2020: The Year That Wasn't

As many of you know, my final post of the year is usually a countdown of the best games.  And there certainly were some memorable ones in 2020, both before (the AFC Championship Game, the Super Bowl) and after (Game 4 of the World Series, the Notre Dame-Clemson regular season game) the shutdowns.  But there were also far too many events that didn't happen (the Olympics, March Madness, Wimbledon) and others that took place at strange times with limited or no fans (pretty much everything that's supposed to happen between March and May).

That pretty much sums up sports in 2020.  A year so strange and so uncomfortable that we're all happy it's over, yet none of us will ever be able to forget it either (as much as we may want to).  A year that will forever have its own unique place in history.

Frankly, we should've known how bad 2020 was going to be when David Stern and Don Larsen died within hours of each other on New Year's Day.  Then there was the tragedy of Kobe Bryant's death...and that was all still in January!  As we know, things only got worse from there.  So, coming up with any sort of "Best of..." list for 2020 just seems wrong on so many levels.

Instead, I've chosen to look ahead to 2021, a year which will still be weird, but will hopefully look a little more normal.  And, as a result of 2020's postponements, will be the first of two straight jam-packed years with high-level sporting events.  Here are the 10 that I'm looking forward to the most...

• Tokyo Olympics (July 23-August 8): This is obviously the most-anticipated event of 2021, not just in sports, but worldwide.  All signs point towards the postponed Tokyo Games going ahead as (re)scheduled, albeit with a significantly different look.  And, frankly, we'll all need it!  What better way to celebrate overcoming the darkest days many of us will ever experience than having the whole world come together for two weeks of spirited competition?  The Olympics are always special.  After having to wait an extra year, that'll especially be the case in Tokyo.
  
  
• Euro 2020/Copa America (June 11-July 11): Like the Olympics, Euro 2020 is keeping its name despite the one-year postponement (Copa America will have the right year).  And like the Olympics, the extra year wait promises to make soccer's two biggest non-World Cup tournaments even better!  The fact that they'll be going on after World Cup qualifying has already started adds an extra level of intrigue, too.
  
  
• Baseball/Football Hall of Fame Inductions: Both induction ceremonies were cancelled in 2020, which means the 2021 inductions will be super-sized.  Football's was already going to be super-sized after electing a special 20-member "Centennial Class" in 2020.  Add a class headlined by Peyton Manning to that.  Baseball will also celebrate two classes in one, although the obvious headliner is 2020 inductee Derek Jeter.
  
  
• Super Bowl LV (February 7): Incredibly, it looks like the NFL is gonna make it through all 256 games, which seemed really unlikely when the season started.  But, despite some hiccups, it's all gone according to plan so far.  Assuming they get through the playoffs without a hitch, we'll see the Super Bowl played as scheduled (with fans) in Tampa on Feb. 7.  It may also be the last Super Bowl on the first Sunday in February, depending on how they adjust the schedule if/when they add the 17th game next season.
  
  
• Wimbledon/British Open (July): Leave it to the Brits to think of taking out pandemic insurance on major events!  Because while the organizers of everything else were scrambling to find alternate dates after their 2020 postponements, Wimbledon and the British Open were outright cancelled.  They're the iconic tournaments in their respective sports, and not having them in 2020 just didn't feel right at all.  It'll be wonderful to have them back!
  
  
• Debut of the Seattle Kraken (October?): The NHL's goal is to finish the upcoming season in July, with the hope of starting the 2021-22 campaign in October like normal.  They've got plenty of reasons for this, the one of the most prominent being the debut of the league's 32nd team--the Seattle Kraken.  The plan is for the Kraken to take the ice for the first time in October.
  
  
• Little League World Series (August): It's another event that was cancelled in 2020 and I can't wait to have back in 2021!  There's just something about the late-summer ritual of watching 12- and 13-year-olds playing baseball.  The NBA and Stanley Cup Playoffs took the spot on the calendar in 2020, so the lack of a Little League World Series wasn't as obvious on TV.  In the grand scheme of things, though, it definitely felt like something was missing.
  
  
• Men's & Women's Final Four (April 2-5): We knew how serious this all was when college basketball suddenly disappeared during the most important part of its season.  And the struggles the networks were gonna have with no sports programming quickly became readily apparent, too.  No March Madness is what made us know 2020 was going to be a very different year.  Maybe having March Madness in 2021 will be an indication that our lives are on their way back to normal.
  
  
• MLB All*Star Game (July 13): As of now, we're supposed to have a full baseball season starting on April 1.  While that may be subject to change, it shouldn't result in the second straight cancellation of the All*Star Game.  The 2020 season didn't even start until after the All*Star Game was scheduled to be played!  And its absence left a gaping hole in the summer sports schedule.  Of course, while the MLB All*Star Game is usually the only game in town on a Tuesday night in July, that won't be the case in 2021.  There may be games in both the NBA and Stanley Cup Finals that night, too.  Which tells you how overstuffed 2021 will be after the abyss that was 2020.
  
  
• Full stadiums/arenas: Finally, it's the thing we're all looking forward to the most.  I'm not putting a date on it, but I'm confident it'll happen sometime in 2021.  Hopefully sooner rather than later.  The communal experience of being in a packed stadium with total strangers is something we all took for granted, but never will again!  There's nothing like a packed house cheering for the home team.  I can't wait to be back in one!

Playing During a Pandemic

We're a little over a month into the strangest college basketball season ever, and it's been just about as surreal as we anticipated.  Some teams haven't played a game yet.  Some have repeatedly stopped and started.  Some have arrived at tournaments, only to have their opponents change at the last minute.  Nationally-televised games have been scrapped, with replacements hastily arranged on short notice.  And so many teams are adjusting their schedules on the fly.

None of this is a surprise.  After all the challenges that arose during the college football season, it was inevitable that basketball (which is played indoors, during the winter) would prove just as challenging.  Yet, despite all of this, and the fact that things are worse now than they were when last season abruptly ended in March, the season has pressed on.

The NCAA is committed to this season.  They've been clear about that.  There will be an NCAA Tournament in March.  Although, it'll all be at one site--most likely Indianapolis--which is a smart and necessary precaution to be taking.  How many teams will be left standing by then, and how they're gonna get to that point, are questions that remain unanswered, though.

Some coaches have outright questioned why they're even trying to play through this.  Mike Krzyzewski has been one of the most vocal critics.  He flat out said, "I don't think it feels right to anybody," when announcing that he was cancelling Duke's remaining non-conference games.  And it's not just because Duke struggled to start the season, either.  This season and all the restrictions have taken such a toll on the players that he wanted to give them a two-week Christmas break.

That's a very valid point.  A number of football teams opted out of playing bowl games for the same reason.  It's a lot to deal with...and that doesn't even count the scheduling uncertainty!

While Coach K and several others have voiced their concerns about how wise/safe it is to be playing right now, other coaches disagree.  Their argument is also valid.  Health experts have said that the safest place for college students to be may actually be on campus.  And their players want to play, so the best thing for their mental health is to be doing what they love (even if it means not seeing their families).

There's no right or wrong answer here.  You can definitely see it from both sides.  Basketball games provide a sense of normalcy for everyone, even if there's nothing normal about them.  So it's understandable that if they can be played safely, schools are willing to give it a try.  But if a school/coach/team has reservations, that's completely understandable, too.

Back in the spring, the Ivy League set the trend, cancelling its basketball tournament before everyone else did.  It was also the first conference to postpone fall sports (which were eventually cancelled), with virtually all others deciding to follow suit.  The Ivy League is alone among Division I conferences in sitting out the basketball season entirely, though.  Every other league is leaving it up to the individual schools.

It really felt like it was just a matter of time before a program decided to pull the plug on its 2020-21 season.  That program turned out to be the Duke women.  The decision was made by the players, but Head Coach Kara Lawson obviously agreed.  Just one day after Coach K again called into question the wisdom/safety of playing this season, she echoed his sentiments.  Lawson said, "I don't think we should be playing right now."  Her players obviously agreed.

Once one school opted out, it seemed inevitable that there would be another.  It didn't take long for that to happen.  The SMU women's team became the second, also citing health and safety concerns.  They almost certainly won't be the last. 

So far, there hasn't been a men's team to opt out, but that also seems like it's just a matter of time.  I also don't think it's a coincidence that Arizona and Auburn have both self-imposed one-year postseason bans for this season.  Both of those programs are likely trying to avoid harsher penalties from the NCAA once the sanctions for the recruiting scandal that seems like it happened so long ago are finally announced.  But, by self-imposing a ban this year, they're also conveniently putting themselves in a position where they can end their seasons earlier.  Which makes you wonder if they would've done the same thing if this was a normal year.

I'm not questioning the NCAA's decision about playing this season.  Financially, they had no other choice.  They can't afford to not have March Madness and the windfall that comes with it two years in a row.  And they've done everything they can to make it a safe environment for everybody (which it is).  It's obviously not the same.  But life's not the same right now.  And playing under this setting is better than not playing at all.

Which isn't to say that the decisions these teams have to make are easy.  This is an unprecedented situation.  None of us have ever experienced anything like this before, so there's no right or wrong way to approach it.  It's really just a matter of how comfortable you feel, which is an individual decision.  And that's why we're seeing some teams choose to continue while others choose to stop.

Everyone deserves credit, too.  The teams that are opting out should be commended for having the courage to do what they felt was right.  The teams that are playing, meanwhile, are enduring countless restrictions just to play games in empty arenas.  Neither situation is ideal.  But it sure beats the alternative.

What 2020 Taught Us

There are only a few days left in this miserable year!  As much as we may want to, we'll never be able to forget 2020.  It was a year like no other in so many respects.  Everything started off normal, then Rudy Gobert tested positive for COVID and the entire sports world was shut down for months.  Suddenly, something we were able to rely on being for us every day was gone in an instant.  But sports came back, just like we knew they would, albeit looking completely different than before!

While it's easy to just write off 2020, it did teach us some important lessons about the sports we love.  In the grand scheme of things, sports aren't all that important.  Everyone knows that.  But 2020 also showed us that for people's emotional and mental health, sports are incredibly important.  And there's something reassuring about watching your favorite team play, even if it's in an empty stadium.

We also saw the power that sports have.  The Milwaukee Bucks decided not to play a playoff game because of another racially-motivated police shooting.  The reaction they got was one of support.  Other teams joined their boycott, with the NBA postponing three days' worth of games in the bubble.  The NHL and WNBA followed suit, and several MLB teams decided not to play, as well.  Then there was Naomi Osaka, who withdrew from her semifinal match at the US Open tune-up tournament (with the whole tournament eventually taking the day off), then wore seven masks with seven different names on them on her way to a second US Open title.

I don't know if any of that would've happened or even been possible in any other year.  The unplanned three-month break led to a lot of soul searching.  And it made athletes realize how powerful their voices are.  This wasn't a Colin Kaepernick situation.  This was an entire movement.  Athletes used their platform as agents of change.  And people finally listened.

Never was that more apparent than in NASCAR.  NASCAR was born in the Deep South and is still more popular there than anywhere else.  Unfortunately, that also meant racist symbols, most notably Confederate flags, were prevalent at NASCAR events.  No more.  With Bubba Wallace, NASCAR's only full-time Black driver, leading the charge, Confederate flags are now banned.

This was also the year that led to another long-overdue rebranding.  Sure, it was likely a result of pressure from team sponsors, but the "Washington Football Team" was born after the franchise decided to retire its Native American name and logo.  The Cleveland Indians will be doing the same following the 2021 season.  Both franchise realized that, in the current climate, there were no more excuses to be made for keeping names deemed inappropriate and offensive by so many.

It was an unprecedented year in so many respects.  In March, we went from college basketball proceeding as normal, to conference tournaments being played without fans, to conference tournaments being cancelled entirely, to the NCAA Tournament being cancelled all within a matter of hours.  You know it had to be a serious situation for the NCAA to decide to cancel March Madness!  And that turned out to be just a sign of things to come.

Just days after the torch relay began, the IOC did the unthinkable and postponed the Tokyo Games.  They received criticism for announcing it so late (and doing so only after several prominent countries--Australia, Great Britain and Canada among them--threatened to pull out if they weren't postponed), but, ultimately, it was the right decision.  It was the only one they could make, in fact.  There's no way it would've been possible to hold them in July as originally scheduled!

The Tokyo Olympics were obviously the most prominent event rescheduled or cancelled, but it was far from the only one!  Euro 2020 has become Euro 2021 (but will keep the name), and virtually every event scheduled from the middle of March until the end of May was moved later in the year.  But not Wimbledon or the British Open!  They were outright cancelled for the first time since World War II.  So was the MLB All*Star Game.  And the NFL preseason (which nobody seemed to miss) and Pro Bowl.

Those events that did go on did so with either no or limited fans.  The whole experience looked and felt different.  But it turned sports into made-for-TV events, which is something everyone was grateful for.  And, because they were made-for-TV, it gave broadcasters a chance to try some different things.  Some worked.  Some didn't.  Some were only possible because of the lack of fans.  But it gave people something to watch, something to do, something to not make them think about something else, for a few hours.  And that's something we all needed.

That might be the biggest lesson in all of this.  We already knew how much sports and society were intertwined.  We didn't know how much, though.  As the old song lyric goes, "You don't know what you got til it's gone."  Never was that more true than when sports suddenly disappeared, not to return for months.  Even the cynics realized how important sports are, not just economically, but for people's well-being, too.

When sports did return, they looked different.  But that didn't even matter.  Everyone was just so glad they were back.  And all credit to the NBA and NHL for finding ways to finish their seasons, MLB for having a season, and to the NFL for (almost) making it through all 256 games while not playing in a bubble.

During the hiatus, Adam Silver and Gary Bettman were in the unenviable position of trying to figure out a way to finish their respective seasons that were so close to the end.  No one knew if the "bubble" concept would work.  Not only did it work, it was a smashing success!  The quality of play was great despite the long layoff and despite the fact that they were playing in what would normally be the offseason.  More importantly, neither league had a single positive test during the entire time the bubbles were in operation.

And, as it turns out, you can still play without fans in the stands.  It's obviously not the same.  No one's arguing that it was.  Fans create an atmosphere that cannot be replicated, even with piped in crowd noise or virtual crowds.  Teams and players want fans back just as much as the fans want to be back, and everyone hopes that'll be sooner rather than later.

But, the (legitimate) concerns about whether the lack of fans would have an effect on the players' intensity or motivation proved to be unfounded.  The quality of play was excellent across the board.  And, because they had to create it themselves and couldn't feed off the crowd, there might've even been more intensity.

Most of us won't miss 2020 (except for maybe fans in LA, Tampa and Kansas City) and are happy to see it go.  The year taught us something very valuable, though.  Sports are more than just entertainment.  They're a release.  And sometimes people need a release.  So, if anything, our appreciation for sports grew in 2020.  Because absence makes the heart grow fonder, and three months without sports was a long time!

NFL 2020, Week 16

Our Christmas present from the NFL this year?  Four straight days of football, including the only Friday game of the season!  Friday was the only day left, but Vikings-Saints will take care of that, and there will have officially been an NFL game played on every day of the week this season.  I'm sure they'll mention it on the broadcast, but I'm not sure that's ever happened (especially since Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday games are so rare).

Anyway, as usual, Week 16 brings us plenty of matchups that have playoff implications for one or both teams.  In fact, there are only two games on the entire slate that are completely irrelevant--Cincinnati at Houston and Broncos-Chargers.  The other 14 all matter to at least some extent.  So this extended NFL weekend will be a holiday treat indeed.

Vikings (6-8) at Saints (10-4): New Orleans-After dropping two straight, the Saints have seen their chances at claiming the NFC's only bye all but disappear.  They haven't even officially clinched the NFC South yet.  They can take care of that by knocking off a Vikings team whose playoff chances are on life support.  A loss officially knocks Minnesota out.  But, more importantly, a Saints win puts New Orleans back on the right track heading into the playoffs.  The Vikings do have a history of making life miserable for the Saints though.

Buccaneers (9-5) at Lions (5-9): Tampa Bay-It's seemed inevitable for most of the season, and it can become official this week.  With a win, the Tampa Bay Bucs will clinch their first playoff berth since 2007.  That's certainly the least they were hoping for when Tom Brady picked Tampa.  And you know Brady wants to take care of business this week!

49ers (5-9) at Cardinals (8-6): Arizona-San Francisco returns to its home away from home, this time for a true road game against the Cardinals.  Arizona got a much-needed win last week, and jumped back into the 7-seed with the Bears' win over the Vikings.  They know that 9-7 will probably be good enough to do it, but with a Week 17 game in LA, they don't want to be in a position where they need to beat the Rams to get in.  So, Arizona will go all out to get that ninth win this week in the Amazon Prime exclusive game (which is stupid for so many reasons).

Dolphins (9-5) at Raiders (7-7): Las Vegas-If not for a last-second miracle against the Jets, the Raiders would be on a five-game losing streak.  As it is, dropping four out of five has left them clinging to incredibly faint playoff hopes.  A loss to the Dolphins will drop those chances to zero percent.  Miami, meanwhile, is tied with Baltimore, so they need a win to still control their own fate in Week 17.  In other words, one of these teams will leave the desert with its playoff hopes severely depleted (or, for the Raiders, gone entirely).

Falcons (4-10) at Chiefs (13-1): Kansas City-As incredible as it may seem, Kansas City can wrap up the No. 1 seed in the AFC with a week to go!  That's, of course, partially the Chiefs and partially the Steelers' collapse, but the bottom line is they're on track to not leave Kansas City again until February 7.  They won different ways in road games against playoff teams Miami and New Orleans.  Beating Atlanta at home should be a much easier proposition.  Which leaves you wondering if they'll rest starters in Week 17.

Browns (10-4) at Jets (1-13): Cleveland-Over the past two weeks, Cleveland has looked like a playoff team.  And the Browns can officially end the longest playoff drought in the NFL with a win and some help this week.  They aren't even thinking about that anymore, though.  They're still alive in the AFC North thanks to the Steelers' three-game losing streak.  Should the Browns earn their second straight victory in Met Life Stadium...which they should...and the Steelers lose again, that's your Sunday night game next week.

Colts (10-4) at Steelers (11-3): Pittsburgh-What happened to the Steelers team that started 11-0?  The losses to Washington and Buffalo can be explained away, but that game in Cincinnati was just ugly!  Now they need to get themselves righted before the playoffs.  Their seed has dropped from 1 to 2 to 3, and, if they're not careful, they could end up as a wild card!  A loss here would also give Indianapolis the tiebreaker over Pittsburgh should the Colts win the AFC South.  So, for the first time all season, the Steelers really need a win.

Bears (7-7) at Jaguars (1-13): Chicago-Suddenly, the Chicago Bears are right back in the playoff race!  They aren't just in it...they're in the thick of it!  And they're headed to Jacksonville with a chance to keep their roll going!  A few weeks ago, not many people thought the Bears-Packers Week 17 game would matter, yet we're looking at that exact situation!  Now that the Jaguars are two games away from Trevor Lawrence, are their fans rooting against them like Jets fans were?

Giants (5-9) at Ravens (9-5): Baltimore-All Baltimore can do is win its two remaining games and hope somebody in front of them loses.  The Ravens have kept doing their part, scoring 34, 47 and 40 points in their last three games.  To think they'll have another 30-point game against the Giants defense might be a stretch, but they certainly have enough to earn the win and keep the pressure on Cleveland, Miami and Indianapolis.  And, don't forget, they play the Bengals nest week while the Browns play the Steelers and the Dolphins play the Bills.  So, it's definitely doable if they take care of business.

Bengals (3-10-1) at Texans (4-10): Cincinnati-They were quick to point out throughout the Monday night game that the Bengals are much better than their record.  And it's true!  You wouldn't know it by watching them that they're 3-10-1.  I'd even venture to say that their 3-10-1 is better than Houston's 4-10.  The Texans should be better than their record, but they're not.  Last week's Bengals win was a stunner.  This one won't be.

Broncos (5-9) at Chargers (5-9): Chargers-Last week, the Chargers actually won a close game!  That development was almost two years in the making and effectively knocked the Raiders out of the playoffs.  Justin Herbert can cement his Offensive Rookie of the Year award if he turns in another performance like that against Denver.  The first meeting between these two was one of the Chargers' trademark one-possession losses, 31-30.  They're a much different team now, though.

Panthers (4-10) at Washington (6-8): Washington-Washington can put the NFC East out of its misery with a win over the Panthers and a Giants loss in Baltimore (which seems likely)...which would save the NFL from having to feature their game against the Eagles next week!  It's also realistic to think they'll finish 8-8, eliminating that whole "under .500 division champion" worry so many people have had all season!  Plus, you know Ron Rivera, who should get some serious Coach of the Year consideration, won't lose to his old team, especially with a division title on the line.

Eagles (4-9-1) at Cowboys (5-9): Dallas-Believe it or not, Dallas can still win the NFC East.  The only way that can happen is if the Cowboys win both games and Washington loses both, but it's a possibility nonetheless.  Philadelphia has been just as disappointing as Dallas, but also far more confusing.  The Eagles have looked like crap in most games, then go beat the Saints and almost beat Arizona.  If nothing else, they've figured out their quarterback situation.  So, I wouldn't be surprised if Jalen Hurts leads them to a win this week, even though I'm sticking with Dallas.

Rams (9-5) at Seahawks (10-4): Seattle-Being the team that lost to the Jets was going to severely hurt whoever it was.  But it was devastating for the Rams!  Instead of being in a position to fight for the 1-seed in the NFC, they're stuck looking up at Seattle in the division.  The Rams win, they clinch a playoff spot, regain the division lead, and control their own destiny in Week 17.  The Seahawks win, they clinch the division and still have a shot of passing Green Bay for No. 1.  So, yeah, big game for both.

Titans (10-4) at Packers (11-3): Green Bay-I'm still struck by how random this matchup is for the Week 16 Sunday night game!  But, as it turns out, it was a good choice!  The Packers are holding down the NFC's No. 1 seed and can even wrap it up if they win and the Rams beat the Seahawks.  The Titans, meanwhile, hold the tiebreaker in the AFC South and will clinch the division with a win and a Colts loss.  Which means one of them's probably gonna be playing for something.  And you know how much Aaron Rodgers wants the NFC playoffs to go through Lambeau!

Bills (11-3) at Patriots (6-8): Buffalo-The AFC East champions will wrap up the Monday night schedule in Foxboro.  But that division-winning team isn't the Patriots.  It's the Buffalo Bills.  In fact, the Patriots will be playing a game while officially eliminated from playoff contention for the first time since 2000 (when they finished 5-11).  Truly remarkable!  The Bills, meanwhile, have won their first division title in 25 years and still have an outside shot at the 1-seed.  They're currently ahead of the Steelers on the tiebreaker, too, so they'll have plenty to play for even if Kansas City wins.

Last Week: 10-6
Season: 141-82-1

NBA Expansion Candidates

It didn't really surprise me when Adam Silver said that the NBA was "open to" the idea of expansion.  They seemed content with 30 teams, but expansion to 32 still appeared to be something that was likely at some point.  Now, after one season cut short, one very expensive bubble, and another season set to begin with no fans in the stands, the idea of NBA expansion no longer seems so far-fetched.

I'm not saying an announcement is imminent.  But now that the cat's been let out of the bag, I'd be shocked if somebody put it back in.  And, frankly, the timing makes a lot of sense.  The NBA will have lost a lot of money over the course of the 2019-20 and 2020-21 seasons, and expansion fees are a great way for the owners to recoup some of their losses.  Of course, there would also need to be potential owners with billions of dollars in cities that have the appetite for basketball, both of which they could probably find.

One of the main reasons why the Sonics moved to Oklahoma City after the 2007-08 season was because of the arena situation in Seattle.  The arena problem is now fixed.  When the Kraken debut in the NHL next season, they'll be playing in the brand-new $930 million Climate Pledge Arena (built on the same site of the Sonics' old Key Arena).  However, while the Kraken will be the main tenant, they still plan on playing plenty of basketball there.  The WNBA-champion Storm will play there, and the return of the Sonics has never been too far from the minds of Seattle fans.

In fact, as a part of the agreement when they moved, the general understanding was that the Sonics franchise would be put "on hold" and eventually reborn either through expansion or relocation.  The Kings almost moved to Seattle a few years ago, but they stayed in Sacramento after the city agreed to build a new arena.  So, Seattle still waits.

Whenever the NBA does expand, you'd have to assume that a team would be placed in Seattle as a revived Sonics franchise.  However, you'd also have to assume that they'd add two teams so that they have an even number.  And there are plenty of intriguing options for the location of NBA team No. 32.

The most obvious is Las Vegas.  The NBA was the first major league to test the Vegas waters, playing its All-Star Game there in 2007.  It took another 10 years for Las Vegas to finally get its pro sports franchise, and the NHL struck the jackpot with the Golden Knights.  They've been so successful that they'll become the model for other expansion franchises to follow.  The Knights have been so successful that they aren't even the only show in town anymore, having been joined by the Raiders this year.

Will the NBA give Vegas its third team?  (Fun fact: when I was in grad school, we had a group project where we created an NBA expansion franchise called the "Las Vegas Rounders.")  You know they've seen the success of the Golden Knights and want in on some of that action.  You've also gotta think that there's a little bit of jealousy that the NHL beat them to Vegas.  So, the quick answer is, "Yes!"  Las Vegas would very much be in play for the other NBA expansion team.

But don't think Las Vegas is the only non-Seattle candidate worth considering.  Not even close.  Kansas City, for example, is another intriguing option.  Kansas City's obviously a hot sports town right now because of the Chiefs, but it's also in the heart of basketball country, so the fan support would be there.  They've got a beautiful arena that regularly hosts both the Big 12 and NCAA Tournaments, which was built for the purpose of attracting an NBA or NHL franchise (the Pittsburgh Penguins flirted with a move to Kansas City about 15 years ago).

However, one of the reasons the Kansas City Kings moved was because they weren't anywhere near as popular as the Kansas Jayhawks, so the NBA may be weary of trying again.  Similarly, the NBA may be hesitant about another popular option--Louisville--for a very similar reason.

Louisville is one of the largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. without a major league pro sports team.  The only pro team ever to call Louisville home was the ABA's Kentucky Colonels, who folded in 1976.  Since then, the University of Louisville has become the city's de facto pro team, and they play in a 22,000-seat downtown arena.  That's obviously plenty big enough to host an NBA team, but you'd have to wonder if they'd be overshadowed by the Cardinals, who've been an established brand in Louisville far longer.

While those are probably the three most likely options, they're far from the only ones.  Nashville could be interesting.  The Titans and Predators have both proven to be big draws, and Nashville is one of the more popular cities mentioned as a potential target for MLB expansion (along with, of course, Montreal).  A team in Nashville would also be a natural rival for Memphis.  But that's also a reason NOT to put a team in Nashville.  Do you really need a second team in Tennessee when you can just as easily build a fan base elsewhere?

Tampa has the same problem.  The city is serving as the Raptors' base of operations right now and potentially all season.  Some are seeing it as a test run for a permanent NBA team in Tampa.  It wouldn't be the first time that's happened (the Hornets temporarily relocated to Oklahoma City after Hurricane Katrina, with Oklahoma City then getting the Thunder a few years later).  Tampa's one of the largest media markets in the country, so they could easily handle a fourth pro team.  But there's also already a team in Orlando, which is only an hour and a half away.

There are two other cities I'm gonna throw out there that also seem like they'd be long shots, but would be worth considering just the same.  The first is St. Louis.  Like Louisville and Kansas City, St. Louis has a ready-to-use NBA-quality downtown arena.  Unlike Kansas City and Louisville, that arena already has a primary tenant in the Blues. 

Pittsburgh would probably be out because of its proximity to Cleveland and Detroit (and even Philadelphia and Toronto).  But if they were looking a team in the East to keep the conferences balanced (assuming the other expansion team was in Seattle), Pittsburgh could definitely be an option.  In fact, when the Penguins' PPG Paints Arena opened in 2010, David Stern mentioned that it would be a suitable home for an NBA franchise in the city.

So, like I said, should the NBA choose to expand, there would be no shortage of candidates.  I'm sure there are plenty of others, too.  I can see the city of Cincinnati, for example, including plans for a downtown arena in an NBA expansion bid. 

However, assuming one franchise is placed in Seattle, I think the other would come down to a choice between five cities: Las Vegas, Kansas City, Nashville, Tampa and Louisville.  And, while Las Vegas might be the "obvious" favorite among those options, something tells me that Kansas City would be the best choice.  So, when and if the NBA expands, I'd put the two new franchises in Seattle and Kansas City.

NFL 2020, Week 15

We've reached the point in the season where we have Saturday football.  Although, because this is 2020, the Saturday games are up against a full slate college games--including a number of conference championships.  The NFL Saturday games don't start until mid-December specifically because of college football, but this year is weird, so why wouldn't another weird thing happen?  I am curious to see how it'll impact the ratings, though, especially since the NFL games are only on NFL Network.

Thursday Night: Las Vegas (Loss)

Bills (10-3) at Broncos (5-8): Buffalo-Buffalo is thisclose to its first division title in 25 years.  That crazy ending of the Browns-Ravens game prevented the Bills from clinching a playoff berth on Monday night, but they can take care of both that and the division with a victory in Denver.  That should be a mere formality.  Denver in December won't faze a team that's used to cold weather like the Bills.  And Josh Allen played at Wyoming, so he had four years of this.  The Bills won't have a problem.

Panthers (4-9) at Packers (10-3): Green Bay-After the Saints' shocking loss to the Eagles, it's now the Packers in the NFC's driver's seat.  They win out, they get the bye and two games at Lambeau.  And they'll have back-to-back primetime games against Southern opponents to help that cause.  If they get a win and the Chiefs beat the Saints, then they're really in good shape.  But they have to take care of their own business first.

Buccaneers (8-5) at Falcons (4-9): Tampa Bay-For some reason, Tampa Bay and Atlanta play two of their final three games against each other.  My early prediction for Week 17 is that the Falcons win that one...because the Bucs probably won't care and will be sitting starters.  Tampa Bay hasn't clinched a playoff spot yet, but it'll be simply mathematical if they win.  And my guess is they won't care where their Wild Card Game is.

49ers (5-8) at Cowboys (4-9): Dallas-Dallas vs. San Francisco was supposed to be a marquee late-season Sunday night matchup.  That, of course, didn't pan out the way the NFL planned, and it's been relegated to the 1:00 window.  This is San Francisco's only remaining contest not in Arizona, while the Cowboys haven't played at home since their Thanksgiving debacle.  Yet they're still alive in the NFC East.  The 49ers, however, are playing out the string.

Lions (5-8) at Titans (9-4): Tennessee-There are several scenarios in play where the Titans can clinch a playoff spot this week, but let's look at the bigger picture for a second.  If they win, they go to 10-4.  They've finished 9-7 four years in a row and haven't won 10 games since 2008 (when they were 13-3).  That's a testament to how great a job Mike Vrabel in his three years with the Titans.  We all know what happened to Matt Patricia, another Belichick disciple, in Detroit.  Fortunately for Lions fans, there are only three games left this season.

Texans (4-9) at Colts (9-4): Indianapolis-Two weeks ago, the Colts held on for a 26-20 victory over the Texans in Houston.  They then made a statement with an emphatic win over the Raiders in Las Vegas.  They also know that with Pittsburgh looming this week, they need to finish off a season sweep of the Texans to have any shot of winning the AFC South.  Remember, they trail the Titans because of division record, so a third division loss would clinch that tiebreaker for Tennessee and send the Colts on the road for their Wild Card Game.

Patriots (6-7) at Dolphins (8-5): Miami-A loss officially knocks New England out of the playoffs.  And wouldn't it be fitting for Brian Flores and Miami to be the team that does the honors?  Even when they had Brady, the Patriots always struggled against the Dolphins in Miami.  Now that the Dolphins are good, a New England win would actually be considered an upset.  Although, the Patriots did beat the Dolphins in Week 1.  These are both much different teams now than they were then, though.

Bears (6-7) at Vikings (6-7): Minnesota-Believe it or not, this game actually has some pretty big playoff implications.  Three different teams can clinch if it ends in a tie.  More importantly, though, the winner still has a very realistic shot at getting in themselves.  Which sounds crazy considering how bad the Vikings were to start the season and how bad the Bears were from the middle until last week, when they crushed Houston.

Seahawks (9-4) at Washington (6-7): Washington-Suddenly, Washington controls its own destiny.  If they win out, they're the NFC East champs and host a playoff game.  In fact, this is currently what that Wild Card matchup would be.  Washington enters on a roll, having won four straight, but I wonder how much of an impact Alex Smith's injury will have.  The Seahawks bounced back nicely after their loss to the Giants, but they were playing the Jets.  Seattle knows they need this if they don't want to have a return trip to DC in a few weeks.  I'm not sure they get it, though.

Jaguars (1-12) at Ravens (8-5): Baltimore-It was crazy, but it was the win Baltimore needed.  Now the Ravens can feel much more comfortable about their position with three weeks left.  Playing the Jaguars at home certainly helps, too.  They're still on the outside looking in at the moment, but that could change depending on how the rest of Sunday goes.  Whatever happens, they know they can't lose at home Jacksonville.

Jets (0-13) at Rams (9-4): Rams-All the Rams need to do to clinch a playoff spot is beat the Jets at home.  So, basically, the Rams will clinch a playoff spot this week.  Of course, their priority is winning the NFC West, and next week's matchup with Seattle looms large.  They also have an outside shot at the No. 1 seed, too, but they don't have control over that.  What they do have control over is the fact that they're playing the Jets at home.  And if you lose at home to an 0-13 team, you don't deserve to win your division!

Eagles (4-8-1) at Cardinals (7-6): Arizona-Where did that come from?!  After weeks of frustrating losses, the Eagles beat the Saints and are suddenly very much alive in the NFC East (Eagles-Washington may very well end up the Week 17 Sunday night game).  The Cardinals had a nice win last week, too.  They fell out of the playoffs for the first time all season, then took it out on Daniel Jones (who came back a week too early).  Arizona appears to be back on track, but the Eagles could very well have started their trademark late season run last week.

Chiefs (12-1) at Saints (10-3): New Orleans-This is arguably the Game of the Year, and it could easily be a Super Bowl preview.  This is a huge game for both teams, too.  The Chiefs have moved into the AFC's top spot, while the Saints have moved out of the NFC's.  A loss here hurts New Orleans much more than it hurts Kansas City, though.  And they get Drew Brees back this week.  Combining those two things and the fact that Kansas City seems due for a loss after so many close ones, and I'm taking the Saints.

Browns (9-4) at Giants (5-8): Cleveland-If this one is anything like the Browns' game against the Ravens on Monday night, they made the right decision to flex it.  They didn't win, but they certainly proved that they belong on the big stage.  The Giants, meanwhile, looked like a completely different team in their loss to Arizona than the one that entered that game on a four-game winning streak.  They need the team that played the previous four games to show up if they want to regain control of the NFC East.

Steelers (11-2) at Bengals (2-10-1): Pittsburgh-As crazy as it sounds, the Steelers are really in need of a win.  They're 11-2, but they're headed in the wrong direction.  Maybe that extended break they had with the Thanksgiving mess had more of an impact than we thought.  Because they haven't played well in three weeks!  Pittsburgh really needs to rebound, and playing Cincinnati gives them a good chance to do that.  We can only hope that this game is as good as the one the other two AFC North teams played last Monday night.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 10-6
Overall: 131-77-1

Renaming the MVP

It's been an eventful few days in Major League Baseball!  We haven't seen nearly as much free agent activity as we should (which I think we all expected), but there's still been a lot going on.  First the Indians announced their pending name change, then MLB made the long-overdue decision to recognize the Negro Leagues as "major leagues" and incorporate those stats into the Major League record books.

The decision to include Negro League stats alongside those of the players from the American and National Leagues from 1920-48 was a long time coming, and it's yet another positive change we've seen from MLB this year.  It's also a fitting conclusion to a year in which the name of Kenesaw Mountain Landis, baseball's first commissioner who was just as responsible as anybody (probably more so) of keeping the Major League segregated during that time, was removed from the MVP award.

They're still in the process of determining whose name will be placed on the MVP awards to replace Landis.  While there's a chance they'll simply call it the "MVP" award without putting somebody's name on it, that seems unlikely.  Most of the awards presented by the BBWAA honor a legendary player, so it stands to reason that's the route they'll take with the MVP.  But who do you honor?  That's the real question.

Let's start with the players who it probably won't be.  The most obvious players to have awards named after them already do, so that rules out most of the first names you'd think of.  The Babe Ruth Award isn't a BBWAA award, but it goes to the postseason MVP (it's kinda like baseball's Conn Smythe Trophy for the overall postseason MVP).  Likewise, there's already a Hank Aaron Award (top hitter in each league), Roberto Clemente Award (sportsmanship and community involvement) and Lou Gehrig Award (character and integrity).

Obviously, there's the Cy Young Award, too, while the Relief Pitchers of the Year receive the Mariano Rivera (AL) or Trevor Hoffman Award (NL).  And could the DH of the Year be named for anybody other than Edgar Martinez?  Both the All-Star Game (Ted Williams) and World Series (Willie Mays) MVP awards have legendary names attached to them, too.  And the Rookies of the Year have received the Jackie Robinson Award since 1987 (a full 10 years before his number was retired throughout baseball).

As you can see, there are already some many baseball legends who are forever immortalized by having an award named after them.  Fortunately, there are plenty of others who are just as deserving to be honored.  And any number of Hall of Famers would be a great choice.

Every time I thought about, though, one name kept coming back to me.  And that's Frank Robinson.  Frank Robinson was just as much of a trail blazer as Jackie, and I can't think of anyone more appropriate.  So, when it comes time to choose whose name to go on the MVP award moving forward, I hope the BBWAA selects Frank Robinson.

There are more reasons why it should be Frank Robinson then reasons why it shouldn't.  For starters, he's the only player in history to be named MVP in both leagues.  He was the NL MVP with the Reds in 1961, then took the AL honors in 1966 after winning the Triple Crown for the Orioles (in his first season with Baltimore).  Robinson was also the World Series MVP that season.  That alone would be a convincing argument, but there's so much more.

Frank Robinson was also the first black manager in the Majors.  He was named Cleveland's player-manager in 1974, then managed the Giants from 1981-84 and was AL Manager of the Year with the Orioles in 1989.  In 2002, MLB asked him to take over as manager of the Expos, and he guided them through their final three seasons in Montreal, as well as their first two in D.C.  It was with the Nationals that he earned his 1,000th managerial win in 2006, his final season as a manager.

Between his managerial stints, Robinson worked for MLB in various executive roles, including Honorary President of the American League.  He also received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2005.

If all that's not enough, his 586 career home runs were fourth-most in MLB history at the time of his retirement (he's currently 10th).  Robinson was a 14-time All-Star and was a finalist for the MLB All-Century Team.  He was a first-ballot Hall of Famer in 1982, getting 89.2 percent of the vote, and has had his number retired by three different teams (Orioles, Reds, Indians).

Simply put, Frank Robinson is one of the most influential people in baseball history.  He was far more than a Hall of Fame player.  He was a pioneer.  The fact that the only man to win MVP awards in both leagues was also the first black manager is a cool little factoid, but his impact goes far beyond that.  I can think of no better way to honor his legacy than renaming the MVP award after Frank Robinson.

I can't think of a more polar opposite person than Kenesaw Mountain Landis, either.  Landis ruled baseball with an iron fist for 25 years.  But it's also not a coincidence that Jackie Robinson didn't break the color barrier until three years after Landis died.  As time went on, his role in keeping baseball segregated became more and more inexcusable, and his name being on the MVP trophy became more and more controversial.

Baseball has come a long way since the days of Judge Landis.  Frank Robinson is a symbol of all that progress.  Which is one of the many reasons why he's the perfect person to replace Landis on the MVP award.  Or, should I say, the Frank Robinson Most Valuable Player Award?  

Bring Back the Spiders!

We all saw this coming.  It started in earnest a few years ago when the Cleveland Indians began using their Chief Wahoo logo less and less, first taking it off the uniforms and replacing it with a block "C" on the hats, then retiring the logo altogether with the exception of a few pieces of merchandise available only in the team store (which they had to do in order to keep the trademark).  Now, they've announced that the name "Indians" will also be retired after the 2021 season.

Cleveland becomes the third major league North American sports franchise to drop a Native American name in the past six months.  In July, the Washington Football Team dropped its controversial nickname after years of protests, while the CFL's Edmonton Eskimos also decided to change their name and also adopted the temporary "Football Team" moniker.  Unlike Washington, Edmonton kept its logo, which is simply an "EE" and doesn't include any Native American imagery.

At the same time, the Indians announced they would "undergo a thorough review" of the team name and "determine the best path forward."  We all knew what it meant then.  They just waited a little longer to make it official.  Now they have.  Cleveland will play one more season as the Indians, after which the name will be no more (and the focus will shift to the Atlanta Braves, Chicago Blackhawks and Kansas City Chiefs).

Washington and Edmonton's name changes were effective immediately.  And, since they made the change so close to the start of the season, Washington is playing this season without a name.  The CFL season typically starts at the end of June, so it would've been the middle of the season for Edmonton.  However, since the 2020 CFL season was cancelled and they'll conceivably have a new name in time for the 2022 season, they may never officially play a game as the "Edmonton Football Team."  (Fun fact: the Baltimore Stallions played the 1994 CFL season as the "Baltimore Football Club" while their name situation was straightened out.)

Since a full-blown rebrand takes time, it's widely assumed that Washington will continue to be the "Football Team" in 2021.  There's also some speculation that they'll keep the new non-name permanently.  How true that is, I don't know.  I still suspect that they'll come up with a new name and logo.  But it won't be before the 2022 season at the earliest.

Edmonton's rebranding shouldn't take nearly as long.  They don't have to design a new logo or get it trademarked.  The hardest part for them, honestly, is finding another name that starts with "E."  Once upon a time, they were called the "Edmonton Elks," but I kinda like "Edmonton Explorers."

Anyway, the Indians will be taking a different approach.  They've announced the name change, but have also rejected calls to have a placeholder name like the "Cleveland Baseball Club" or something like that.  Instead, they'll play one final season as the "Indians" during the rebranding process, with the new name, logo and (presumably) uniforms to debut all at once in 2022.

While this is disappointing to the critics who wanted it done immediately (they wanted it done five years ago, actually), it actually makes sense from a business perspective.  For starters, "Indians" is far less controversial than "Redskins" was, and the most controversial thing was Chief Wahoo, which was already gone.  However, it's not inexpensive to take down and replace all the signage in the stadium and everywhere else...especially since they'd have to just replace it all again with the new name and logos in 2022.

I know that rings hollow with some people, but the bottom line is that they will be changing their name.  It won't be their first, either.  They've been the "Indians" since 1915, but were known as the "Naps" after star player Nap Lajoie from 1903-14.  And since a new name is coming, there are plenty of options worth considering.

As soon as word of the name change became public on Sunday night, the suggestions started coming in.  There's some support for "Cleveland Blues" after Cleveland's original National League team in the 1880s, but, considering there's already a hockey team called the Blues, there's virtually no chance of that being the name. 

Likewise, some people have suggested "Cleveland Rockers" because of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.  That also seems unlikely.  Because it's already been used.  My guess is people don't remember, but one of the charter WNBA franchises was called the "Cleveland Rockers," and they played from 1997-2003.  (Whether the Gund family and/or WNBA still hold the trademark or not, having an MLB team and a WNBA team share a name would just be weird!)

Taking the name from Cleveland's baseball history isn't a bad idea, though.  Especially since there's one that blows any of the other possibilities completely out of the water.  There should be no other choice.  They should be the Cleveland Spiders.

The Cleveland Spiders were the successors of the Cleveland Blues and played in the National League from 1889-99.  Cy Young (yes, THAT Cy Young) pitched for the Spiders from 1890-98, and they had five other Hall of Famers during their 12-year history.  They also had a Native American named Louis Sockalexis, who the Indians have long cited as an inspiration for their current (and soon to be former) name.

Of course, the original Cleveland Spiders are best known (perhaps unfairly) as the team that had the worst season in Major League Baseball history.  In 1899, they went 20-134 and were contracted by the National League at the end of the season.  After the Spiders folded, it left an opening for the upstart American League, which placed one of its charter franchises in Cleveland in 1901.  The Indians have called Cleveland home ever since.

That 20-134 season is, unfortunately, the enduring legacy of the Cleveland Spiders.  But that was 121 years ago!  It's time to give the name new life in the same way the Nationals gave new life to the Washington Senators' curly W.  Beyond that, it's just a cool name.  And it's unique.  The University of Richmond is the Spiders, but there isn't a single Major League professional team with the name.  They'd be the only "Spiders" among the 124 franchises in the four major men's professional sports.

So, I ask you, is there a better way for the Indians to begin their new identity?  Start the new era by going back to Cleveland's baseball past.  After 121 years, it's time for the Cleveland Spiders to be reborn!

NFL 2020, Week 14

Well, this NFL season sure has found ways to surprise us, hasn't it?  The NFC East has been a punching bag all season, then its two best teams go on the road and beat first-place teams, including Washington knocking off the undefeated Steelers.  We've also got Giants-Browns getting flexed into Sunday night and Cowboys-49ers getting flexed out.  Then there are the ever-changing playoff standings, which will change again this week with three matchups featuring two playoff teams squaring off (and three others featuring a playoff team against a wild card contender).

Thursday Night: Rams (Win)

Texans (4-8) at Bears (5-7): Chicago-Believe it or not, the Bears could actually be in a four-way (or even five-way) tie for the third NFC wild card if everything goes their way on Sunday.  Of course, beating Houston won't be easy.  The Texans are much better than their 4-8 record.  And they're gonna make it very difficult for the Chicago offense to put any points on the board.  Yet, for some reason, I'm picking the Bears in this game anyway.

Cowboys (3-9) at Bengals (2-9-1): Cincinnati-I never thought I'd be picking Cincinnati over Dallas, but here we are.  There are also probably very few people who thought they'd see Andy Dalton get the start in his homecoming, but he is.  If the last two weeks weren't an indication that this is a lost season in Dallas, I don't know what is.  What makes their loss to the Ravens even worse is that the Cowboys were effectively coming off a bye week, while Baltimore had just played five days earlier and was shorthanded, yet Dallas was still completely outplayed.

Chiefs (11-1) at Dolphins (8-4): Kansas City-Kansas City became the first team to clinch a playoff spot, but stayed the No. 2 seed even after the Steelers lost.  Which means they have to keep winning themselves.  Of course, their last trip to Miami was a win that they'll never forget.  This game could end up being very similar to that Super Bowl victory.  The Dolphins are sitting in a wild card position and will play them tough, but expect Mahomes and Co. to do what they always do in the end.

Cardinals (6-6) at Giants (5-7): Giants-Had this game been played a month ago, the Cardinals would've been an overwhelming favorite.  Right now, however, they're headed in opposite directions.  Arizona has lost three in a row since that miracle victory over the Bills and have actually dropped out of playoff position.  The Giants, meanwhile, sent a real message with their win in Seattle.  And don't forget how many close games they lost early in the season.  That 5-7 record could easily be 7-5 or even 8-4.  So they're not nearly as bad as people wanted to believe they were in mid-November.

Vikings (6-6) at Buccaneers (7-5): Tampa Bay-Minnesota started 1-5.  The Vikings are 5-1 since and have actually moved into playoff position.  They can even move up to the 6-seed (and have the tiebreaker over the Bucs) if they win this week.  Unfortunately for them, Tampa Bay is coming off a (ridiculously late) bye.  They needed it, too, having dropped two straight before it.  However, of the Bucs' five losses, only one is to a team that they're better than (Chicago).  And Tampa Bay is better than Minnesota.

Broncos (4-8) at Panthers (4-8): Carolina-It was just five years ago that these two met in Super Bowl 50.  Neither has had much success since then, and the loser will be guaranteed to finish this season below .500.  Carolina has actually been playing some pretty solid football recently.  Prior to their bye, they shut out the Lions and probably should've beaten the Vikings.  Denver actually held its own on Sunday night in Kansas City, but that game went exactly how you'd figure a Broncos-Chiefs game would go.  This one should be much closer, with Carolina sealing the win late.

Titans (8-4) at Jaguars (1-11): Tennessee-Remember when Jacksonville randomly made it to the AFC Championship Game a few years ago?  Yeah, I don't either!  It's also hard to remember the Jaguars being 1-0, which they actually were after beating the Colts in their opener.  But that Jacksonville victory is the reason Tennessee is in first place.  As a result, the Titans control their own fate.  They'll maintain their division lead by handing the Jaguars their 12th straight loss.

Colts (8-4) at Raiders (7-5): Las Vegas-This might be the biggest game on the entire Week 14 schedule.  The Raiders are one game back of the Colts for the last AFC wild card, so Indy will either have a two-game lead with three to play or the Raiders will hold the tiebreaker.  Of course, the Colts are also still tied for the AFC South lead, but they've also still got a trip to Pittsburgh on the schedule.  Both teams have shown flashes of brilliance that have been balanced out by confusingly awful performances, which explains why they're on the fringes of the playoff race.  With the game in Las Vegas, I'll go with the Raiders.

Jets (0-12) at Seahawks (8-4): Seattle-Want to know why the Jets are 0-12?  Just look at the final play of last week's game!  They had no business losing to the Raiders, yet they did!  It's like they're active looking for different ways to lose every week.  And, frankly, I don't see much standing between them and 0-16 anymore.  As for the Seahawks, last week's upset loss to the Giants really hurt.  It dropped them into a wild card spot.  With the Rams already having won, not slipping up against the worst team in the league becomes that much more important.

Packers (9-3) at Lions (5-7): Green Bay-Green Bay hasn't clinched a playoff spot yet, but can potentially take care of both that and the NFC North in one swoop.  Of course, clinching the division is a mere formality at this point (even though they did lose the first game to the Vikings).  The Packers know the only way they get the NFC's only bye is to keep winning and hope New Orleans loses at some point.  They also know the Saints play the Chiefs next week.

Saints (10-2) at Eagles (3-8-1): New Orleans-When the schedule first came out, this one was circled as a potentially crucial game for NFC playoff seeding.  As we know, that hasn't exactly been the case.  The Saints have done their part, not missing a beat since Drew Brees went down and becoming the first NFC team to clinch a playoff berth.  A win this week clinches the NFC South and moves New Orleans closer to the No. 1 seed (remember they lost to the Packers, so they have to stay ahead of them).  The Eagles, meanwhile, will be starting Jalen Hurts after finally giving up on Carson Wentz (who cost my fantasy team a spot in the playoffs).

Falcons (4-8) at Chargers (3-9): Atlanta-After last week's debacle against New England, I have no doubt that Anthony Lynn is coaching his final four games with the Chargers.  Falcons interim coach Raheem Morris, however, is making quite a case to keep the job permanently.  Atlanta started 0-5 and is 4-3 since, with two of the three losses coming to the Saints and the other by one point.  Expect another solid performance against the Chargers, who'll have another of their trademark one-possession home losses.

Washington (5-7) vs. 49ers (5-7): Washington-Nobody's sleeping on Washington anymore!  That defense is legit, and they could very easily end up winning the NFC East.  People thought San Francisco was a potential playoff sleeper, as well, but the 49ers are too flawed and inconsistent.  And, frankly, of the two, Washington is the one that looks like it could be a playoff team at the moment.  They'll reinforce that while moving to (a perfectly respectable) 6-7.

Steelers (11-1) at Bills (9-3): Buffalo-Statement game.  Plain and simple.  The Bills already made one statement with their win over Seattle, but this one would be even more emphatic.  And, considering, two of their losses were to Kansas City and Tennessee, they almost need a win here just for some confidence heading into the playoffs.  The Bills know they can hang with the good teams, but they also need the feeling of beating one.  Playing a Steelers team that's had back-to-back nationally-televised poor outings at home gives them the perfect opportunity to do just that.  (The Steelers will almost certainly have their playoff berth locked up prior to the game.)

Ravens (7-5) at Browns (9-3): Baltimore-Cleveland has the quietest 9-3 record in the league.  Part of the reason for that is the fact that two of the Browns' three losses were blowouts against the Steelers and Ravens.  Still, they're currently a playoff team, and that won't change regardless of what happens on Monday night.  Of course, they need a good showing to shut up those critics.  The Browns haven't exactly been the best team in prime time games over the past few years, but they'll get two chances to change that in the next two weeks.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 10-5
Season: 122-70-1

Minor Leagues, Major Changes

After months of speculation, Major League Baseball has finally announced what the new structure of the Minor Leagues for 2021 will be.  Last year, when it became obvious that this was going to happen, it was controversial.  The main sticking point was that the Minor Leagues were being reduced from more than 160 affiliated teams to 120, and Minor League owners wanted to make sure their team wasn't one of the 40.  Now they have their answer.

Predictably, there were some unhappy teams included among the 40.  The Staten Island Yankees, upon hearing the news, immediately filed lawsuits against Major League Baseball and the Yankees.  They were offered a place in MLB's new "Dream League," but declined.  They also realistically could've moved to the independent Atlantic League, but chose not to.  The Staten Island Yankees will be folding instead.

The same can be said about several other teams that lost their Major League affiliation.  It's an unfortunate situation for those teams and the communities that support them.  (My friend Jim Henneman wrote a great piece about the Frederick Keys, who lost their affiliation with the Orioles after 30 years.)  Some will probably take up the offer to join the "Dream League" or become independent, but, sadly, others will follow Staten Island's lead and go out of business completely.

Make no mistake, this didn't happen because of the pandemic.  The pandemic and the cancellation of the entire 2020 Minor League season exacerbated the situation, but it was already in the works.  The Professional Baseball Agreement between MLB and Minor League Baseball expired on September 30, and MLB has taken over the organization of the Minors.  And that includes assigning Minor League affiliates to particular teams, which is something that the Major League clubs had always needed to do themselves every two years, resulting in some odd pairings!

Minor League teams are now invited to become "affiliate partners" of their MLB parent club as a part of a longer-term agreement.  Over the past few years, more and more Major League teams had been purchasing their Minor League affiliates, so those direct relationships were obviously going to continue.  The real question was how many other teams would be moved around and which ones would either drop or go up a level.

Frankly, fewer teams switched levels than I thought would.  And those that did seemed to make sense.  Although, I am curious to see how the Minor Leagues will realign as a result of the changes.  Particularly Triple-A.

Triple-A obviously gets the most attention since it's the level just below the Majors and that's generally where the extra players on the 40-man roster play.  Three new teams will be moving to Triple-A next season, the formerly independent St. Paul Saints and Sugar Land Skeeters, as well as the Jacksonville Jumbo Shrimp, who moved up from Double A.  They replace Wichita and San Antonio, who both moved down to Double A, and Fresno, which went all the way down to Low-A ball.

It's Jacksonville that makes things interesting, though.  There's no interleague play in the Minors, so the leagues are split 16 and 14.  Wichita, San Antonio and Fresno were all in the Pacific Coast League.  It makes absolutely no sense for Jacksonville, which is about as far east as you can get in this country without being IN the Atlantic, to be in the Pacific Coast League.  Which means one of the westernmost International League teams will likely need to flip leagues.

As a part of the restructuring, the Washington Nationals have a Triple-A affiliate that makes sense again, as they'll be paired with the Rochester Red Wings moving forward.  And with the Nationals' affiliate back in the International League, that's nine of the 10 franchises in the AL and NL East.  The Marlins are the only Eastern Division team with an affiliate in the PCL.  Again, it makes no sense for Jacksonville to not be in the IL, so I fully expect that to change.

But, in order to keep the number of teams in the two leagues even, someone will have to move.  The most logical options would seem to be Louisville and Indianapolis, the two westernmost IL teams.  And, frankly, either one would make sense.  There are PCL teams in Nashville and Memphis, which are obviously close to both cities.  However, since Louisville is closer to the IL's Ohio teams, I'd have Indianapolis switch leagues.

While they've announced how (or if) Triple-A will be restructured, I think that's what makes the most sense.  There have been some suggestions that they might drop the IL and PCL designations and make Triple-A one massive 30-team unit, but that seems unlikely.  It would be entirely unnecessary since minor realignment is all that's needed.  And, the International League and Pacific Coast League both have rich histories that should be preserved.

I have no idea how they'll actually do all this (or if there will even be a 2021 Minor League season), but here's how I would break down the two Triple-A leagues in 2021:

INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE
North: Buffalo, Columbus, Lehigh Valley, Rochester, Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, Syracuse, Toledo, Worcester
South: Charlotte, Durham, Gwinnett, Jacksonville, Louisville, Norfolk

PACIFIC COAST LEAGUE
(American) East: Memphis, Nashville, Round Rock, Sugar Land
(American) North: Indianapolis, Iowa, Omaha, St. Paul
(Pacific) South: Albuquerque, El Paso, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake
(Pacific) West: Las Vegas, Reno, Sacramento, Tacoma

No matter how they end up structuring the individual leagues, the new Minor League setup will probably end up being a good thing for all involved.  The Major League teams will have more control, and their affiliates will be closer to both their parent club and each other.  I actually think the quality of play will improve, too, since the Minor League teams will have more support and better resources (and the players will be better compensated).

Obviously this restructuring wasn't going to go over well with everybody.  It's incredibly unfortunate for those teams that are losing their affiliation and those towns that are losing their team.  Especially since they didn't get a chance to have a proper goodbye in 2020.  But for everyone else, this is the dawn of a new era that could end up being better for everybody.

Breaking Into the Paris Olympics

The full event program for the 2024 Paris Olympics has been unveiled, and there's a lot to be excited about.  The biggest reason to get excited is that, for the first time, there will be an equal number of male and female participants.  (In Tokyo, the ratio is expected to be around 51-49 men.)  They achieved this by reducing the number of quota places in some men's events and adding them to women's events or having an equal number of weight classes in some of the combat sports, although there will still be slightly more men's events on the program (150-145 with 22 mixed events).

Another interesting thing about the Paris 2024 program is that they added very few events to existing sports.  Ordinarily, there would be all kinds of changes from one Olympics to the next, but that will only be the case for a handful of sports.  In fact, the biggest changes are the reduction of events in boxing and weightlifting.  Weightlifting has had all sorts of doping problems in recent years, and, as a result, will only have 10 weight classes in Paris (compared to 14 in Tokyo).

World Athletics requested a mixed cross country relay and the women's 50 kilometer walk.  Not only were they both rejected, the men's 50 kilometer walk was removed.  The IOC has been trying to get rid of the race walk for a while, so that's not unsurprising, although, they did tell World Athletics that they can replace it with a mixed-gender event of its choosing.  They have until May to decide what that will be, but have promised it will be a race walk (my guess is a 4x10 km relay using the competitors from the 20 km).

As for the five sports that are being added for the Tokyo Games, three of them will return.  Baseball/softball and karate are out, although you'd have to figure baseball and softball will be back again when LA hosts in 2028 (and 2032 if those Games are in Australia).  Skateboarding and sport climbing look like they're well on their way to becoming permanent additions (sport climbing actually had an event added for both men and women).  Surfing, meanwhile, is set to take place in Tahiti, which isn't exactly close to Paris.

Even more ridiculous than the fact that the surfing competition will be held 10,000 miles away in the South Pacific (they said that they can have a longer distance in order to utilize existing facilities, but this is taking it to a bit of an extreme I think!), is the fourth additional sport that has been approved for the Paris Games--break dancing, or "breaking" as the IOC calls it.  We all saw this coming when it was first proposed and provisionally approved, but it's still kind of mind-blowing that "breaking" will be an Olympic sport in four years.

Two of the IOC's many 21st Century obsessions are mixed events and events that have a "youthful appeal."  That's why 3x3 basketball was added permanently starting in Tokyo.  That's also why skateboarding, sport climbing and surfing were fast-tracked onto the Olympic program, and that's why they seriously considered adding parkour as a discipline of gymnastics.  Enter "breaking," which had a successful debut at the 2018 Youth Olympics that was evidently enough to earn a place at the Grown-ups Table.

It shouldn't be this easy.  And the fact that it is has to be even more frustrating for sports like squash, which been campaigning unsuccessfully for a place for years.  Quite frankly, it's unfair to those sports.  Because if this trend continues, they'll never be added, yet have to keep watching the IOC play with its new, shiny toys that are these "youthful, urban" sports.

When they changed the process for Tokyo and started allowing host cities to add sports for their Olympics only, I didn't like it.  I still don't.  A sport's either an Olympic sport or it's not.  There shouldn't be any of this on-again, off-again crap depending on what people in the host country like.

Remember what it was like when baseball and softball were dropped and they were looking for two sports to replace them?  The process was incredibly cutthroat, with golf and rugby sevens emerging victorious and rejoining the Olympic program in Rio.  No one would argue that golf and rugby don't belong, and their places rightfully look secure moving forward.

Similarly, wrestling was controversially dropped from the Olympics in 2013, only to be reinstated seven moths later when the IOC held a vote on which sport to replace it with.  The original decision was incredibly short-sighted and they realized they made a mistake, so they immediately moved to rectify it.  That was the right thing to do.  Because can you picture the Olympics without wrestling?

Frankly, that's a criterion that should be considered.  And, sorry, but "breaking" doesn't fit the bill.  Do the Olympics feel incomplete without it?  No!  More significantly, will its inclusion feel appropriate or weird?  "Weird" seems more likely.  I could be wrong, but it's not a natural fit.  And you should only be adding sports that ARE a natural fit.

There was nothing wrong with the old process.  Sports were vetted and had to earn their place.  More importantly, they were voted on by the IOC members themselves.  It wasn't left to the whims or preferences of that particular host city or host country.  When IOC members were voting, they were choosing between sports that had lasting power.  They were picking sports that they knew belonged in not just one Olympics, but all future Olympics (like golf and rugby).  And it was more fair.

This isn't just about "breaking" and whether it should be in the Olympics or not.  This is also about karate, which, after years of trying, could end up being an Olympic sport for a grand total of one Games.  Or baseball and softball, which were out for 12 years, only to come back for one before being taken out again (and likely back in for the next two after that).  It's enough to give you whiplash!

I have no idea how the Olympic debut of "breaking" will go.  I could be dead wrong, and the sport could end up being a huge success.  But I'd like to see a vetting process before sports are added.  That way all the doubt would be removed and you'd know the sport belongs.  Because I'll never be sure that "breaking" does.

NFL 2020, Week 13

We've reached December!  Which means the dumpster fire known as 2020 is almost over!  It also means that football season is getting down to crunch time, and we can actually see the first teams clinch playoff spots this week.  It's also pretty remarkable that we enter December with both an undefeated team and a winless team.  Can the Steelers and Jets both do it?  And will the NFC East winner not have 10 losses?

Saints (9-2) at Falcons (4-7): New Orleans-They were obviously playing a team without a quarterback, but the Saints were still impressive last week in Denver.  And the fact that Drew Brees is out may actually be helpful.  Because it's showing that they're more than just an offense.  Their defense is pretty good too!  They've shown that they can win different ways, which they'll have to do in the playoffs.  Speaking of the playoffs, it's mathematically possible (although unlikely) that they can clinch this week.

Lions (4-7) at Bears (5-6): Chicago-Fun fact: both of these teams lost 41-25 in nationally-televised games last week.  Fun fact No. 2: they went a combined 1-8 in November.  Something's obviously gotta give as they begin December against each other.  They've both got a lot of stuff to figure out over the season's final five games, too.  Because neither one is very good.  The Bears are slightly less bad, though, so I think they end their five-game losing streak.

Browns (8-3) at Titans (8-3): Cleveland-People either don't realize or don't care that Cleveland has the third-best record in the AFC, which might be exactly how the Browns want it.  Remember last year when they had all those expectations and never recovered from a bad start?  Sure seems like a long time ago, doesn't it?  Anyway, the Browns currently hold the No. 1 AFC wild card and can really cement their position if they go into Nashville and win.

Bengals (2-8-1) at Dolphins (7-4): Miami-Miami starts a three-game homestand sitting comfortably in a wild card position and just one game behind the Bills in the division.  And the Dolphins look more and more like a playoff team each week.  Things get a lot harder next week when Kansas City comes in, but Miami has taken advantage of its schedule.  Back-to-back games against the Jets and Bengals is a good way to gain some confidence heading into that matchup with the Chiefs.

Jaguars (1-10) at Vikings (5-6): Minnesota-Of all the teams on the outside looking in at the NFC playoff picture, Minnesota might be the one that has the best shot.  The Vikings are on a roll, and that comeback last week against Carolina has them only one game behind Arizona for the last spot.  They still go to Tampa and New Orleans, so it'll be tough, but it's doable.  If they lose at home to Jacksonville, though, they don't deserve to make the playoffs.

Raiders (6-5) at Jets (0-11): Las Vegas-Looking at their remaining schedule, this might be the Jets' best chance for a win.  It really depends on which Raiders team shows up.  Will it be the Raiders who beat the Chiefs in Kansas City?  Or will it be the Raiders who were an absolute dud last week in Atlanta?  If it's the good Raiders, this could get ugly quick.  If it's the bad Raiders, the Jets may not need to worry about 0-16.

Colts (7-4) at Texans (4-7): Indianapolis-Once again, I'm left confused about the Indianapolis Colts.  They beat the Packers to take over first place, then they give up 45 points and had first place right back to the Titans.  Now they play two out of their next three against the Texans, who are a lot better than their 4-7 record.  Houston could actually jump right back in it if they win both.  But Indianapolis rarely plays two bad games in a row.

Rams (7-4) at Cardinals (6-5): Arizona-The Cardinals must be happy to be back home.  Back-to-back road losses have dropped them from the No. 3 seed in the NFC to the No. 7 seed.  Adding to the importance of this one is the fact that their opponent is the Rams, who they haven't seen yet this season.  With Seattle now ahead of both teams, the loser will have virtually no chance of winning the NFC West.  So, yeah, this is a big game.

Giants (4-7) at Seahawks (8-3): Seattle-First-place teams square off in Seattle!  Laugh all you want, but the New York Football Giants would be hosting a playoff game if the season ended today.  And I'm gonna enjoy it while it lasts.  Because they don't have the easiest December schedule.  The Seahawks, meanwhile, have two playoff races to worry about.  They're hoping to hold off the Cardinals and Rams in the NFC West while also battling the Saints and Packers for the bye.  So, yeah, I don't see the Seahawks taking the Giants lightly.

Eagles (3-7-1) at Packers (8-3): Green Bay-To anyone who still thinks Philadelphia is the best team in the NFC East, I refer you to the Eagles' game against the Seahawks on Monday night.  Things are only gonna get worse with Green Bay, New Orleans and Arizona as their next three opponents.  The Packers know that they can only control so much.  They need a Saints loss to have any shot at the NFC bye, regardless of what the Seahawks do.  In other words, they can't afford a loss to the Eagles.

Patriots (5-6) at Chargers (3-8): New England-Does Anthony Lynn want to keep his job?  Because I seriously can't understand what that guy does at the end of games.  It's like he's trying to lose by one possession.  And that's the reason why the Chargers are 3-8.  As for the Patriots, they actually still have a reasonable chance at a wild card.  Their postseason prospects will be a lot clearer after their little two-game trip to LA, the first of which should get them back to .500 for the first time since they were 2-2.

Broncos (4-7) at Chiefs (10-1): Kansas City-Hopefully the Broncos will have a quarterback.  Nobody was expecting that to be pretty last week, but it was even worse than we all thought.  But that's what you get for not following the protocols!  Kansas City can theoretically win the division in this one, but the Chiefs are more concerned with the fact that a second loss will really hurt their chances of catching Pittsburgh.

Washington (4-7) at Steelers (11-0): Pittsburgh-What the Steelers are doing this season is really impressive.  They keep having games moved because of COVID outbreaks on other teams.  They play random Wednesday afternoon games a week late.  Yet they're still undefeated.  And they find a way to win when they don't play well, like the Ravens game.  They need to play better over their final five games (against strong opponents) or someone will trip them up.  I don't think it happens on Monday, though.\

Bills (8-3) vs 49ers (5-6): Buffalo-Just when the 49ers started getting all their players back and playing well, they get kicked out of California!  Fortunately they found a temporary home in Arizona.  The Bills might not feel so fortunate, however.  The memory of what happened to them three weeks ago in that very stadium is still fresh in their minds.  They'll be out to rectify that and move one step closer to clinching the AFC East.

Cowboys (3-8) at Ravens (6-5): Dallas-It took the Ravens almost a week to finally play their Thanksgiving game (on a Wednesday afternoon!).  The Cowboys actually did play theirs, so now they'll have almost two full weeks off before this one.  I don't know why, but I still think Dallas can win the NFC East.  Call me crazy, but I think all that time off will be good for them.  And we still don't know who's gonna be available for the Ravens, who'll end up playing on four consecutive short weeks after that extended break (Wednesday, Tuesday, Monday, Sunday).

Last Week: 9-7
Overall: 111-65-1

Yankee Offseason Priorities

MLB's Winter Meetings (which, like everything else this year, are being held virtually) begin on Monday.  This is typically when the offseason really gets going and the top free agents start coming off the board.  Of course, after such a strange season and another strange one ahead in 2021, nobody knows how much movement there will actually be at this year's Winter Meetings. 

Simply put, it's a bad year to be a free agent.  Because of the financial situation a number of teams find themselves in, a lot of owners will probably be reluctant to offer big-money contracts.  Gerrit Cole and Anthony Rendon last year notwithstanding, the trend had already been moving away from big free agent splashes during the Winter Meetings.  The big names will all sign somewhere, of course.  It just might not be for the money/years they'd otherwise want or expect.  And it might not be at the Winter Meetings.

That doesn't mean there won't be any movement at the (virtual) Winter Meetings, though.  All 30 teams have their offseason priorities, and the Winter Meetings are really the first chance they'll have to improve their clubs.  You don't want to get caught waiting, either.  Because if you're holding out for Plan A and he decides to go elsewhere, you might miss out on Plans B, C and D, too.

Take the Yankees.  Their offseason priorities are probably pretty obvious.  Priority No. 1 is re-signing DJ LeMahieu.  Priority No. 2 is the starting rotation.  But Plans B, C and D are just as interesting.

Let's start with LeMahieu.  When he first signed with the Yankees in the winter of 2018, it was as an extra infielder.  He was gonna play all over the place to give the other guys a break.  Two years later, LeMahieu is the regular leadoff hitter and coming off back-to-back top 5 MVP finishes.  Simply put, he's been the most important guy on the team over the last two seasons.  And losing LeMahieu would be significant.

LeMahieu wants to stay, and I'm fairly certain he will.  But, if he doesn't the Yankees have a potential Plan B that's a very, very good one--trading for Fracisco Lindor.

Lindor is going to be a free agent after next season and unlikely to stay in Cleveland.  The Indians know this, which is why they were shopping him hard last offseason.  He's only 27, a switch-hitting leadoff guy, and a solid defensive shortstop.  Simply put, Francisco Lindor is one of the Top 10 best players in the game.  In other words, he'll command a hefty free agent contract in the winter of 2021-22.  And anytime there's a free agent who'll command a lot of money, the Yankees will be in the discussion. 

If LeMahieu leaves as a free agent, I can easily see the Yankees asking the Indians what they'd want for Lindor and Brian Cashman pulling the trigger.  They aren't giving Clint Frazier back, and there's no way Deivi Garcia is going anywhere, but there's some common ground to be found.  And you're not giving up a king's ransom unless you know you'll be able to sign Lindor to an extension.  My guess is the package would be something like Miguel Andujar, a young starting pitcher (Michael King perhaps) and a prospect.  It's also worth noting here that Francisco Lindor's best friend is Yankees third baseman Gio Urshela.

Losing LeMahieu and adding Lindor would simply be swapping one leadoff hitter for another.  And, by bringing in a switch hitter, they'd address another glaring need and add a left-handed bat to an incredibly righty-heavy lineup.  Trading for Lindor would also allow the Yankees to move Gleyber Torres back to second base.  Gleyber handled himself fine at shortstop last season, but he's better defensively at second.

Other than LeMahieu, the in-house free agent that the Yankees would most like to keep is Masahiro Tanaka.  Tanaka is one of three free agent starting pitchers the Yankees have, but he's the only one they're even remotely interesting in bringing back.  James Paxton and JA Happ will almost certainly be gone.  A Yankee rotation without Tanaka, though, takes a completely different look...and isn't nearly as good as one with him.

I also expect Tanaka to re-sign.  He's been a Yankee ever since coming over from Japan and seems to love New York.  More importantly, Tanaka lived up to the value of his contract.  No one regrets that contract, and nobody would complain if Tanaka signed another one to remain in Pinstripes.  He'll likely have other suitors, but if he wants to come back (and all indications are he does), he probably will.

Re-signing Tanaka gives the Yankees a rotation of Cole, Tanaka, Severino when he comes off the IL in July, Jordan Montgomery and Deivi Garcia, with Domingo German also coming off his suspension.  They'll probably be in the market for a veteran starter anyway, but if you take Tanaka out of that, the need for another veteran starter becomes even greater.

Is Trevor Bauer a potential Plan B?  The NL Cy Young winner is without question the best starting pitcher available, and he's made it know that his preference is to sign a short-term deal.  Do you offer him two years and see what happens?  The good thing about a short-term deal is that you can get out of it pretty quickly if things don't work out.  But if they do work out, you're in the same situation as they currently are with LeMahieu and you're doing the full-court press to keep one of your best players.

The Yankees will most likely be in on Bauer.  But so will every other team that needs a starting pitcher.  If Tanaka does go elsewhere, though, that increases the urgency to sign Bauer.  Because the alternatives aren't great.  Keeping Tanaka and adding Bauer would be ideal.  Just keeping Tanaka would be fine too.  So would adding Bauer and losing Tanaka.  But they can't afford to not sign either one.

Then there's Brett Gardner.  He's been a Yankee so long and is so beloved by the organization that he's basically free to sign a one-year contract every offseason until he decides it's time to retire.  Gardner isn't an everyday starter anymore.  And he won't be expected to be (Frazier in left, Hicks in center, Judge in right, Stanton at DH).  As a fourth outfielder, though, he's worthwhile.

Gardner also balances out all of those right-handed bats.  That's one last area that needs to be a priority for the Yankees.  They need another left-handed hitter.  A lefty first baseman to back up Luke Voit and give Stanton a break at DH every once in a while would be ideal.  Because without one, the World Series drought could easily extend to 12 seasons.

Delay Beijing

It's full steam ahead on next year's postponed Tokyo Olympics.  The organizers have released their very detailed plan, and they're even anticipating fans from all over the world traveling to Japan for the Games.  There are still concerns, but not enough for them to consider cancellation or another postponement (postponing again until 2022 was never going to happen--for a number of reasons--so I really wish people would stop acting like that was ever an actual option!).  So, we're set for the world to gather next summer in Tokyo.

However, even though the Tokyo Games are set to move forward no matter what, there's still an Olympic postponement worth considering.  I'm not talking about Tokyo.  I'm talking about the 2022 Winter Games in Beijing.  It's probably not something the IOC wants to think about, but a similar one-year postponement until February 2023 might not be a bad idea.

I know I sound like I'm contradicting myself.  Why do I think it's OK to hold an Olympics in Japan next summer but think the Games in China six months later should be delayed, especially since, if anything, the situation in the world should improve by then?  Because of logistical reasons.  That's why.  And there are plenty of logistical reasons why it makes sense to turn Beijing 2022 into Beijing 2023.

The most obvious reason is to ease some of the congestion on the Olympic calendar.  The Summer and Winter Olympics were, of course, held in the same year from 1924-92 before the Winter Games switched to their own four-year cycle in 1994.  It was a lot to ask of NOCs, broadcasters, sponsors and the IOC itself to have both Games only a few months apart.  That was primary reason for separating the years, which also meant the Winter Games would no longer have to play second fiddle.

With the Tokyo postponement, though, it's a quasi-return to those days.  The Opening Ceremony in Beijing is less than six months after the Closing Ceremony in Tokyo.  Then, after the Beijing Games end, it'll be 27 months until the Olympic flame is lit again in Paris.  Moving the Beijing Games back 12 months, however, would make the gaps almost even (18 months, then 15 months), which is a lot more reasonable.

We're obviously only in this situation because of circumstances beyond anybody's control, and everyone will do what they've gotta do to make sure both Games are run successfully, but that's a lot to ask of the people who'll be on the ground.  They'll have to turn around and immediately go from one to the other with virtually no break.  That's why the 2022 Youth Olympics have been cancelled.  Three Olympic-level events in 12 months is simply too much from an organizational (and financial) perspective.

Pushing the Beijing Games back a year would also make it so that winter athletes still have their showcase.  It's not as big of an issue now as it was 30 years ago because of social media and how much better the worldwide TV coverage of winter sports is, but the 2022 Winter Olympics will almost certainly still be overshadowed.  Especially since they're second.  All of the prep time NBC and the other broadcasters typically have to promote the Winter Olympics is gone.  They only have six months (and it's really five since they'll all have the Paralympics too).  (It's also worth noting here that NBC also has next season's Super Bowl, so that's three major events in six months.)

Now let's consider the athletes.  They're not exactly in the same situation as their summer counterparts, many of whom weren't able to compete at all in what should've been an Olympic year.  But that's not to say winter sports schedules haven't been impacted.  The winter sports season just started and there's already been a slew of cancellations/postponements in virtually every sport.  And a lot of those competitions that have gone on haven't had full fields because of travel restrictions. 

Who's to say when they'll be able to have full international fields again?  It may be like this all season.  And, since Olympic qualification in a lot of sports usually begins the year before the Games, that has a direct impact on their chances of qualifying.  Will there be enough events in the final months of 2021 and January 2022 to provide enough opportunities?

Some of those cancelled events were Olympic test events in Beijing.  Virtually all of these athletes have competed in China before, and some have even competed at the Olympic venue, but Olympic test events are important for more than just the athletes.  These test events (which are required) will now also need to be squeezed into the final months of 2021 instead of being held when the Olympics will be in February (and the weather is theoretically what you'd expect for the Olympics).

Then there are the fans.  There are already a lot of people from all over the world who were planning on going to Tokyo and no longer are.  You'd have to figure there would be a similar, maybe even greater, hesitancy to go to China in the winter--vaccine or not.  After all, this whole thing started in China.  It seems far more likely that the world will be somewhat normal again by February 2023, though.  And if that's the case, people should be less hesitant to travel and the stadiums could be full.

That's another key factor worth considering.  An Olympics with no fans wouldn't be any fun for anybody.  That's why I'm glad Tokyo thinks having even limited crowds will be possible.  Chances are Beijing will be able to have crowds in February 2022.  However, those crowds may be limited, especially for the indoor events (which just happen to be the two most popular Winter Olympic sports).  In February 2023, though, there's no reason to think they wouldn't be able to have packed houses at all events.

Finally, it would remove any uncertainty.  At this point, there's no reason to believe the Beijing Games won't be able to go ahead as planned in February 2022.  But we also thought that about the Tokyo Games as late as February.  And, again, the two Olympics being so close to each other means a lot of decisions about Beijing may be put on the back burner until after Tokyo.  By then it might be too late.

Of course, it was an extraordinary situation that led to the postponement of the 2020 Olympics until 2021.  There was no other option.  A similarly extraordinary situation occurring again seems incredibly unlikely.  But that doesn't mean a similar postponement of the 2022 Winter Games until 2023 wouldn't be a good idea.