnover.

Fumbles out of the end zone: Speaking of turnovers, this rule is a little more obscure, but no less annoying.  If the offense fumbles and the ball goes out of bounds, they keep the ball at the spot where it went out.  But if they're going for a touchdown and fumble out of the end zone, it's a safety.  That also makes absolutely no sense to me.

Granted, this doesn't happen often enough for it to be something they're likely to worry about.  But it's still an annoying rule.  Especially since it really could just be an unlucky bounce.  The opponent shouldn't get points for that.  A holding penalty or the punter running out of the back of the end zone?  Absolutely!  It should just be a touchback, which is exactly what it would be if the defense fell on the fumble in the end zone.

Overtime: You already know my thoughts about the 10-minute overtime.  And the increased number of tie games in the NFL since they chopped that five minutes off isn't a coincidence.  It's a direct result of only giving them 10 minutes, which really isn't as much time as you think it is.  Especially since both teams are guaranteed a possession.

They need to go back to 15-minute overtimes.  Because 10 minutes really isn't enough time.  If the receiving team goes on a long drive and kicks a field goal, you're basically forcing the other team to run a two-minute drill.  Even then, they might only have time for a field goal, which would re-tie the game.  And, since there wouldn't be any time left, we'd be stuck with the ugly tie that nobody likes.  Meanwhile, if they get the full 15, there's no rush and there's more of a chance of having a winner and loser.

The 10-second run-off: Like the length of overtime, I've gone on and on about my dislike of the 10-second run-off.  I'm not against it per se, but there need to be qualifications.  Because too often the offense gets penalized with a 10-second run-off for something that wasn't even their fault.  If the ruling on the field is reversed on replay, the offense shouldn't have to pay for the officials' mistake!  Especially since (as I've seen happen) it could end up costing them the game (which it did for the Lions when they ruled the receiver down at the one instead of in the end zone with eight seconds left).

Yet again, there's a very simple solution to this one.  If they determine on replay that the ball was down in the field of play and the clock should've been running, no 10-second replay or requiring them to use a timeout to avoid it.  Instead, you start the clock immediately once the ball is spotted and ready for play.  That way the offense isn't penalized because of replay.

Helmet-to-helmet tackles: Hear me out on this one.  I have no issue with the automatic 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for obvious helmet-to-helmet tackles.  It's the ones that aren't obvious where I have a bit of a problem.  Because all the onus is put on the defender to avoid contact when sometimes he may not be able to avoid it.

If the defender's already in the air and ready to make a legal tackle, then the running back or receiver changes direction at the last second, what's he supposed to do?  I know the whole purpose of the rule is to prevent injuries, but if you're exposing the defender to injury if you're expecting him to change direction in midair like that.  My solution is simply to apply some common sense.  If it's an obvious foul, it's a 15-yard penalty.  No question.  If there's some gray area, though, don't immediately throw the flag.  Talk about it, maybe even look at it, then decide.  If the defender reasonably could've avoided contact, fine.  Throw the flag.  If not, don't tag him with the 15 yards.

Are any of these rules likely to be changed anytime soon?  Probably not!  Am I the only person bothered by them?  Perhaps!  But if they were to change one or all of them, it would definitely be an improvement over the current rule.

NFL 2020, Week 11

Finally!  The NFL gave us a Thursday night game that was both good and worthwhile.  The three-way tie in the NFC West was fun while it lasted, but the Seahawks got a huge win to move from No. 7 to No. 3 in the conference.  Although, I'm not sure those jerseys they wore were bright enough.  They need to turn them up another couple of notches to reach Baylor-In-the-Final-Four level.

Thursday Night: Seattle (Win)

Eagles (3-5-1) at Browns (6-3): Cleveland-Philadelphia may be the "best" team in the NFC East, but that description becomes looser and looser every week.  Especially when you consider the Eagles' upcoming schedule.  Cleveland, Seattle, Green Bay, New Orleans, Arizona.  Five potential playoff teams in a row before ending the season with two division games.  It's incredibly realistic that the Eagles could be 3-10-1 and those games would still matter.  Oh, how the mighty have fallen!

Falcons (3-6) at Saints (7-2): New Orleans-I've gotta admit, I'm skeptical of the decision to start Taysom Hill instead of Jamies Winston.  The Saints obviously have to change their offense without Drew Brees, but will Hill be as big of a weapon if he's starting?  I guess we'll find out.  And they can always go to Winston mid-game if it's not working.  Either way, New Orleans has far too many weapons to have to worry about Atlanta.

Bengals (2-6-1) at Washington (2-7): Cincinnati-Rumor has it Washington is considering permanently not having a name.  I sure hope they decide against that, but that's an issue for another day.  The issue for today is their game against Cincinnati.  For the Bengals, with Washington and the Giants in consecutive weeks, this is a chance to actually gain some momentum.  Don't forget, they already have a tie against the Eagles.

Lions (4-5) at Panthers (3-7): Detroit-Christian McCaffrey came back for one game, and now he's out again!  Pretty much sums up the Panthers' season in a nutshell.  Meanwhile, for all the complaining everyone's doing about the fact that the Lions always play on Thanksgiving, they might head into the game with a .500 record.  Which, frankly, is a very realistic possibility.

Steelers (9-0) at Jaguars (1-8): Pittsburgh-The Steelers have been very quick to point out that they're not gonna let this become a trap game.  It would be easy to see how.  Taking their undefeated record to face an opponent on an eight-game losing streak just four days before a Thanksgiving night showdown with their archrivals.  Fortunately, they've still got the Chiefs to worry about, so they've got every reason to stay focused against Jacksonville.  Look for them to still have that zero in the loss column on Thursday.

Titans (6-3) at Ravens (6-3): Baltimore-This is a very important game for potential tiebreakers in the AFC.  Not to mention the fact that the Ravens need to win if they have any hope of catching the Steelers.  Losing to the Patriots could really end up hurting them!  Baltimore will probably have a little extra motivation after last season's playoff loss to Tennessee, too.  The Titans, meanwhile, have that rematch with Indianapolis next week and would really prefer to not enter that first-place showdown on a two-game losing streak.  So, yeah, this is a big game for both.

Patriots (4-5) at Texans (2-7): New England-We should've known better.  You can never count a Belichick-coached team out.  That was by far New England's best game of the season on Sunday night, and suddenly they're still relevant in the playoff race.  It'll obviously take some work for them to get there, but a win in Houston gets them back to .500 with six games left.  Will it happen?  Probably not.  But it's definitely still possible.

Dolphins (6-3) at Broncos (3-6): Miami-Believe it or not, a win here puts the Dolphins in a first-place tie with the Bills.  We need to start taking the possibility of a playoff game in Miami seriously.  Winning in Denver in November is never easy, but the Dolphins will catch a little bit of a break weather-wise, as the temperature will be in the low 50s.  More importantly, with all of the other 6-3 teams facing a tough opponent this week, this is a chance for the Dolphins to pull one game ahead of that pack.  They'll be ready for this one.

Jets (0-9) at Chargers (2-7): Chargers-Both of these teams were supposed to be off this week.  Instead they end up playing each other in the last of the COVID rescheduled games.  It's a chance for the Chargers to finally not blow a fourth quarter lead and lose a close one.  Because they should be able to have complete control against the Jets.  Of course, the Jets, who are coming off their bye, look at this one as their opportunity to finally get their first win.

Packers (7-2) at Colts (6-3): Green Bay-With all the craziness that's been going on in the NFC South and West, it's the Packers who currently hold the No. 1 seed in the conference.  A loss here wouldn't hurt them that much on the tiebreaker front (it wouldn't hurt at all, actually), but the margin is so close that every game is important.  This game is just as important to the Colts, who own the division tiebreaker thanks to their win over the Titans, who they play again next week.  They're in that jumbled AFC wild card mix, too, so they may even need this one more than Green Bay.

Cowboys (2-7) at Vikings (4-5): Minnesota-Dallas may get Andy Dalton back this week after his concussion-COVID double whammy.  And that could make a huge difference for a Cowboys offense that has been non-existent since he went down.  Yet, despite that (and the fact that the NFC East is terrible), Dallas is still in the mix.  Minnesota is on a roll, though.  The Vikings have won three in a row since their bye and are starting a three-game homestand that could make them suddenly relevant.

Chiefs (8-1) at Raiders (6-3): Kansas City-A Week 5 home loss to the Raiders is the only blemish on Kansas City's record.  And how did Las Vegas do it?  They outscored them 40-32.  I'm not saying it was a factor, but that game was during that stretch when the Chiefs had two of three games moved to Monday evenings.  This week they're not only on their regular schedule, they're also coming off their bye week.  And we all know how good Andy Reid's teams are coming off a bye.  I also just can't see them getting swept by a division rival.

Rams (6-3) at Buccaneers (7-3): Tampa Bay-What a difference a week makes!  After being held to a field goal by the Saints, the Bucs went into Carolina and put up 46 points last week.  The Rams kinda have that same thing going on.  They lost in Miami, then went and beat the Seahawks to create that short-lived three-way tie.  It's important to note, however, that all three of the Rams' losses this season have come on the road.  Not just on the road, on the East Coast.  Make that 0-for-4 on Monday night.;

This Week: 1-0

Last Week: 8-6

Overall: 97-50-1

A March Madness Bubble

There's really only one thing about the upcoming college basketball season we know for sure.  There will be an NCAA Tournament at the end of it.  The NCAA cannot afford to cancel its crown jewel again, so, come hell or high water, they'll figure out a way to play through a pandemic and crown a champion, preferably in March as currently scheduled (although some high-profile coaches would prefer moving it as late as May).

Although, as the college football season has proved, there will undoubtedly be bumps in the road.  A number of schools have already had to shut down practices because of positive tests within the program...and we're still in the preseason!  Multiple football games have been cancelled or postponed on a weekly basis, and nobody expects any different once basketball season begins.

We've already seen it.  Pretty much all of the preseason tournaments have been cancelled and some conferences won't be playing any non-conference games at all.  As a result, we're gonna have teams with vastly different-looking resumes when Selection Sunday comes.  But, as long as there are 68 teams that manage to play a reasonable-enough number of games, they'll have a tournament.

The NCAA is well aware of all these problems.  They've seen the issues that football teams have had, as well as those experienced by MLB and the NFL.  It also wasn't hard to notice that the NBA, NHL and WNBA had with their postseason bubbles.  And, since they can't not hold the NCAA Tournament, that was the only option that made sense.

Holding the NCAA Tournament in 13 different cities all across the country simply wasn't going to be feasible.  Things will hopefully be better by March, but there's simply no way of knowing that.  And having teams come in from all over, flying to different states with different infection rates and hoping nobody gets infected wasn't going to work.  So creating their own NCAA Tournament "bubble" really was the best possible solution.  And announcing it now, before the season, gives everyone enough time to prepare.

While they haven't officially said it, all signs point to Indianapolis hosting the entire men's tournament.  That makes sense on a number of levels.  The Final Four was already scheduled to be played in the city, and the NCAA Headquarters are there.  More importantly, though, they have adequate hotel space and a suitable number of arenas that are close enough to each other for the whole thing to work.

Over the summer, some coaches were advocating an all-comers NCAA Tournament, which the NCAA quickly shot down.  One of the reasons that was never gonna work was because there was no way to administer that many games and coordinate all the required testing, etc.  Having 68 teams in the same place will be almost as big of an undertaking, but is definitely manageable.  Especially in a city like Indianapolis.

As they saw with the NHL and NBA, as well as in the MLB postseason, the NCAA can create an effective bubble by giving teams everything they need at their hotel and limiting them to the arena and hotel.  The bubble life wore on the NBA and NHL players after a while, but the NCAA will only need to do it for three weeks, which everyone should be able to do with little to no resistance.

So really it's just a matter of the number of hotels and the number of venues.  For argument's sake, let's assume they put eight teams in each hotel (10 or 12 including the First Four teams).  Half of them are gone after one game, and there's only 16 left after the first weekend.  Then you're down to two hotels.  Point is, that's all much easier to control than multiple hotels in 13 different cities.

And, as long as they schedule enough of a gap between the day and night sessions (which they would have to for TV), they'll be able to get away with only four arenas.  Indianapolis has Lucas Oil Stadium and Bankers Life Field House, as well as Butler's historic Hinkle Fieldhouse and the Indiana Farmers Coliseum, the home of the Indy Fuel ECHL team and site of the Horizon League Tournament.  All of them are NCAA Tournament-quality venues.

Once they hit the Sweet 16, they'll only need Lucas Oil and Bankers Life.  Since they won't be used in the second week, they can have the First Four games at Hinkle and the Farmers Coliseum.  And, assuming crowd restrictions are still in effect, I'd even consider having the Final Four at Bankers Life instead of in the massive football stadium.  Point is, all of this is extremely doable.

In fact, I think the NCAA should do this for more than just the men's basketball tournament.  The women use campus sites, so that will certainly be tougher, but, at the very least, they need to consider a separate bubble for the women's tournament.  The Women's Final Four is scheduled to be in San Antonio, so they'd ideally do it there, but New Orleans--last season's planned site--would work, too.

Moving the entire tournament to Indianapolis is obviously a blow to the cities that had previously been selected as hosts.  But, who's to say those cities still would've been able to host?  And if they would've been able to have fans there.  Besides, they already have a bunch of cities that missed out because of last season's cancellation.  The easy solution to both of those problems is simply awarding a future NCAA Tournament bid to the 2020 and 2021 host cities (they just awarded sites until 2026 and most of them have been already).

None of this is ideal.  The pandemic has impacted college sports more than any other level.  But the NCAA has a plan here, and it's a good one.  Keep it close to home.  Play the entire 2021 men's basketball tournament in Indianapolis.  Then hopefully everything will be back to normal in 2022.

Best & Worst Reverse Retro Jerseys

We still don't know when the NHL season is going to begin, but we do know that we'll be seeing some new jerseys on the ice when it does.  The NHL has unveiled "Reverse Retro" jerseys for all 31 teams, which are a combination of an old logo with a modern look or vice versa.  It's a cool concept, and, for the most part, they look really good.  Although, I do feel like this is a bit of a missed opportunity.  The Kraken don't enter the league until the 2021-22 season, so they won't be a part of it, which is a shame!  Just imagine how awesome those Seattle Metropolitans "Reverse Retro" jerseys would look!

Something tells me that we might get to see that Seattle Metropolitans jersey yet.  Because I have a feeling the "Reverse Retro" jerseys will last beyond the upcoming season.  Some of them are just too good for teams to not continue wearing them.  In fact, my prediction is that some of them will be so popular that they either enter the permanent rotation or end up replacing one of their regular jerseys entirely.

So which ones are the best?  It is tough, because so many are completely serviceable.  But here are the 10 that I absolutely love.  (They aren't ranked, so they're in alphabetical order.)

Bruins: Why haven't they done a yellow jersey previously?  Look at how amazing these are!  Sometimes it's better to keep it simple.  This is a great example.

Flames: Blasty is back!  I loved this jersey when it was Calgary's regular home uniform, and I love it just as much now.  They actually made it better by replacing the red on the bottom with black.  Although, I'd prefer the shoulder logos to be red instead of white.

Hurricanes: The Hartford Whalers are back baby!  One of the most exciting things about "Reverse Retro" is Carolina going back to its roots.  I'm not really a fan of the gray, but I do like the reason why they chose it.  It's the only color the Hurricanes and Whalers ever shared, so it's the only link between the franchise's past and present.

Blackhawks: This is probably my favorite uniform set of the whole lot!  Every time Chicago does a black jersey it looks great, and this modern take on their classic barber pole look from the Original Six Era is a home run!

Avalanche: Chicago's my favorite, but these are a close second.  The Hurricanes are bringing back the Whalers, and the Avalanche are bringing back the Nordiques!  But they took it up a notch by doing the Nordiques uniforms in Avalanche colors.  Even the fleur-de-lis are back!

Panthers: Fun fact--the first NHL jersey I ever owned was a John Vanbiesbrouck Florida Panthers.  I've always felt their original uniform is extremely underrated, so I'm glad they're back.  And reversing the colors only made them better.

Kings: I was actually surprised by how much I liked this one.  The Gretzky-Era logo on the original Kings purple & gold.  Sure, it's Lakers colors.  But it looks incredible!

Wild: Combining Minnesota's two teams in such a beautiful way!  The Wild logo with North Stars colors.  These are absolutely perfect!  I think we've got our Wild uniform for the 2022 Winter Classic.

Rangers: Lady Liberty, how I've missed you!  Why did the Rangers get rid of those third jerseys with this logo again?  Getting rid of the red on the sleeves is a good call, too.  Another one where less is more.

Capitals: It was weird to have the team in DC not wearing red, white and blue, something the Capitals rectified after only four seasons in these jerseys.  Now we get to see the eagle in red, white and blue, and the result is glorious!  Even if the best part of this uniform set is/was the U.S. Capitol shoulder logo.

Unfortunately, not all of the "Reverse Retro" jerseys are as nice as those.  Some teams either completely missed the mark or didn't take advantage of the opportunity nearly as well as they could have.  I'm sure some people like these, but, in my opinion, these are the 10 worst.

Ducks: Wild Wing is a great mascot!  The wild wing jerseys were NOT great.  So why did the Ducks choose a terrible third jersey that they only wore for one season as their inspiration when they easily could've gone with their original regular jerseys?

Blue Jackets: BLUE Jackets, not RED Jackets!  Instead of celebrating Ohio's soldiers in the Civil War, it looks like they're celebrating the British in the Revolutionary War.  Not the side you want to be on in that one.

Red Wings: There's less is more, then there's this.  Sorry, but it's incredibly boring.  And what's with all the silver?  The team is called the RED Wings, yet there isn't a spec of red on the jersey except for teh numbers and their iconic logo.  Not entirely their fault since their uniforms have been pretty much the same for 60 years, but they missed the mark.

Canadiens: Sorry, but this is just blasphemy!  The red Canadiens jersey is the most iconic in hockey.  Why are they ruining it by turning it blue, which also happens to be the primary color of their archrivals?  That would be like asking the Red Sox to wear pinstripes!  Some things should be left alone!

Predators: Honestly, I'm not really sure how these are much different than Nashville's regular home uniforms.  (The white going down the shoulder to the sleeve maybe?)  If you can't tell the difference, it defeats the whole purpose.  What's the point of even doing it then?

Islanders: Another team that completely missed the mark.  How are these any different?  (I've been told that the blue is darker.)  Seriously, they could swap out their actual home uniform and nobody would even know.  It seems like even more of a waste when they could've just done an orange version that would probably look good.  Or, better yet, bring back the fish sticks!

Penguins: Whenever I see the original version of this jersey, I immediately think of Jaromir Jagr's mullet.  The 2020-21 version?  Boring!  Why did they go yellow on white?  And the logo isn't even correct.  It's not their logo from that era.  It's their current logo without the triangle.

Blues: Once again, we have a team taking the worst uniform set in franchise history and using it as the inspiration for their "Reverse Retro" look.  And, once again, we have a team with a color in its name (in this case, their name literally IS the color) not using it.  Say hello to the St. Louis Reds everybody!

Maple Leafs: When I first saw these, I liked them.  I think the blue logo on a blue jersey actually works.  So why do I have the Leafs in the bottom 10?  Because the numbers are evidently blue, as well.  And that's one of my biggest pet peeves with uniforms in any sport.

Jets: Like the Wild, Avalanche and Hurricanes, they were trying to honor the original Jets here.  But these are just a hot mess!  I think the problem is that the original Jets' logo doesn't really work with the current Jets' colors.  And what's with the slate gray?  Vegas pulls it off.  Winnipeg does not.

As for the other 11, they're all perfectly serviceable.  Some are better than others.  Some are more creative than others.  But they all fall squarely in the middle of the pack.  Not blow your mind awesome like the top 10 or "What were they thinking?" like the bottom 10. 

Regardless, I'm sure they're gonna sell plenty of all 31.  Because it's a concept that really does work.  And if they jerseys look this good in photos, just imagine how good they'll look on the ice!

NFL 2020, Week 10

I've never seen an NFL schedule like the one we have this week.  Because of the Masters, CBS doesn't have any early games.  OK, that makes sense.  Then they took one of the early games (Pittsburgh-Cincinnati) and moved it to the 4:25 window, so now there are six late games and only five early games.  More late games than early games.  I'm not sure that's ever happened before.

Thursday Night: Tennessee (Loss)

Texans (2-6) at Browns (5-3): Cleveland-Don't sleep on the Cleveland Browns.  They may be in third place in the AFC North, but they're a legit playoff contender.  And they'll be a tough opponent for anybody in the second half of the season.  The Texans are playing for next year.  Houston entered the season with such high hopes, but it never came together.  Kinda like last year's Browns, who weren't able to overcome a brutal starting schedule.  This year's Browns need to take advantage of that.  If they still want to be relevant in December, they need to win games they should win.

Washington (2-6) at Lions (3-5): Detroit-Alex Smith is once again Washington's starting quarterback!  That really is an incredible comeback story!  They're not suddenly gonna turn into a playoff team, but it's still great seeing him back on a football field.  As for the Lions, they had their chance last week and blew it.  If Detroit was 4-4, they'd be just one game out of a wild card with all the NFC West teams still having to play each other.  Instead, they're 3-5 and looking at another losing season.  Although, with Washington and Carolina, they have a chance to put together a nice little winning streak heading into Thanksgiving.

Jaguars (1-7) at Packers (6-2): Green Bay-Remember when Jacksonville beat Indianapolis in Week 1 and we all thought "Hey, maybe the Jaguars aren't so bad?"  Well, we were wrong.  They've lost seven straight since then and have to be thankful for the existence of the New York Jets (who could prevent them from getting Trevor Lawrence).  I think the extra rest after playing on Thursday night was good for the Packers, but they can't get caught looking ahead to Indianapolis next week.  However, even if they are, they still have Aaron Rodgers.  He won't let them lose at home to the Jaguars.

Eagles (3-4-1) at Giants (2-7): Philadelphia-Whenever the Giants play Washington, they actually look like a legitimate professional football team.  Unfortunately, they don't play Washington again this season.  And, as much crap people have been talking about the NFC East this season, there's that realization that the Eagles are the best of the four teams.  Philadelphia's the most likely to actually challenge teams from outside the division.  They need to make sure they take care of business in division games first, though.

Buccaneers (6-3) at Panthers (3-6): Tampa Bay-It hasn't been a good week for the Bucs.  First they get utterly destroyed by the Saints, then their plane to Charlotte sits on the tarmac for six hours.  Fortunately, the trip is short, so the travel delay shouldn't have too much of an impact.  Saints hangover, however, might.  It isn't the first time Brady's team got blown out, though.  Remember that "On to Cincinnati" thing?  So, yeah, I think they'll be fine.

Broncos (3-5) at Raiders (5-3): Las Vegas-Here come the Raiders!  Back-to-back road wins have put Las Vegas in the AFC playoff mix.  Now they play the first of consecutive home division games against Denver.  I must admit, I don't quite understand the Broncos.  They're so inconsistent.  They play a really good game one week, then lay an egg the next.  Last week was a bad one, so you'd think the good Broncos will show up this week.  The Raiders have to be invigorated after pulling out that game against the Chargers last week, though, and they should be able to ride that wave to 6-3.

Chargers (2-6) at Dolphins (5-3): Miami-Maybe it's time for us to all start taking the Dolphins seriously.  Miami has won four straight after starting 1-3 and is part of that jumbled mess of teams in the mix for the AFC wild cards.  The poor Chargers, on the other hand, find new ways to lose close games every week.  That was especially brutal against the Raiders, thinking they won only to have it overturned on replay (which was the correct call).  They're 2-6 but could easily be 4-4.  It'll be 2-7 after another close loss.

Bills (7-2) at Cardinals (5-3): Buffalo-Now THAT was a statement win last week!  The Bills didn't just beat the Seahawks, they dominated them!  Yes, they allowed 34 points, but they were in control the whole time against one of the best teams in football.  Now they take the show on the road for another tough test against a good NFC West foe.  The Cardinals, who haven't left Phoenix in a month, benefited from that Bills win, staying one game behind Seattle despite losing a tight one to Miami last week.  If they win and the Rams beat the Seahawks, it could be a three-way tie.

Seahawks (6-2) at Rams (5-3): Seattle-With the way things are going in the NFC West this season, every division game will take on extra importance.  That's especially the case in this one, as Seattle looks to strengthen its grip on first place.  The Rams have actually never lost at SoFi Stadium, but the Seahawks are significantly better than their first three home opponents.  Seattle had an early kickoff in Buffalo last week and is on the road again, while the Rams are coming off their bye.  We'll see if that makes an impact, but I doubt it will.

49ers (4-5) at Saints (6-2): New Orleans-Go ahead and tell me New Orleans isn't the best team in the NFC!  They sure looked like it last week!  That was sheer domination from start to finish.  Now the challenge is to keep it going, especially with the Packers and Seahawks right there in contention for the 1-seed.  Tough run for the 49ers, having to face all three of them in a row.  New Orleans played a perfect game last week.  They probably won't again.  The good news is they don't need to.

Bengals (2-5-1) at Steelers (8-0): Pittsburgh-The most incredible thing about the Steelers' 8-0 start is that it's never happened before.  For all those great teams they've had in their storied history, the Steelers have never been 8-0 until 2020.  Now they can just keep adding on to that franchise record.  With the Bengals and Jaguars as their next two opponents, it should get to 10-0 before that Thanksgiving night matchup with the Ravens.  I'm not saying they should take the Bengals lightly.  I just don't think Cincinnati has enough fire power to stay with them for 60 minutes.

Ravens (6-2) at Patriots (3-5): Baltimore-You can't blame the NFL or NBC for picking this one for Sunday night.  On paper, it looks like a good matchup.  Obviously, things haven't gone the way Patriots fans hoped they would this season.  They barely beat the Jets last week!  So, while Baltimore is the clear favorite, it's also a bit of a must-win for the Ravens.  They can't afford to let the Steelers get too far ahead, and that wild card race is tight.

Vikings (3-5) at Bears (5-4): Chicago-These teams are heading in opposite directions.  The Vikings seem to have gotten their act together after their miserable start, while the Bears have come back to Earth after that strong start that critics (correctly) were calling mirage.  Will those trends continue when they face each other?  For some reason, I think it will.  Sweeping through all three of their divisional opponents in consecutive weeks seems like a tall order for Minnesota.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 10-4
Overall: 88-45-1

2020 MVPs

We've reached the grand finale of MLB Awards Week--the MVPs.  And these are the first ones all week where I really have no idea who's going to win.  I know who I would've voted for and who I think will win, but this isn't an AL Cy Young-type situation.  The MVP races should be ridiculously close, especially on the NL side.

While this is really a head-to-head race between the top two finalists, I've gotta ask how Manny Machado is the third.  He wasn't even the Padres' MVP!  Yes, Machado had a great final few weeks, but Fernando Tatis Jr. is the Padre who should be in the top three.  Tatis was probably the favorite for this award until mid-September, and it's not like he fell off a cliff!  Besides, he was the one everybody was talking about.  So, no offense to Manny Machado, but they got it wrong.  Right team, wrong player.  Fernando Tatis Jr. is the clear No. 3 on my ballot.

With that being said, however, this race comes down to two guys who are incredibly deserving--Mookie Betts and Freddie Freeman.  Freeman has been the face of the Atlanta Braves for a decade, while Betts was the difference-maker who finally brought the Dodgers over the top.  Frankly, it's a coin flip.

And remember, the voters get 10 places on their ballot, so there are a lot of other names who'll get some consideration.  Guys like: Braves DH Marcell Ozuna, who led the NL in both homers and RBIs during his first season in Atlanta; hits leader Trea Turner of the Nationals and his electrifying teammate Juan Soto; perennial MVP candidate Charlie Blackmon of the Rockies; Cy Young winner Trevor Bauer of the Reds; and even World Series MVP Corey Seager.

But back to the main two.  Betts has perhaps surpassed Mike Trout as the best player in the game.  His value cannot be overstated.  He's exactly what the Dodgers needed, playing Gold Glove defense in right field and providing a spark at the top of the lineup.  Early in the season, Dave Roberts had him hitting third and he wasn't doing well.  Roberts then moved Mookie back to the leadoff spot where he belongs and he started playing like Mookie Betts again.  The numbers speak for themselves, but if you look beyond them, when Mookie Betts played well, the Dodgers played well.  When he didn't, they didn't.

As much as I love Mookie Betts, though, he wouldn't get my vote.  Freddie Freeman has never won MVP in his brilliant career.  That should finally change.  He was one of the first players to have a positive COVID test and got off to a slow start because of it.  Yet Freeman still played in all 60 games.  He also had one of the best offensive campaigns of his career--.341 with 73 hits, 13 homers, 23 doubles, 51 runs scored and 53 RBIs.  And the Braves, of course, won the NL East once again.

Like I said, it's a coin flip.  If you prefer Mookie Betts, I have no issue with that.  His presence is what brought the Dodgers over the top.  Freddie Freeman's numbers weren't just better than Mookie's, he put them up after missing almost all of Summer Camp because of COVID.  Is there a better representative of the Pandemic Season?

So, ever so slightly I give the edge to Freddie Freeman, who's been an MVP-caliber player for his entire career and should finally win the award.  Here's my full NL ballot: 1. Freeman, 2. Betts, 3. Tatis, 4. Ozuna, 5. Machado, 6. Soto, 7. Blackmon, 8. Turner, 9. Seager, 10. Bauer.

AL MVP, meanwhile, apparently isn't Mike Trout's birthright after all.  Frankly, I thought his newborn son was gonna get some MVP votes, too.  But Trout had a "down" year (by his standards) and the Angels once again missed the playoffs.  I think the voters have finally realized they can't continually overlook that fact.  As a result, he didn't finish in the top three (although, he was still likely Top 5).

Although, I think they got one of the finalists wrong in the AL, too.  And once again, it's a teammate who took his spot.  Because, say what you want about "pitchers shouldn't be MVP."  You can't convince me that Shane Bieber doesn't belong in this conversation.  Yes, it was only 12 games.  But if he'd had a full season and continued what he did over those 12 games, we'd be looking at 2011 Justin Verlander or 2014 Clayton Kershaw (or even 1999, when Pedro Martinez should've won MVP).

I get why the writers were hesitant to vote a pitcher who only appeared in 12 games as MVP, though.  Especially since the season was only 60 games long.  And Bieber's teammate Jose Ramirez had another solid year.  Ramirez is kind of the AL version of Freddie Freeman, a perennial MVP candidate who never wins the award.  I think that'll be the case again this year.  Because, despite his .292/17/46 line, he wasn't even the best player on his own team.

That leaves us with DJ LeMahieu and Jose Abreu.  Frankly, I was pleasantly surprised LeMahieu finished in the top three.  He deserved a top three showing last year, but ended up fifth.  This season, LeMachine kept it going.  There was a stretch where he and Luke Voit were the only guys on the Yankees who could hit at all, and it's not a coincidence that the Yankees' 5-15 stretch in the middle of the season started when LeMahieu went on the injured list.  When he came back, he had another multi-hit game.  He's had a lot of those in two years in Pinstripes.

However, believe it or not, LeMahieu is not my choice.  That would be Jose Abreu.  Abreu was outstanding from Day One, ranking among the top five in virtually every major offensive category, leading the way in RBIs (60) and hits (76) while putting up a .317 batting average without missing a game.  More importantly, he was the clubhouse leader for a White Sox team that ended its playoff drought.

For me, that's enough to give Abreu the edge over LeMahieu.  I had Abreu as my AL MVP at midseason, and he kept it going the entire way.  He came over from Cuba in 2014 and won AL Rookie of the Year unanimously that season.  It won't be unanimous, but this season he should add an MVP to his trophy case, becoming the first Cuban winner since Jose Canseco in 1988 (there's that year again...sorry Dodgers fans!)

The remaining players worthy of AL MVP consideration will sound familiar, because they're teammates of the top three.  I already mentioned Shane Bieber, but the White Sox wouldn't have done what they did this season without Tim Anderson, and the same can be said about the Yankees and Luke Voit.  If you're looking for candidates from other teams, you've got Kansas City's Whit Merrifield, Toronto's Lourdes Gurriel Jr. and Teoscar Hernandez, Michael Brantley of the Astros and the Twins' Nelson Cruz, as well as that guy who plays for the Angels.  What's his name again?

It is refreshing to learn that Trout isn't automatically a finalist, though.  As for where he finished, I've got him at No. 7.  Here's my full list: 1. Abreu, 2. Bieber, 3. LeMahieu, 4. Ramirez, 5. Voit, 6. Anderson, 7. Trout, 8. Cruz, 9. Merrifield, 10. Gurriel.

2020 Cy Youngs

Just as there are those who think Mike Trout's mere existence mean he should be the AL MVP every year, there's a similar group who thinks the NL Cy Young is Jacob de Grom's birthright.  The Mets' ace has won back-to-back Cy Youngs despite going a combined 21-17 over those two seasons.  This post isn't meant to bash Jacob de Grom (or Mike Trout, for that matter), but the infatuation with him continues.  He's a finalist again this season.

However, while his 2018 race with Max Scherzer was simply a matter of how much value the voters placed on certain stats, and last year's follow-up was more the result of a lack of competition, neither one of those things is true this season.  Because de Grom is going against not one, but two contenders who posted comparable numbers for playoff teams that would not have advanced to the postseason without them.

Let's start with Trevor Bauer.  The Reds' ace pitched like one, leading the NL in ERA (1.73), WHIP (0.79) and opponents' batting average (.159).  He also finished second in strikeouts (100), trailing only de Grom, and pitched two shutouts.  More importantly, he was a workhorse.  Bauer took the ball on three days' rest down the stretch because the Reds needed him to, and they were rewarded with their first playoff berth in a decade.  Basically, he was the pitcher they traded for.  Bauer was only 5-4, but, as the voters have shown with de Grom, they don't care as much about won-loss records as they used to.

Then there's Yu Darvish, who did have the wins.  He went 8-3 this season for a Cubs team that won the NL Central despite getting very little from its offense.  Darvish finished second in the NL with a 2.01 ERA, third with 76 innings, and tied for fourth with 93 strikeouts (against just 14 walks).  He was arguably the best pitcher in the National League over the final half of the 2019 season, and he was arguably the best pitcher in the NL from the start this year.

Of course, Darvish got some help from Kyle Hendricks, which could work against him.  Hendricks was only 6-5 and had a higher ERA and opponents' average, but he also pitched the second-most innings in the National League (81.1).  Without the Darvish-Hendricks 1-2 punch, the Cubs don't make the playoffs, let alone win the division.

Another team that had a solid 1-2 punch was the Padres with Zach Davies and Dinelson Lamet.  Had they had Lamet in the playoffs, that series with the Dodgers could've been totally different.  Speaking of the Dodgers, World Series Champion Clayton Kershaw put up his typical numbers.  He didn't throw enough innings to qualify for the ERA title, but you can't ignore what he did in 10 starts: a 6-2 record, .194 batting average against, and 62 strikeouts in 58.1 innings.  It's also hard to ignore Max Fried's 7-0 record.  Say what you want about a pitcher's record "not being as important" in the modern game.  7-0 speaks for itself.

So, how will this vote end up?  I'll admit, this is the first one where I'm not 100 percent confident.  My vote would go to Darvish, but there are compelling arguments for Bauer, de Grom, and the other pitchers who filled up the other two places on everybody's ballots.

In the American League, there's no question.  Shane (Don't Call Me Justin) Bieber had his coming out party last season, when he was named All*Star Game MVP in his home park.  To follow it up in 2020, all he did was win the first MLB pitching Triple Crown since 2006.  Bieber went 8-1 with 122 strikeouts and a 1.63 ERA.  Simply put, he was as dominant as those numbers sound.  He's not just going to be a unanimous Cy Young winner, he probably got some strong MVP consideration (although, as we know, he wasn't among the top three).

The other two finalists illustrate just how ridiculously deep the Dodgers are.  Because they're both starters who were in LA's rotation last season.  Hyun Jin Ryu signed with the Blue Jays as a free agent, while Kenta Maeda was traded to the Twins for Brusdar Graterol.  In their first season with their new teams, they're the silver and bronze medalists behind Bieber in the AL Cy Young race.

Ryu pitched like the ace Toronto signed him to be, going 5-2 with a 2.69 ERA and 72 strikeouts in 67 innings (while facing the heavy-hitting AL and NL East lineups exclusively).  More importantly, he was a constant every fifth day while the rest of the rotation was in a constant state of turmoil.  Maeda, meanwhile, went 6-1 with a 2.70 ERA, 0.75 WHIP and .168 batting average against.  He didn't allow more than three runs or six hits in any of his 11 starts.  That's consistency.

Although, I must admit that I was a little surprised that they were the other two finalists over Gerrit Cole and Dallas Keuchel.  Cole, of course, was the big free agent prize for the Yankees, and he did have his struggles in the middle of the season.  He also allowed too many home runs.  But, when you take the name off and just look at the numbers, a 7-3 record with 97 strikeouts (which both ranked second in the AL) and a .197 opponents' average (fourth), you realize he was perhaps the second-best pitcher in the AL this season.

Likewise, Keuchel turned back the clock in his first season with the White Sox.  They had the offense, but wouldn't have made the playoffs without the 1-2 punch of Keuchel and Lucas Giolito.  Keuchel had the better numbers, though.  He finished 6-2 and had a sub-2.00 ERA, which is impressive no matter how long the season is.  Oakland closer Liam Hendriks also deserves to be in the conversation after notching 14 saves.  So does A's starter Chris Bassit, who went a quiet 5-2 with a 2.29 ERA as Oakland won the division.

My AL Cy Young ballot looks nothing like the final standings.  Bieber's the obvious winner, but, no offense to the writers, I don't think Ryu and Maeda are 2-3.  Here's my rankings: 1. Bieber, 2. Cole, 3. Keuchel, 4. Maeda, 5. Ryu.

Over in the National League, it's much closer.  In fact, I think this will be one of the closer votes of the entire awards season (NL MVP will likely be the closest).  I give the slight edge to Darvish, although I kinda want to see Bauer win since the Reds have never had a Cy Young winner.  As for my full NL ballot, it's: 1. Darvish, 2. Bauer, 3. Lamet, 4. de Grom, 5. Fried.

2020 Managers of the Year

Before getting into the Managers of the Year, I've gotta address Boston's decision to re-hire Alex Cora.  Cora was, of course, fired in January after he received a one-year suspension for his role in the Astros' cheating scandal.  He was out of a job for a grand total of 10 months.  I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous!  The Red Sox are basically saying that they have no problem with what Cora did.  I won't say they condone it, but they clearly don't care as much as they should.  And they're pretty much admitting that they only "fired" him to save face after he was suspended.  They clearly never wanted to.

Yes, A.J. Hinch was immediately scooped up by the Tigers, but what Cora did is infinitely worse.  Hinch deserved his punishment.  As the manager, he was ultimately responsible for the scheme.  But Cora didn't just participate in it...it was his idea!  Sorry, but that deserves more than a 60-game suspension and getting your old job back as soon as it's over.  Much like the players involved, Cora was barely punished for his role.

I could go on and on about that, but instead I'll move on to a happier subject--the Managers of the Year.  They said two things about the Manager of the Year on the nomination show that definitely ring true.  It generally goes to the manager of a team that most exceeded expectations, so it's basically the writers saying it was the them they were most wrong about.  And, because of that, managers whose teams are already good are often overlooked.  That's especially true this year.  You'll notice Dave Roberts isn't a finalist, even though the Dodgers went an absurd 43-17!

That's not to say that the six finalists for the award aren't deserving, though.  In fact, I'd argue that this season might've been the hardest job that any of these managers have had to do.  Everything they had to deal with just to play, then having every game magnified in a season that was one-third the length.  Yes, 16 teams made the playoffs instead of 10, but that doesn't mean getting there was easy.  Not even close.  Which is why there are easily five or six names in each league who could've been finalists.

In the American League, the top three managers did stand out, so I'll start there.  And of the three, I'll start with the Blue Jays.  They didn't play a single home game all year.  They had a young core that was considered to be at least a year or two away.  Yet Charlie Montoyo guided his team to the postseason.  Would they have gotten there if they didn't expand the field?  Probably not.  But the fact that they did really does speak to the job he did this season.

The White Sox, meanwhile, were the team nobody wanted to play.  Their rebuilding process came to fruition in 2020, as they contended for the top seed in the American League before fading down the stretch.  Rick Renteria guided Chicago through the rebuild and was poised to reap the rewards.  Except he won't.  He could very well end up winning Manager of the Year despite being fired to make way for Hall of Famer Tony La Russa.

However, the choice for AL Manager of the Year is clear.  Kevin Cash has never won the award...until this year.  For all the unorthodox things he's done (successfully) with the Rays, this is the year it all came together.  They went 40-20 and won their first AL East title in 10 years en route to the pennant.  They did this with their "stable of guys" and a rotating cast of anonymous position players.  Yet it all worked!

Over in the National League, there are two rookie finalists--David Ross of the Cubs and the Padres' Jayce Tingler.  Ross was in his first year as a manager at any level.  And he was managing a lot of guys who were his teammates just a few years ago.  Yet the Cubs responded.  They had a terrible bullpen and got terrible years from their best players.  And they managed to win the NL Central anyway.

Like the White Sox, the Padres were considered that on-the-verge team who nobody was gonna want to play.  Everybody knew it was coming, but I'm not sure they expected it to be this year.  Tingler took over a team that went 70-92 last season and led it to the playoffs for the first time in 14 years.  Beyond that, the young, exciting Padres finished with the second-best record in the National League--behind only the Dodgers--and look poised to challenge LA in the NL West for years to come.

Three other managers belong in this conversation, as well, starting with last year's winner, the Cardinals' Mike Shildt.  St. Louis went two weeks without playing and had a ton of make-up doubleheaders in September.  Yet they still remained in the playoff hunt.  They still had two games left on the final day of the season, but avoided having to play that doubleheader in Detroit by winning their last game and clinching the No. 5 seed.

And let's give the two NLCS managers their due credit.  Yes, the Dodgers went 43-17.  Yes, they were already the best team and added Mookie Betts.  But from David Price opting out of the season to Kenley Jansen's struggles it wasn't all as easy as the World Series champions made it look.  And, their .717 winning percentage translates to a 114-win pace over 162 games.  Had they played a full season and done that, Dave Roberts would be the runaway NL Manager of the Year.

Then there's 2018 NL Manager of the Year Brian Snitker.  The Braves' entire projected starting rotation (from both Spring Training and Summer Camp) didn't end the season in the rotation.  They used 14 different starters in 60 games!  And they still won the NL East going away!  And, even though it doesn't count for Manager of the Year, it's worth noting that this once-makeshift pitching staff had four shutouts in its first five playoff games.

However, while those five managers all did admirable jobs, the choice for NL Manager of the Year is clear.  Don Mattingly should and will win after what he was able to accomplish in Miami.  The Marlins were the "worst" team in a loaded NL East.  The Marlins had a COVID outbreak a week into the season.  The Marlins spent a week quarantined in a Philadelphia hotel.  The Marlins used 61 players, including 18 rookies who made their Major League debuts.  Mattingly didn't even know some of their names!  None of it mattered.  He led them to a completely unexpected playoff berth--their first in 17 years!

So, while you could make the argument for each of the finalists, both winners should be obvious.  And they both come from the State of Florida.  My AL "vote" would be 1. Cash, 2. Renteria, 3. Montoyo.  In the NL, my top three is different than what the writers had: 1. Mattingly, 2. Tingler, 3. Shildt, with honorable mentions to Snitker (4), Roberts (5) and Ross (6).

2020 Rookies of the Year

Voting for Major League Baseball's four major awards probably wasn't easy this year.  This season was so unique and numbers were so skewed that it's tough to make any sort of historical comparison.  The writers really had no context.  They only had two months to work with, making those decisions that much harder.  But, a season was played.  And, as such, the players deserve to have award winners named.

And, as we begin MLB Awards Week with the Rookies of the Year, it's worth noting the discussion that they had on MLB Network during the nomination show.  These are regular season awards.  Voting is conducted before the playoffs begin, as it should be.  Every team plays the regular season.  Only a handful make the playoffs.  And there are separate awards for playoff performances.

I say this because of the reason they had that discussion in the first place.  Randy Arozarena.  He was the story of October, setting records let and right (as Joe Buck reminded us every half inning of every game) and winning ALCS MVP honors.  Had the postseason counted, he'd be the runaway winner of AL Rookie of the Year.  But since it doesn't, he isn't even a finalist.  Which he shouldn't be.  Because he only played 23 regular season games and his numbers, while good, weren't spectacular by any means (.281/7 HR/11 RBI).

Instead it should come down to a pair of center fielders--the Mariners' Kyle Lewis and Luis Robert of the White Sox.  And, frankly, I have no idea which way the voters went with this one.  The 60-game season wasn't a huge sample size, but they both found a way to make an impact over those two months.  Such an impact, in fact, that I think they easily would've been in the conversation had we had a full 162 games to base it on.

Big things were expected from Robert, who signed a six-year, $50 million extension before ever playing a Major League game.  It sure looks like that investment was worth it, though.  Because he lived up to the hype and then some.  He played a Gold Glove center field and was one of the most important figures of the first White Sox playoff team in 15 years.  Robert ended up with 11 homers, 31 RBIs and nine stolen bases to go along with his aforementioned spectacular defense.

As much as I love Luis Robert, though, my vote would go to Kyle Lewis.  He was my midseason Rookie of the Year pick, and I see no reason to change it.  Lewis became the first rookie since Mark McGwire in 1987 to lead his team in batting average, homers, runs and walks.  And, while not Gold-Glove caliber, he still played above-average defense.  The Mariners obviously extended their streak to 19 consecutive seasons of missing the playoffs, which could be what tips the race in Robert's favor.  I look at it the other way, though.  Robert was one of many pieces on a good team.  Seattle had Lewis and not much else.

The third finalist is Astros pitcher Cristian Javier, who I'll admit I've never heard of before!  I don't even remember seeing him pitch in the playoffs.  Which tells you all you need to know about what I think of Javier's chances.  He almost certainly finished third.

Over in the National League, the race is much tighter.  A case could be made for all three finalists, who definitely stood out above the rest of the pack.  They're three very different candidates, too.  There's the power-hitting, middle-of-the-order corner infielder; the out-of-nowhere defensive whiz who hit his way into the everyday lineup; and a lights out reliever who was nearly impossible to hit!

Let's start with the power hitter--Phillies third baseman Alec Bohm.  On a team that included the likes of Bryce Harper, J.T. Realmuto and Rhys Hoskins, it was Bohm who proved to be Mr. Clutch.  He got all of the big hits, posting a ridiculous .452 average with runners in scoring position.  Overall, his .338 batting average was the best of any NL rookie.  Yet, despite all that, I've only got him ranked third.

Perhaps the most pleasant surprise in baseball this season was the young, exciting and talented San Diego Padres.  Entering the season, the only position where they had any sort of question mark was second base.  Enter Jake Cronenworth.  He was supposed to be the extra infielder, but they simply couldn't take him out of the lineup.  San Diego would have Cronenworth bat eighth or ninth most of the time, which was the perfect spot, since he kept getting on base for Machado and Tatis to knock him in.

However, the historic season turned in by the Brewers' Devin Williams cannot be overlooked.  Williams gave up one earned run in 27 innings.  One!  That's a 0.33 ERA!  Of course, that likely wouldn't hold up over a full season.  But we're not talking about a full season here.  What we are talking about is a season in which Williams struck out more than half of the batters he faced.  And he wasn't even the closer!  He was Josh Hader's set-up man!

My midseason pick was Cronenworth, but I switched to Williams for a very simple reason.  And it's similar to my thinking about the AL award.  San Diego was a good team and would've been good without Jake Cronenworth.  The Brewers, meanwhile, made the playoffs with a 29-31 record and a historically bad offense.  In other words, they don't get there without Devin Williams.

Either way, I think we see two close races.  This isn't like last season, when Pete Alonso and Yordan Alvarez were the obvious choices.  In the AL, I can see Robert winning just as easily as I can see Lewis winning.  And the NL race really comes down to whether the writers think Williams' sheer dominance was enough to warrant giving him the award over an everyday player.

If I had a vote, I'd go 1. Lewis, 2. Robert, 3. Javier in the AL and 1. Williams, 2. Cronenworth, 3. Bohm in the NL.  Should he win, Lewis would be the first Mariner to be named Rookie of the Year since Ichiro in 2001, while Williams would be the first reliever to win it since Craig Kimbrel in 2011 (and the first non-closer reliever since the Reds' Scott Williamson in 1999).

NFL 2020, Week 9

We've made it halfway!  Somehow, by the end of this week, the NFL will have managed to play more than half of its 256 scheduled regular-season games during this pandemic-affected season.  Not that it's been easy!  But the fact that the league is still on-schedule despite all the challenges they've had to overcome this season truly is remarkable.

Although, this is the first time since Week 3 that there haven't been any games postponed or rescheduled because of COVID.  (And we won't have another one until Week 12.)  There was some concern about Packers-49ers on Thursday night, but they were able to play as scheduled.  While it's not good that those players tested positive, that's a far better situation than what happened with the Titans and Patriots earlier this year (which is what threw the schedule out of whack to begin with).  Hopefully if there are any more cases this season, it'll be a similar situation and games can still go on.

Speaking of the games going on, we're in the middle of a great stretch right now.  There have been a bunch of statement games with good teams playing each other in recent weeks, and that's the case again.  We've got a battle for first in the NFC South, two first-place squads squaring off in Buffalo, surprise contenders meeting in Arizona, and an AFC matchup between current playoff teams that could have a huge bearing on the wild card standings.

Thursday Night: Green Bay (Win)

Broncos (3-4) at Falcons (2-6): Denver-Denver's comeback last week against the Chargers was impressive to say the least.  And Atlanta has actually played much better since the coaching change, winning two of three, with the only loss coming by one point.  So it's possible that this game might actually be watchable.  Even more incredibly, the Broncos can get to .500 with a win.

Seahawks (6-1) at Bills (6-2): Buffalo-The Patriots have been a thorn in the Bills' side for more than a decade, and it looked like they'd do it to them again last week.  But Buffalo got the big defensive stop at the end and held on for the 24-21 win that reaffirmed their spot as the AFC East's new top dogs.  (BTW, I find it very cruel to all my Bills-fan friends that they might finally get a home playoff again this season...only to have fans not allowed to attend!)  This week they get another test against a Seahawks team that is one of the best in the NFL.  After finally getting that New England-sized monkey off their backs, the Bills will either play great this week or have a huge letdown like they did against the Titans.  I predict the former.

Bears (5-3) at Titans (5-2): Tennessee-After that 5-0 start, it's been back-to-back losses for the Titans, who were (surprisingly) badly outplayed last week in Cincinnati.  They try to right the ship against the Bears, who have also dropped two in a row.  I must say, though, Chicago was actually competitive last week against New Orleans after they were anything but against the Rams.  This week, they might prove if they actually are a contender, or if they're the pretender so many people think they are.

Ravens (5-2) at Colts (5-2): Baltimore-Last week's loss put the Ravens two games behind the first-place Steelers, so they can't really afford anymore.  Especially when a loss to Indy would also give the Colts the tiebreaker for any wild card situation.  Which means this one is more important for Baltimore than it is for Indianapolis.  Even though the Colts are tied for first, a loss doesn't really hurt them too much.  They'll still have a pretty clear playoff path in a weak division.  The Ravens are also a better team, so there's that, too.

Panthers (3-5) at Chiefs (7-1): Kansas City-That loss to the Raiders really may come back to bite Kansas City.  The Chiefs are still doing their thing and they're still one of the two or three best teams in football, but will they end up losing out on the only AFC bye?  Fortunately, their run of home games against bad teams continues.  They'll go to 8-1, then have a chance to avenge their loss to Las Vegas after the bye.

Lions (3-4) at Vikings (2-5): Detroit-Minnesota beating the Packers at Lambeau?  Where did that come from?!  Meanwhile, I thought the Lions had a chance of knocking off Indianapolis, and they get blown out!  So which version of these two teams will show up this week?  Will it be the Vikings who went into Green Bay and won or the Vikings who played the other six games?  I have the same questions about the Lions, except with them I'm expecting the team that won in Arizona to show up.

Giants (1-7) at Washington (2-5): Giants-Something's gotta give in this one.  The Giants' only win this season came against the Football Team Formerly Known as the Redskins, while Washington's only wins have been in home division games.  Although, I must say, Washington's win over Dallas wasn't all that impressive when you consider what a mess the Cowboys have become.  The Giants, meanwhile, have actually played some pretty good football over the past month.  They just don't have the results to show for it.  They get the result this time and finish off the season sweep of their division rival.

Texans (1-6) at Jaguars (1-6): Houston-Jacksonville being 1-6 isn't that big of a surprise.  The fact that the Texans also are certainly is though.  I could argue that it's been bad luck or playing a very tough early-season schedule or a combination of the two, but the bottom line is the Texans have been a disappointment.  Even still, they should be able to beat the Jaguars.  Right?

Raiders (4-3) at Chargers (2-5): Chargers-There are eight 1:00 games and this is the only 4:05 kickoff, so this is technically when the second half of the NFL season starts.  And, for some reason, a Raiders-Chargers game is on FOX (they've been doing it for like five years and I still don't completely understand cross-flexing and why they pick certain games).  Not that it makes much of a difference since it's a regional game that will only be available in Southern California and Nevada.  But I digress.  The Raiders got a big win last week to improve their playoff standing, but I'm expecting a big game from Justin Herbert.  I just have a feeling the Chargers, after losing so many close games, finally win one.

Steelers (7-0) at Cowboys (2-6): Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh is the only remaining unbeaten team in the NFL.  Dallas is a mess.  The Cowboys move on to quarterback No. 4 after scoring just 22 points combined in their last three losses, including two humbling division defeats.  Don't expect things to change much, though.  Not against a Steelers team that's firing on all cylinders as it begins a soft portion of the schedule (Dallas, Cincinnati, Jacksonville next three weeks).

Dolphins (4-3) at Cardinals (5-2): Arizona-Who would've figured that a Miami-Arizona game would be relevant in Week 9?  Yet here we are.  They actually both sit in second place, and the Cardinals are just a game behind Seattle.  And the they trail are also playing each other this week, so one of them will get a chance to pull closer (or, in Arizona's case, even).  So, yeah, it's not just relevant, it's important!  Since the Cardinals are the home team, I'll give them the nod.

Saints (5-2) at Buccaneers (6-2): New Orleans-When they met in the season opener, Troy Aikman proclaimed that he could see them meeting again in the NFC Championship Game.  Nothing that has happened in the eight weeks since has done anything to make you question that prediction.  The Bucs have the half-game lead, and they frankly need to win this game more than the Saints do since a New Orleans victory would give them the season sweep and clinch the tiebreaker.  I have no idea how this game will go, but I do expect it to be entertaining.  Whoever has the ball last probably wins, as Brady and Brees will trade passing records back-and-forth during the game.

Patriots (2-5) at Jets (0-8): New England-If there was ever a team that needed to play the Jets, this year's Patriots are it.  Year 1 post-Brady is not going well.  New England is a shell of what it once was (not that too many people are complaining).  I'm not sure what's more shocking, either.  The 2-5 record or the four-game losing streak.  But, like I said, sometimes you just need to play the Jets.  It won't make them forget about their very real problems, but it will at least get the Patriots somewhat back on track.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-6
Overall: 79-40-1