Cancellation Not Imminent, So Stop Saying It Is!

Forgive me for sounding like a broken record, but the Tokyo Olympics have NOT been cancelled, nor are there plans for them to be!  The IOC and Japanese government have both (re)confirmed their commitment to staging the delayed Games and are moving forward as if they'll happen as (re)scheduled, albeit with a number of COVID countermeasures in place.  As they should.

While that should seem obvious, they once again had to make that position clear in response to an article in The Times of London that quoted an unnamed government official who said that the decision (about cancellation) had "already been made" but nobody wanted to be the first one to say it.  Japan was trying to find a way to bow out gracefully, it argued, while also positioning itself to host in 2032.

The IOC, Tokyo organizers and Japanese government were all quick to deny the report.  Perhaps IOC President Thomas Bach put it best: "We're in the business of holding Olympic Games, not cancelling them."  Bach also reiterated that their is no Plan B.  The IOC is, of course, monitoring the situation, but is fully confident the Olympics will begin on July 23...with or without spectators.

This, of course, all sounds similar to last year, when the IOC remained steadfast even as the inevitability of a postponement became more and more obvious.  They didn't postpone the Games until March, after the torch relay had already started and after a number of countries had already gone into full lockdowns that prevented athletes from training.  That uncertainty is something no one wants to see repeated.

That's exactly what articles like the one in The Times are creating though!  I even saw one that suggested the IOC should "do the right thing" and cancel the Games now.  How that's the right thing, I don't know.  Just like I don't know how that would actually help any of the athletes.  Sure, it would mean they can stop training for an Olympics that weren't going to happen anyway.  But it would also give them no incentive to keep training, having again taken away a goal that they've spent a lifetime chasing.  And for what?

It's also incredibly premature to make any sort of announcement about the state of the Tokyo Games.  We have no idea what things will be like six months from now!  Coronavirus cases may be getting worse in Japan now, but there's no guarantee the situation won't improve.  In fact, with vaccines developed and starting to be distributed around the world, there's no reason to think the Olympics won't take place.

And comparisons to last year don't really make much sense, either.  January 2021 is vastly different than March 2020.  Back then, we knew very little and shut everything down as a result.  As we learned more, restrictions became eased.  Now, 10 months later, we not only know significantly more about the virus, we also know what we can and can't do safely.  There are also multiple vaccines and signs that we'll be able to return to our normal lives.

Sports were among the first things that were shut down last March.  It took months for sports to come back, but they all did.  That should also be an encouraging sign.  Professional and international sports organizations all found ways to safely return to play, even while the pandemic is still raging.  Rigorous health and safety measures were put into place, and, for the most part, they worked.  There will be similar measures in Tokyo.  There's no reason to think they won't work there, too.

Obviously the biggest concern surrounding the Olympics is the sheer number of people who'd be coming into Tokyo from all over the world.  It's a legitimate one, too, especially since COVID situation is (and will continue to be) different everywhere.  And, even if no fans are allowed (and I think there will be some fans, even if it's only Japanese citizens), you're still talking about 11,000 athletes, plus thousands more coaches, officials and broadcasters, none of whom will be required to quarantine ahead of time.

Olympic participants won't be required to take the vaccine, either, although they'll all be encouraged to.  Some countries (Israel, Hungary) have already begun vaccinating their Olympians, while others (Australia) have said they will be prioritized.  As healthy adults, Olympians generally fall into the last groups that would be eligible, and the NOCs have been adamant about not wanting to jump the line.  But, it's also reasonable to think that their turn would've come up by then anyway.

More significantly, the athletes all want to go.  They know the risks.  They know the measures that they'll have to take and the sacrifices they'll have to make.  The know that these will be the "COVID Olympics" and there will be no way around it.  They don't care!  A pandemic-affected Olympics is better than no Olympics at all!

So, a preemptive cancellation wouldn't be "the right thing" to do.  Frankly, it would be the wrong thing.  Because this isn't last year.  In 2020, as postponement went from unlikely to possible to inevitable within the span of a few weeks, the athletes were left hanging.  This year, there's no such uncertainty.  Everyone's committed to forging ahead and is able to plan accordingly.  Cancellation remains a possibility, but only as a last resort.

If cancellation is the last resort, then, why rush to make that decision?  Even if the anonymous government official was correct and it is inevitable (which, it bears repeating, the IOC and Tokyo organizers have emphatically denied), who would benefit from such an announcement being made now?  IOC officials have indicated nothing needs to be decided until March.  A lot can happen between now and then.

Last year, the decision didn't come until the end of March, which, in hindsight, was probably too late.  I think that's why people want a decision to come earlier this year.  I disagree, though.  There's no need to decide anything this early.  Especially if it's only going to be bad news.  Because once a decision's made, that's it.  And the last thing anybody wants is the IOC to cancel the Tokyo Games when it turns out they could've proceeded safely after all.

Sorry Curt, You Stay

Nobody was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame on Tuesday.  Curt Schilling came the closest, finishing just 16 votes shy of the 75 percent threshold needed for induction.  Next year is the last time Schilling's name can appear on the ballot, and candidates typically get a boost in their final year of eligibility, so it's not unrealistic to think he could've gotten the necessary votes in 2022.  Now that's not just unlikely.  It's all but impossible.  Schilling has made sure of that.

Perhaps sensing the writing on the wall, Schilling wrote a lengthy letter to the Hall of Fame's Board of Directors (which he also posted on Twitter and Facebook) requesting that his name be removed from the ballot.  It was a grievance-filled, "woe-is-me" whine that accused the writers of being biased against him and basically delegitimizing the entire process.  He said he'd rather take his chances with the Today's Game Committee, stating "I'll defer to the veterans committee and men whose opinions actually matter and who are in a position to actually judge a player."

Now, you don't need me to tell you that the best way to endear yourself to someone isn't by insulting them!  And, with his letter, Schilling was basically flipping off the entire electorate!  He told the only people who control whether he gets into the Hall of Fame or not that he has no respect for them and their opinions are worthless.  If those 16 voters were on the fence, they're most likely not anymore.  Why should they should you the respect you clearly don't have for them?

Ever since the first Baseball Hall of Fame election in 1936, the honor has gone to the writers.  You need to be an active member of the Baseball Writers Association of America with 10 years of service to even be eligible to vote.  It's a privilege to have a Hall of Fame vote, and they all take that responsibility very seriously!

Schilling's incredibly outspoken on social media and has made many controversial statements.  He thinks that if his opinions were less unpopular, he'd already have been elected to the Hall of Fame.  Schilling clearly holds a grudge against the writers, who he feels are biased against him.

Except here's the problem with his argument: He still got 71 percent of the vote!  There are some writers who may disagree with his views but voted for him anyway.  Schilling has also seen his vote total go UP every year, from 38 percent in his first year (on a loaded ballot that featured nine eventual Hall of Famers, none of whom were voted in that year) to a high of 71 percent this year.  He didn't even top 50 percent until 2018, his sixth year of eligibility!

So, controversial opinions or not, there are still plenty of writers who think Curt Schilling had a Hall of Fame-worthy career, which is what they're judging.  And, let's not forget how loaded the ballots have been in recent years!  Otherwise, Schilling probably would've gotten more support a lot sooner and possibly would've been inducted already.

That's not the way he sees it, though.  Schilling is convinced that the only reason he hasn't been elected yet is because of his political views.  Which couldn't be further from the truth!  Seven out of every 10 voters still checked the box next to Schilling's name!  Those who didn't have their reasons why not.  Some of them may be turned off by his political views.  What's more likely, however, is that they think he had a very good career, just not one that they judge to be Hall of Fame worthy.

Not satisfied with that, Schilling is basically attempting to take his ball and go home.  He's trying to make a preemptive strike.  Schilling thinks he sees the writing on the wall, so he wants to make it look like it was his decision.  "I don't want your stupid Hall of Fame anyway!  So there!"

In response, Jack O'Connell, the Secretary-Treasurer of the BBWAA, wrote his own letter to the Hall of Fame asking them to reject Schilling's request.  His basic point was that it's not up to the players, or even the Hall of Fame, who's on the ballot.  And Schilling meets all of the eligibility criteria laid out by the BBWAA, so there's no reason to remove his name.

Basically, what O'Connell's saying is to let the writers decide.  They're the ones who've been entrusted with compiling a ballot and voting on those candidates.  And if the electorate deems Curt Schilling worthy of a plaque in Cooperstown, that's their prerogative.  In fact, because of how difficult it is to reach the required 75 percent threshold, getting voted in by the writers carries a special significance.

This is the process.  It's not perfect, but it works.  Yet Curt Schilling has such a problem with it that he'd rather not even participate in his last year of eligibility.  I have no idea what has made him so jaded, but I'm glad the BBWAA is pushing back.  Especially when those who get dropped from the ballot after one year consider it such an honor even to have been a candidate.  (Dan Haren, who got zero votes, also humorously tweeted that he want to be taken off next year's ballot.)

I want to see him remain on the ballot just to see what happens.  A player normally gets a jump in his final year on the ballot, so it's not unreasonable to think Schilling would've made it next year.  Not anymore.  Instead, he might be the first final-year candidate in history to see his vote total drop.  Significantly. 

And, while this is probably a non-issue, I wonder what would happen if he stays on the ballot and gets 75 percent.  Would Schilling accept an honor he clearly doesn't want?  Is that even possible? 

Frankly, it shouldn't be.  If he doesn't want to get elected the normal way, he shouldn't be elected at all.  If the Hall of Fame honors Schilling's request and takes his name off the ballot, they shouldn't put it on any future Eras Committee ballots, either.  As evidence by his letter, Curt Schilling considers himself above the writers.  Well, the writers are the gatekeepers of the Hall of Fame.  Just as they have the power to put guys in, they have the power to keep guys out.

The best way to send a message to Curt Schilling is not giving him what he wants.  Taking him off the ballot is the easy way out, for the Hall of Fame, for the writers and for Curt Schilling.  He's not getting elected to the Hall of Fame in 2022 one way or the other.  But the writers need to prove a point by leaving his name on the ballot while acting like it isn't there.  Because if Curt Schilling has proven anything with his little temper tantrum, it's that he's not a Hall of Famer.

Baseball Hall Call, 2021 Edition

Bill Madden, the longtime New York Daily News baseball columnist and longtime Hall of Fame voter, put out an article over the weekend that really intrigued me.  He said that he wouldn't mind if the writers pitched a shutout this year.  In fact, he actually admitted that he's hoping for it.  And the more I thought about it, I'd actually be OK with it too.

Madden basically made two main arguments in the article.  The first is that last year's class deserves to have the spotlight without sharing it.  Derek Jeter's gonna be the star attraction either way, but that's still a good point.  (Although, I'd argue that'll be a bigger problem in football, where everyone who got voted in last year will have to share a stage with Peyton Manning, the obvious headliner, this summer.)

His other problem was that there are some reservations about last year's top returning vote-getters, and thus the most likely to reach the 75 percent threshold.  I'm not gonna rehash the Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens debate that comes up every year at this time.  Writers are in one of two camps about Bonds and Clemens.  They either vote for both or neither one. 

Curt Schilling, meanwhile, has made many people uncomfortable with his inflammatory remarks, the latest of which was his support for the Capitol riot (which, it should be noted, took place after the ballots were due).  Schilling has even flat-out said that he thinks he'd be in already if not for his ultra-conservative views.  I have no idea whether or not that's true, but it certainly didn't endear him to any voter who might've been on the fence.

They were the top three vote-getters last year among those who didn't get in, and they're really the only ones who were close enough to make the jump this year.  You also don't have any obvious first-time candidates on this year's ballot, which increases their chances.  But it also increases the chances of this year being a shutout, especially if the voters didn't mark Bonds, Clemens or Schilling's name for whatever reason.

As for me, this is one of my favorite posts every year.  I'm a "10 vote" guy, so I'm more inclined to fill up my entire ballot, a task that has been made easier by the logjam at the top of the ballot being freed up.  Eight of my 10 "votes" from last year return to the ballot (Jeter and Larry Walker were the other two), so that leaves me two spots for new guys.  And with that, here we go...

1. Barry Bonds, Outfielder (1986-92 Pirates, 1993-2007 Giants): Hank Aaron's death over the weekend has brought a renewed focus on the Barry Bonds Hall of Fame debate.  As every tribute to Aaron recalled, he was one of the greatest class acts baseball has ever known.  Bonds, on the other hand, was not.  But, I've been a consistent "Yes" on Bonds ever since he first appeared on the ballot, and I'm not gonna stop now.  His numbers speak for themselves.  And, he wasn't breaking any rules, so he wasn't "cheating" as far as I'm concerned.

2. Roger Clemens, Pitcher (1984-96 Red Sox, 1997-98 Blue Jays, 1999-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007 Yankees): Fortunately, the Bonds-Clemens debate ends after next year.  But, just like my stance on Bonds has never wavered, neither has my stance on Clemens.  Anyone who's ever seen Roger Clemens pitch knows he's one of the greatest right-handers of his generation.  I'd argue only Greg Maddux was better.

3. Curt Schilling, Pitcher (1988-90 Orioles, 1991 Astros, 1992-2000 Phillies, 2001-03 Diamondbacks, 2004-07 Red Sox): From a strictly baseball perspective, Schilling has the numbers.  Frankly, I'm not sure how Mike Mussina is in and Schilling isn't.  Because I don't know how the voters were able to separate the two and, frankly, if I could only choose one, it would've been Schilling.  His postseason record speaks for itself.  If he gets in, it'll be this year.  But, judging by some of the comments of actual voters, I'm not totally sure that happens.

4. Andy Pettitte, Pitcher (1995-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007-10 Yankees, 2012-13 Yankees): There's absolutely no chance Andy Pettitte is going to get in.  There are probably a number of reasons for that, although I do think his percentage goes up on this less-crowded ballot.  And, if we're talking postseason dominance, that's where Pettitte shined.  Five World Series rings, eight World Series appearances, and the all-time records for postseason wins (19) and starts (44).

5. Omar Vizquel, Shortstop (1989-93 Mariners, 1994-2004 Indians, 2005-08 Giants, 2009 Rangers, 2010-11 White Sox, 2012 Blue Jays): Nobody stands to benefit from the wide-open ballot more than Omar Vizquel, who got 52.6 percent of the vote last year.  I'm not saying his vote total will increase enough for him to get in this year (that would be quite a jump), but he's moving in the right direction.  And he should.  Because, outside of Ozzie Smith, there was never a better defensive shortstop than Omar Vizquel.  His leadership can't be discounted, either.

6. Jeff Kent, Second Baseman (1992 Blue Jays, 1992-96 Mets, 1996 Indians, 1997-2002 Giants, 2003-04 Astros, 2005-08 Dodgers): While we're on the subject of players who've so far been overlooked but should now get much more serious consideration, I give you Jeff Kent.  He was overshadowed both at his position (by Roberto Alomar) and on his team (by Barry Bonds), but Jeff Kent was an unheralded superstar in the late 90s/early 2000s.  So overlooked that many baseball fans don't even realize he's the all-time leader in home runs by a second baseman (351).

7. Andruw Jones, Outfielder (1996-2007 Braves, 2008 Dodgers, 2009 Rangers, 2010 White Sox, 2011-12 Yankees): Andruw Jones could do everything!  And he did it all well for 15 years!  Two home runs in Game 1 of the World Series as a rookie; his seemingly annual Gold Glove in center field; a total of 434 homers, including 10 consecutive seasons with 20 or more.  A mainstay in the middle of a lineup for Atlanta's dynasty teams.

8. Todd Helton, First Baseman (1997-2013 Rockies): Todd Helton's probably destined for the Hall of Very Good rather than the Hall of Fame.  But you can't discount the best player in Rockies history as merely a product of Coors Field.  He hit .300 virtually every year (including .372 in 2000) and won three Gold Gloves.  Just your typical season for a first baseman who was consistently great for 15 years.

9. Billy Wagner, Pitcher (1995-2003 Astros, 2004-05 Phillies, 2006-09 Mets, 2009 Red Sox, 2010 Braves): I've finally come around on Billy Wagner.  I still don't think he's in the same league as Mariano Rivera or Trevor Hoffman.  But we all know the value of a good closer, and Wagner was one of the best.  He finished with 422 saves and had 30 or more nine times.  To be that consistent for so long in such an important role shows how valuable Billy Wagner was.  For five different teams.

10. Gary Sheffield, Outfielder (1988-91 Brewers, 1992-93 Padres, 1993-98 Marlins, 1998-2001 Dodgers, 2002-03 Braves, 2004-06 Yankees, 2007-08 Tigers, 2009 Mets): My final spot came down to Gary Sheffield or Scott Rolen.  I went with Sheffield because of his longevity and consistency.  Yes, some would argue that his performance was also "enhanced," but there was a stretch where Sheffield had 30 homers and 100 RBIs every year.  He ended up with 509 career homers.  It's also worth noting that Sheffield started off as a third baseman before becoming a solid right fielder.

Championship Sunday

We've reached Championship Sunday in the NFL.  Not only that, the four remaining teams actually are the four best teams in the league.  I can legitimately see any one of them hoisting the Lombardi Trophy in two weeks.  Which means we should get two good ones today.  Three of the four quarterbacks have both won a Super Bowl and been MVP, and at least two of them are headed to the Hall of Fame.  And the best might be the one guy who doesn't have either!

I can easily see both road teams winning.  But they'll need everything to go right for that to happen.  Meanwhile, the Chiefs and Packers earned the 1-seeds for a reason.  They don't need to play a perfect game to win.  They just need to not screw up.  Plus, they'll have a home crowd to support them.  It won't be a packed stadium.  But that'll still make a difference, especially if it's close late in the game.

Buccaneers (13-5) at Packers (14-3): Green Bay-Wouldn't it be nice to see Tom Brady finally make it to the Super Bowl after toiling for so long and always coming up short?  He deserves it, doesn't he?  I kid, of course, as a means of making fun of the people who are excited about the prospects of the Bucs in the Super Bowl so that "somebody new" can make it.  And, yes, that would technically be true.  But, regardless of what jersey he's wearing, you can't exactly categorize a guy who's reached nine of them and won six as "new blood."

As it is, it's an incredible achievement that Tampa Bay has made it this far in Brady's first season with the team.  Most people expected them to make the playoffs and become a Super Bowl contender within a year or two.  But I don't think anyone saw it all coming together in the first year.

It'll take a lot for Brady and Co. to become the first Super Bowl home team, though.  Because on the other side of the field will be a Packers team that has very few weaknesses.  Then you throw in the fact that it's gonna be a typical January Sunday in Green Bay, which is obviously a huge advantage for the Packers (Brady got used to that type of weather in New England, but it still makes a huge difference for a team based in the South). 

And, let's not forget, Aaron Rodgers is playing an NFC Championship Game at home for the first time in his career.  The Packers have been regular participants on Championship Sunday, but have lost their last three appearances since their Super Bowl run 10 years ago.  They think one of the big reasons why is because they've had to go on the road each time.  Playing at Lambeu, in Green Bay weather, in front of their (limited) fans was important to them.  Now that they finally have that opportunity, they're not gonna blow it.

Last week, Tampa Bay took advantage of a really sloppy game by the Saints, scoring most of their points off turnovers.  Sorry to make it sound so simple, but taking care of the ball really is the biggest key.  If the Packers can control the clock and hold on to the ball, the game is theirs to lose.  The weather should help in that regard, since it's much more conducive to the running game, and Green Bay's running game is much better.  The Packers also have a better defense than the Saints, so they can press the issue and force Brady to beat them.  Especially if they get an early lead.

When these two met in the regular season, Green Bay scored 10 early points before Tampa Bay scored the next 38 and won going away.  Both teams are better now than they were then.  And this one will be closer as a result.  However, I think the Packers' home field advantage will be exactly that.  The Bucs won't become the first team to play a Super Bowl in their home stadium.  Instead, Rodgers finally goes back to another, 10 years after his first.

Bills (15-3) at Chiefs (15-2): Kansas City-The last time the Bills and Chiefs met in the AFC Championship Game, Hall of Famers Jim Kelly and Joe Montana were the quarterbacks.  It's been THAT long!  Especially for the Bills, who are looking to get back to the Super Bowl for the first time since the glory days of the early 90s.

This Bills team is highly capable of joining that legendary crew.  Just look at all the different ways they've won games this season.  They had a bunch where they put up a ton of points.  They had a bunch where they won with their defense.  Two weeks ago against the Colts, it was a back-and-forth contest that they won with a defensive stop on the last play of the game.  Then last week, they held Baltimore to a grand total of three points.

Unfortunately for the Bills, who might be the second-best team playing this weekend, neither the Colts' nor Ravens' offense is remotely the caliber of Kansas City's.  Although, that's assuming the Chiefs have their entire arsenal, which is still somewhat questionable.  Patrick Mahomes will play after getting knocked out of the Divisional Playoff with a concussion, but you still have to wonder if he's 100 percent. 

If he is (or is even close), Kansas City's in really good shape.  If he isn't, they're in trouble.  Because Chad Henne's no Patrick Mahomes.  He made some big plays against Cleveland, but the Bills defense is an entirely different animal!  After all, look what they did to Philip Rivers and Lamar Jackson!  Again, I hate to make it sound so simple, but the health of Mahomes is perhaps the biggest key to the game for both teams.

Since he got cleared and is going to play, let's assume Kansas City has a full-strength Mahomes.  A full-strength Mahomes vs. a full-strength Josh Allen could easily turn this game into a shootout, regardless of how good the defenses are.  And, I'll take Patrick Mahomes in a shootout any day of the week.

Kansas City is the first team in history to host three straight AFC Championship Games (not even those 90s Bills did that).  Of course, they don't care about that.  Their goal is getting back to the Super Bowl and becoming the first team to win back-to-back Lombardi Trophies since the 2003-04 Patriots.  They'll be one game away after snagging their second straight AFC title, and setting up a Super Bowl I rematch with the Packers.

Last Week: 2-2
Playoffs: 6-4
Overall: 172-93-1

Hammerin Hank

The Atlanta Braves will be hosting the MLB All*Star Game in July.  Unfortunately, the greatest player in franchise history won't be there to get honored on the field.  Hank Aaron is, of course, best known for breaking Babe Ruth's career home run record.  But he was so much more than that.  He was one of the best damn baseball players ever!

Everybody knows that Aaron is second all-time in home runs.  He's also the all-time leader in RBIs, with 2297!  That's a lot of RBIs!  Aaron also had 3371 hits, trailing only Pete Rose and Ty Cobb.  He, Willie Mays, Alex Rodriguez and Albert Pujols are the only players in history with 3000 hits and 600 home runs.  That's it.  Four of the more than 15,000 men ever to play Major League Baseball!  

Games played?  Aaron's also third all-time there with 3298.  Runs?  Fourth with 2174.  There were two All*Star Games each year from 1959-62, so he made 25 All*Star appearances in a 23-year career.  Yes, that's an all-time record, too (it's probably safe to say that one will never be broken).  It's not surprising, then, that when Aaron was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1982, he got 97.8 percent of the vote.

What has always amazed me about Hank Aaron is how the perspective of him has changed over the years.  When Aaron was chasing Babe Ruth, he heard racist insults and received death threats.  How dare he break such a hallowed record held by such a beloved figure?! 

Thirty-three years later when it was Aaron's record that Barry Bonds was chasing, it was a complete 180.  Bonds, the "steroid-using" pariah, was going to break the beloved Aaron's record.  The same Aaron who people said the most vile things about in 1974 was suddenly the beloved figure.  Oh how the times changed!  Aaron went from the villain of the story to the hero.  

Of course, that likely had just as much to do with Barry Bonds and the generally negative view of him that fans had, but I'm still amazed by it.  There are even some out there who still view Aaron as the "legitimate" home run king.  They're entitled to that opinion, as ridiculous as it may be (Bonds is No. 1 in the record book whether you like it or not). 

For his part, Hank Aaron wasn't one of those people.  The night Bonds hit No. 756, a congratulatory message from Hank Aaron played on the stadium scoreboard soon after he crossed home plate and the celebration began.  That's the type of man Hank Aaron was.  His personal feelings on the matter were irrelevant.  The point was his record now belonged to Barry Bonds, and he deserved congratulations for his achievement.  Which is exactly what he got from the man he passed.

But it was Aaron's record-breaking homer that was one of the iconic moments in baseball history.  He entered the 1974 season with 713 home runs and tied the record in his first at-bat on Opening Day.  Four nights later, the Braves played their home opener on national TV.  Aaron gave the fans what they came to see in the fourth inning, when he deposited an Al Downing pitch into the Braves bullpen in left field...and he was joined by two of them as he rounded the bases.  (Of course, Vin Scully was on the call.  Who else would be?)

I'd argue that Hank Aaron is right up there with Jackie Robinson on the list of most influential players in baseball history.  He's also one of the first names that comes to mind when coming up with a list of greatest players ever.  His numbers back that argument up.  So does the fact that the award for the best offensive player in each league is called the "Hank Aaron Award."

Despite being best known for his 755 home runs, Aaron was much more than just a home run hitter.  He never hit more than 44 in a season, in fact (pretty ironic, huh?).  Aaron was consistent across the board, winning two batting titles and four Gold Gloves.  He earned MVP votes in 19 different years, winning the award in 1957, when he led the Braves to their only World Series title in Milwaukee.

His legacy extends far beyond baseball, though.  Aaron is revered just as much as a civil rights activist.  It was for this work just as much as his baseball career that received both the Presidential Citizens Medal (from Bill Clinton in 2001) and Presidential Medal of Freedom (from George W. Bush in 2002).

Perhaps the greatest testament to Hank Aaron's legacy is how revered he was across the board.  He had that aura about him.  He's that icon who was just as beloved by players as he was by the fans.  When Hank Aaron was at a ballpark, everyone flocked to him.  Active players showed so much reverence to a man they've only ever seen play on video.  They wanted to just be in Hank Aaron's presence.

It truly is remarkable how everything came full circle for Hank Aaron.  He began his career by playing in the Negro Leagues (Aaron was actually the last Negro League player active in the Majors).  And, while he didn't exactly suffer the same treatment as Jackie Robinson, Hank Aaron was still a Black man playing in the Deep South during the Civil Rights Era, so things couldn't have been easy for him throughout his career (especially during the winter of 1973-74).  Yet, in the end, he was one of the most beloved, revered and respected people in the game.

Simply put, there will never be another player like Hank Aaron.  He was much more than the guy who broke Babe Ruth's record on that April day nearly 50 years ago.  He was one of the greatest ambassadors the game has ever had.  And he's a man who deserved all of the love and respect he was shown, even if it took him far too long to get it.

Inaugural Addresses

When pro leagues decide to expand, we generally expect the new team to struggle for a few years.  There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, but some of the worst teams in history (1962 Mets, 1974-75 Capitals, 1976 Buccaneers) have been first-year clubs.  That's not always the case, though.  In fact, some newcomers have found immediate success during their debut seasons.

So, in honor of Joe Biden's inauguration as our 46th President, I decided to make today's post about some of the great inaugural efforts sports have seen.  And there have been plenty--both individual (Fred Lynn, 1975) and team (Vegas Golden Knights, 2017-18).  A good inaugural performance can also be attributed to an entire league (WNBA, 1997).  So, with that in mind, here are some of the best...

1950 Cleveland Browns: After dominating the AAFC for that league's entire four-year existence, the Browns proved they belonged in the NFL and then some in 1950.  They went 10-2 in the regular season and won the NFL Championship.  It was their fifth straight title overall, but their first as members of the NFL.  They'd go on to reach the NFL Championship Game in each of their first six seasons post-merger.

1995 Carolina Panthers: Carolina's inaugural NFL campaign wasn't quite as good as Cleveland's.  But, the 1950 Browns were already an established team, and the 1995 Panthers were in their first season of existence.  And that season did set the tone for what would be a run to the NFC Championship Game in their second year.  The Panthers went 7-9, still the most wins for a brand-new expansion team, and set a bunch of other still-standing records during the season.

1998 Chicago Fire: MLS began play in 1996 and DC United won the first two championships.  In 1998, the league expanded for the first time, adding the Miami Fusion and Chicago Fire.  Miami only lasted four years before being dissolved, but Chicago was successful from the start.  The Fire had the third-most points in the league and beat DC United in the MLS Cup.  They went on to add a U.S. Open Cup title, too.

2017-18 Vegas Golden Knights: They're obviously the gold standard by which all other expansion teams will be measured from here on out.  Vegas not only built a competitive team, they built a freakin' good one!  The Golden Knights won 51 games and finished first in the Pacific Division.  They ended up making it all the way to the Stanley Cup Final (where they hosted the first two games) before falling to Washington.

1967-68 St. Louis Blues: Vegas wasn't the first expansion team to reach the Stanley Cup Final, but they were the first one to do so without an asterisk.  In 1967-68, the NHL put all six expansion teams in the same division, guaranteeing one would play for the Cup.  That team ended up being the St. Louis Blues, who were predictably swept by Montreal.  Nevertheless, the Blues made the Stanley Cup Final in each of their first three years of existence.

1926-27 New York Rangers: Yes, I'm going way back here.  And, yes, it was a completely different era.  But, the 1926-27 Rangers were still the first expansion team to win their division (and the only one to do so in a division that wasn't all expansion teams until the Golden Knights).  They lost to Boston in the playoffs, but would go on to win the Cup in 1927-28.

1997 Houston Comets: The WNBA as a whole had an outstanding inaugural season in 1997!  And they're still going strong 25 years later!  I'm singling out the Houston Comets, though, because they were the best team in the league.  Houston went 18-10 and won the WNBA championship.  It turns out the WNBA immediately had a dynasty on its hands.  Because it was the first of four straight titles for the Comets.

1995-96 Colorado Avalanche: While already an established franchise, the 1995-96 Avalanche make the list because it was their first season in Denver after moving from Quebec.  They hadn't had much success as the Nordiques, but they instantly found some in their new home.  The Avalanche won the Stanley Cup and would become one of the top teams in the NHL for the better part of the next decade.

For individuals, it's tougher.  Sometimes rookies burst on the scene out of nowhere and make decent teams good or good teams great, only to never be heard from again.  Then there are the individuals who burst on the scene and leave a lasting impact on their sport.  Such as...

Rafael Nadal (2005 French Open): My frustrations about Rafa's annual French Open victory are well-known by now.  It all started in 2005, when he won the tournament the first time he ever played it.  He won again the next year.  Then again in 2007.  Then again in 2008, by which point his status as one of the two best players in the world and rivalry with Roger Federer had already been well-established.

Chris Evert (1971 US Open): In 1971, a 16-year-old Chris Evert received a wild card to play in the US Open, which would be her Grand Slam debut.  She made the semifinals.  It was the first of 34 consecutive Grand Slam semifinal appearances.  Evert would end up reaching at least the semis in 52 of 56 career Grand Slam tournaments, including 18 titles.

Venus Williams (1997 US Open): Remember how brash the Williams sisters were when they first arrived on the scene?  Venus played her first full pro season in 1997 and lost in the second round at the French Open and first round at Wimbledon.  Then came the US Open, when she blitzed through the field and became the first unseeded woman ever to make the final.  She'd make the semifinals or better in each of her first six US Opens, winning in 2000 and 2001 (having won Wimbledon both years, as well).

Bianca Andreescu (2019 US Open): Prior to 2019, Andreescu had played a grand total of one career Grand Slam match--a first-round loss at Wimbledon in 2017.  She didn't qualify for any of the four in 2018.  In 2019, Andreescu made her US Open debut...and beat Serena Williams in the final to win the tournament!  She became the first player ever to win the title in her US Open debut, which was just her fourth Grand Slam appearance.

There are plenty more examples, especially in individual sports.  So, while still unusual, it's not completely out of the question to see a newcomer go all the way (or almost all the way) on their maiden voyage.  Sometimes, it's just a flash in the pan.  Sometimes, the honeymoon period lasts much longer.  And sometimes, a great debut is just the start of something great.

New Team, Same Championship Player

Tom Brady will be playing in the 14th conference championship game of his 21-year career on Sunday.  And this might be the most impressive of the 14.  Because this time, Brady did it as a member of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.  After 20 years as the foundation of a dynasty in New England, he ventured out on his own this season, and it has culminated with (at least) an NFC Championship Game appearance.

Although, we probably shouldn't be surprised.  After all, Brady isn't the first Super Bowl-winning quarterback to change teams late in his career and find success with his new team.  The Vikings reached the NFC Championship Game in Brett Favre's first season in Minnesota, and the last time the Chiefs played the Bills in the AFC Championship Game, their quarterback was Joe Montana. 

Kurt Warner, meanwhile, took it a step further.  He came out of nowhere in 1999, winning NFL and Super Bowl MVP while leading the "Greatest Show on Turf" Rams to a title.  St. Louis went back to the Super Bowl two years later, but lost to the Bradicheck Patriots, who were just getting started.  Warner eventually made his way to Arizona, leading the Cardinals to their only Super Bowl appearance in 2008.

Then, of course, there's Brady's great rival Peyton Manning, who led the Broncos to four AFC West titles and two Super Bowls during his four seasons in Denver.  It culminated, of course, with the Broncos' Super Bowl 50 victory in the final game of Manning's career.  If Brady wins two more games, he can join Peyton as the only quarterbacks to start and win Super Bowls for two different franchises.

It's more than just quarterbacks, though.  There are plenty of examples from across all sports where a legendary, championship-winning player either led a turnaround or won another championship (or both) after switching uniforms.

The most obvious example I can think of is Patrick Roy.  Roy is one of the greatest goalies of all-time and a legend in Montreal, where he led the Canadiens to Stanley Cups in 1986 and 1993.  His relationship with the team eventually soured, though, and Roy was traded to Colorado in the middle of the 1995-96 season.  The Avalanche would go on to win the Stanley Cup, then another in 2000-01 (when they also had Ray Bourque, who won the only championship of his career).

And, as a New York Rangers fan, I can never forget the impact of Mark Messier and all the other former Oilers on that Stanley Cup-winning team in 1994.  Messier won five Stanley Cups during Edmonton's dynasty years, but was traded to the Rangers just before the start of the 1991-92 season.  He won the Hart Trophy that year, as the Rangers won the President's Trophy.  Then, two years later, he delivered a championship that was 54 years in the making.

Another New York team, the Yankees, has used free agency to great effect.  In 1976, they reached the World Series for the first time in 12 years, but were swept by the Reds.  In 1977, they signed Reggie Jackson.  He was already a superstar and a three-time World Series champion with the A's.  In New York, Reggie became "Mr. October," leading the Yankees to back-to-back titles in his first two seasons with the team (and a third World Series appearance in 1981).

In 2005, it was a pair of former Yankees who helped the Houston Astros reach the World Series for the first time.  Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens both left the Yankees and signed with Houston prior to the 2004 season.  The Astros lost to the Cardinals in the NLCS that season before beating St. Louis for the pennant the next year, when they were swept by the White Sox in the World Series.

More recently, there's Mookie Betts.  You all know how much I love Mookie Betts, which I'm free to express now that he doesn't play for Boston.  He was the AL MVP in their dominant 2018 championship season.  Last offseason, they traded him to the Dodgers, and Mookie proved to be the missing piece, as LA won its first World Series in 32 years.

That previous Dodgers championship, in 1988, featured Kirk Gibson's memorable walk-off home run in Game 1 of the World Series.  That was Gibson's first season with the Dodgers after coming over from the Tigers, where he was on the 1984 championship team.  So was Jack Morris, whose only season in Minnesota included that legendary Game 7 performance in 1991.  He then went to the Blue Jays...and won two more World Series in 1992-93.

LA's other favorite team, the Lakers, has a solid track record of winning titles with players who already had a championship resume.  First it was Wilt Chamberlain, who won a title with the 76ers in 1967, then another after his trade to the Lakers in 1972.  They made it to the NBA Finals four times in his five seasons.  The only time they didn't--1971--they lost to a Bucks team that had some guy named Lew Alcindor.

Alcindor soon changed his name to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and was traded to the Lakers in 1975.  He'd spend the next 15 years in LA, where he and Magic Johnson were the centerpieces of the "Showtime" Lakers teams that won five titles in the 80s.  And now they've got LeBron James, who came to LA after his eight-year run of NBA Finals appearances with the Heat and Cavs.  LeBron's second season with the Lakers ended with his fourth career title.

So, Brady is not unique.  He's not the first star player to change teams and find continued success.  It does speak to his greatness, though.  It speaks to all of their greatness, really.  Because they made the difference.  They turned their new teams into winners, sometimes immediately.  Just like they promised they would.

Divisional Playoff Weekend

The NFL didn't give this weekend a fun nickname.  It's just the "Divisional Playoffs."  Boring!  Hopefully the games will come through for us, though.  And, if they're anything like last week, we're in for a treat!  But that's usually the case in the Divisional Playoffs anyway.  After all, you've got the eight best teams in the league.

Included among those eight teams are the Cleveland Browns and Tampa Bay Buccaneers.  The Browns hadn't made the playoffs since 2002 or won a playoff game since 1995.  The Bucs hadn't won a playoff game since Super Bowl XXXVII.  And not only did they both win last week, they dominated!  The question is: can they earn their second straight road playoff win and a trip to the Championship Game?  Can any of the four road teams pull off the victory? 

Rams (11-6) at Packers (13-3): Green Bay-So much for that Seahawks Super Bowl pick, huh?  There were several surprising things about that game last week, the biggest of which was Seattle's complete lack of offense.  Yes, the Rams have a strong defense (which was on full display), but the level by which they dominated the Seahawks was really impressive.

Unfortunately, things will be much more difficult this week.  The Packers were the only NFC team to get last week off, but, more importantly, they're playing in Lambeau.  They made it a point to get the 1-seed because they wanted that.  It's a huge advantage for them to be playing at home, especially against a warm-weather team like the Rams.  It's not a night game, so it won't be as cold as it could be, but it's still gonna be cold!

Last week, the Rams played an almost perfect game.  They even had a mid-game quarterback switch work out.  The chances of it happening again this week are much lower, though.  The Packers had the best record in the NFC for a reason, and they've got an MVP quarterback who's desperate to finally play an NFC Championship Game at home.

Ravens (12-5) at Bills (14-3): Baltimore-One of the most amazing stats somebody posted after the Bills game last week was the fact their last playoff win came before Josh Allen was born.  Another amazing one is that Baker Mayfield is somehow the oldest of the four remaining AFC quarterbacks.  Which, frankly, doesn't matter at all.  Because this game is a matchup of last season's MVP and a guy who played like one this season.  These are also probably the two hottest teams in the league.

Buffalo was probably expecting (and maybe even hoping for) the Steelers.  Instead, it's a much tougher matchup against a Ravens team that's on a roll.  Baltimore won't be thrown off by playing a night game in Buffalo, either.  After all, this team plays road games against the Steelers, Browns and Bengals every year!

I'm expecting this to be the closest of the four games.  They're incredibly evenly-matched and incredibly similar.  They both have good defenses and dynamic offenses.  It'll really be a matter of which defense outperforms the other and creates the big plays.  And I just have a feeling that'll be the Ravens.  They've shown a knack for winning on the road in the playoffs, and I think that trend continues.

Browns (12-5) at Chiefs (14-2): Kansas City-How about those Cleveland Browns?!  All football fans outside Pittsburgh were excited just to see them finally make the playoffs.  Then they go and score four touchdowns in the first 10 minutes of the wild card game, completely shocking everybody!  It really was awesome to see (especially since they didn't have their head coach)!

Of course, this week's opponent won't hand them the game the way Pittsburgh did.  The Steelers simply weren't the same team down the stretch that they were during the first three months of the season.  The Chiefs, meanwhile, are very much the same team they've been all season.  Their Week 17 loss can be easily written off since they had nothing to play for and didn't really care.  This week, they'll very much care.

Kansas City had never hosted the AFC Championship Game prior to the 2018 season.  Now we're looking at the Chiefs hosting it three years in a row.  The Chiefs are better than the Browns.  Everybody knows this.  Cleveland knows this.  They'll need to play a perfect game, and even that might not be enough.  Patrick Mahomes and Co. want to get back to the Super Bowl, and this is the first step on the way. 

Buccaneers (12-5) at Saints (13-4): New Orleans-When these two met in Week 1, Troy Aikman said at the end of the game that he could easily see them meeting for a third time in the NFC Championship Game.  He was close.  It may not be the NFC Championship Game, but the playoff rematch was right on.  And I don't think anyone found it too surprising that Tampa Bay is here.  In fact, most people picked the Bucs last week.

As a result, we get a third installment of Brady vs. Brees this season.  It's also likely the last time they'll go head-to-head with Brees likely retiring.  So we'd better enjoy it.  It's also incredible to think about how you've got two 40-something future Hall of Famers, still at the top of their game, with one of their teams headed to the NFC Championship Game (where they could meet Aaron Rodgers, who isn't exactly a spring chicken himself).

This is the marquee game of the weekend, so it's no surprise that they set it for Sunday night.  Here's hoping that it's not like the Sunday night game they played against each other in Week 9!  If it can be a replay of Week 1, though, nobody would complain.  The Saints won both of those regular season meetings, and no team has ever beaten Brady three times in one season.  Expect that to change.  Because Tampa Bay isn't as good as New Orleans, which has already been proven twice this year.

Last Week: 4-2
Overall: 170-91-1 

Second Postponement Impossible

Enthusiasm for the rescheduled Olympics is lukewarm at best in Japan.  Recent polls have indicated that Japanese citizens, who were at one point incredibly excited about welcoming the world, have cooled.  Only a vast minority think the Olympics should go ahead as planned.  Most would rather they be postponed again or outright cancelled.

A number of prominent current and former athletes, among others, have also pushed for a second postponement.  (Today I say famed British rower Matthew Pinsent suggest that they simply push Tokyo, Paris and LA all back by four years.)  However, that's simply not going to happen.  The IOC has said as much.  If the Tokyo Olympics don't take place this summer, they won't take place at all.

There are simply too many logistical hurdles to make a second postponement work.  Frankly, it took a great deal of cooperation and coordination for the organizers to be able to pull off a one-year delay.  Trying to do that again isn't just impractical, it's unrealistic.  Which is why the IOC and Tokyo Olympic organizers have flat out rejected any suggestion they delay a second time.

Let's look at just some of the logistical issues that would come into play, starting with the most obvious--money.  The one-year postponement has already added billions to the Olympic budget.  Now add another year to that.  They'd have to pay staff salaries for another year and go another year without the income from their sponsors.  Broadcasters would likely have to be repaid, as well.  International federations, meanwhile, wouldn't get their cut of the Olympic revenues that they need to fund their own operations.

Sponsorship agreements are a completely separate issue.  A lot of Tokyo's contracts expired at the end of 2020.  They were able to renew them for an additional year, but they'd need to ask to extend them by another year again.  IOC sponsors, meanwhile, run on a four-year cycle starting the year after the Summer Games.  So, all IOC partnerships have already had their cycle thrown off.  And pushing Tokyo to the summer of 2022 would mean that the next Olympics are the 2022 Winter Games in Beijing, when different sponsors will be on board.

Same thing with broadcasters.  Most of the IOC's revenue comes from the worldwide broadcast rights.  The broadcasters, obviously, are heavily invested in the Olympics and dedicate hours of programming to their coverage over the 17 days.  Not having the Olympics means either not getting that broadcast revenue or having to give the networks a make-do.  Either way, they don't get broadcast fees for a Summer Olympics (the more valuable property).  Whether it's now or later doesn't really matter.  It would cost them billions regardless.

Then there's the facilities.  That was the single biggest issue related with the one-year postponement.  Every venue being used at the Olympics has a designated post-Games use.  The Olympic Village is supposed to be turned into apartments.  People were already supposed to be living in those apartments.  That's just one example.  But similar problems exist with other venues.  Will they be available in the summer of 2022?  Can you put off their post-Games use another year?

Now, how about the international federations?  I already mentioned how a number of them are in financial trouble because they base their budgets on funds that they receive from the IOC.  The IOC has advanced some of those payments, but there needs to be an Olympics for them to receive their full share.  Otherwise, it'll take those federations a long time climbing out of that hole.

Beyond that, though, the international federations were incredibly accommodating to make an Olympic postponement work.  All World Championships that were originally scheduled for 2021 were moved to 2022.  They can't readjust their calendars again.  Especially since they've already condensed their four-year between Olympics schedule into three years.  And, let's not forget, each sport's federation needs to hold its own events, too, since they also need to recoup some of their losses after losing most, if not all, of their revenue streams in 2020.

Finally, there are the athletes.  They can't continually be left in limbo.  That was the difficult situation they were in last February and March, when there were lockdowns all around the world but the Games were still on and they had to try and find a way to keep training.  The postponement eased that burden a little, and they were all able to refocus for this summer.  These are world-class, elite-level athletes who build training schedules specifically with the Olympics in mind.  You can't ask them to do that again.

So, as you can see, another delay simply wouldn't work.  It might sound simple.  In reality, though, it's anything but.  It took a lot to turn Tokyo 2020 into Tokyo 2021.  Doing it again and turning the Games into Tokyo 2022 is all but impossible, for the reasons I mentioned and many others.  Which is why the Tokyo organizers and IOC are doing everything they can to make sure the Olympics begin as (re)scheduled in July.

All of the uncertainty about whether that can be accomplished is real, and the questions are all legitimate.  But, for their part, the IOC and the Tokyo organizers are doing everything they can to navigate those unknowns.  Things could be the same in the summer.  Or they could be worse.  Or we could be on our way back to normal.  We just don't know!  After all, at this time last year, we had no idea that the world would be entirely shut down two months later!

They'll make a decision about fans at the end of March, right around when the torch relay is set to resume.  Fans would obviously be better, even if it's reduced capacity.  Will they allow spectators from all over the world?  Or just Japan?  If they let outsiders in, will they need to quarantine?  Will athletes?  Will proof of a vaccine (or, at the very least, a negative test) be required to enter the country?

Likewise, they've adopted a number of safety measures that are guaranteed to make these Olympics unique (which they already will be).  Masks and social distancing will likely be required, and athletes will have strict rules about where they're allowed to go and when.  They're even being told when they can enter the Village and when they have to leave (although, all athletes should be allowed to participate in either the Opening or Closing Ceremony, so I hope they at least make it so that can happen).

Even with all of those precautions in place, we still don't know if the Tokyo Olympics will be able to go ahead.  There's growing skepticism, especially with Tokyo back under a state of emergency, but the plan is still to hold the Olympics as scheduled, albeit one year later.  And there's no reason to believe that the IOC won't be able to find a way to put them on.

Simply put, the Tokyo Olympics can't be postponed a second time.  It would be great if we could say for a fact that they'll definitely happen, but we unfortunately can't.  Those doubts are real, and we won't have those answers for a while.  What we do know, though, is that if the Tokyo Olympics don't open on July 23, they won't open at all.

Back On the Ice

After wrapping up the longest season in history with the incredibly successful playoff bubbles in August and September, the NHL is back for its 2020-less 2020-21 season.  And to say things will look different would be an understatement.  A 56-game schedule.  An all-Canadian division.  No games outside your division until the conference finals.  Two- and even three-game series between opponents.  It'll all take some getting used to, but the important thing is the NHL is back.

And, I've gotta say, I really like some of the things that the NHL did for this season.  Nobody has any idea when the border's gonna be open again, so grouping all of the Canadian teams together, while done out of necessity, makes complete sense.  It's also a tremendous opportunity for all seven of those teams, since one of them is guaranteed a berth in the "conference finals."

I also like that the "conference finals" will be based on regular season record.  When the details started leaking out and it seemed like the temporary realignment was pretty much a certainty, I was curious how they'd figure that out.  But, seeing as there will probably be some upsets in the first two rounds, seeding the remaining teams 1-4 makes complete sense, even if that'll mean we could end up with an East vs. East or West vs. West Stanley Cup Final.  It's not the ideal solution, but it was probably the best thing they could come up with.

Of course, this season's format will benefit some teams more than others.  The East Division will be a beast.  You're taking four really strong teams from the Metropolitan Division (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington, Islanders) and adding Boston.  At least one of the five won't make the playoffs.  Meanwhile, there are plenty of points to be had in the North Division, where they'll all play Ottawa at least nine times, and in the West, where the three California teams will make up 37.5 percent of the schedule.

While the schedule was set up to reduce travel, some teams got the short end of that stick, too.  Vancouver drew perhaps the worst draw of anybody, exchanging all of their other games on the West Coast for trips to Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto.  The Blues and Wild will get to make those West Coast trips instead, significantly increasing their travel load.  And, of course, the Sharks aren't allowed to play at home right now, so they're following the 49ers' lead and setting up camp in Phoenix for the time being.

Regardless of how strange it'll all seem, though, teams will at least be playing hockey in their own arenas.  Hopefully they'll be doing so in front of fans by the time the season is over.  And, since they'll all only be facing teams they're familiar with and, for the most part, don't particularly like, you know it's gonna be intense from the get-go.  With only 56 games, there's less margin for error too.

EAST: The East Division is the most competitive of the four.  I'd probably be saying that about the Metropolitan Division, which was only made that much stronger by swapping Columbus for Boston.  It's so strong that the Rangers, who would otherwise be a sleeper pick to make the playoffs, will have absolutely no chance of finishing in the top four.  And the Devils and Sabres may be better, but they're nowhere near good enough to make the playoffs in this loaded division.

So which of the other five won't make it?  Well, that'll really depend on who gets off to the best start.  Because it'll be hard to make up ground if you fall into an early hole.  And, after what happened against Montreal in the playoffs, I'd say Pittsburgh's the one that's gotta be worried.  So, I'll say the Penguins don't make it.  Boston, Philadelphia, Washington and the Islanders make the playoffs.

CENTRAL: Let's start with the defending champion Lightning.  A repeat won't come easy, and not just because they've only had 15 weeks off since their Game 6 victory.  Speaking of Tampa Bay's Cup-clinching victory, they'll have the fun of sharing a division with the team they defeated (sidebar: why is Dallas in the Central and St. Louis in the West instead of vice versa?).  Although, the Stars will have some challenges to overcome early on thanks to all of their COVID troubles.  Dallas is still probably good enough to make the playoffs, though.

Nashville and Carolina are my other two playoff picks out of the Central.  The Predators have continually proved to be a very good regular season team.  The Hurricanes, meanwhile, have shown how formidable they are through back-to-back playoff runs.  Chicago and Columbus will keep those two honest, but need a 24-team playoff field.  Detroit and Florida need a 31-team field.

NORTH: This is perhaps Toronto's best chance to finally end all those years of playoff disappointment.  All the Leafs need to do is be the best Canadian team.  And there's no reason why they shouldn't be.  They've got tons of talent, and they should be the favorites in this division.  If anyone's gonna challenge them for the top spot, it might be Edmonton, although I wouldn't sleep on Winnipeg, either.

That leaves Montreal and Calgary fighting for the final playoff berth.  On paper, the Flames are probably a little stronger.  But the Canadiens have Carey Price.  And, frankly, Montreal is an up-and-coming potential powerhouse.  They could really surprise.  Because of that, I'm giving Montreal the final playoff berth in the North Division.  As for the Canucks and Senators, all of the travel will take its toll on Vancouver, and Ottawa is one of the weakest teams in the entire league.

WEST: It really bothers me that St. Louis is in the West, even though Dallas is further west.  Anyway, outside of the unnecessary extra travel, the Blues are better off competitively in this division.  St. Louis and Vegas should capture the top two places, although I'll give the Golden Knights the edge for the No. 1 seed.  I haven't mentioned it, but goalie depth is gonna be huge this season with all the back-to-backs.  So, Vegas not being able to resolve the whole Lehner-Fleury situation actually ended up working out in their favor.

For the past few seasons, Colorado has alternated one good year, one bad year.  Well, last year was a good one.  Does that mean this year will be bad?  I hope not!  Because I love those Nordiques jerseys in Avalanche colors!  Minnesota is better than Arizona and the three California teams, so I'll give them the nod for the fourth playoff spot.  The Ducks and Sharks will both be better, but San Jose's lack of a home will be a problem early on.  If they're still in the race once they start being able to play home games, though, look out!

My playoff matchups are Bruins-Islanders and Flyers-Capitals in the East, Tampa Bay-Carolina and Dallas-Nashville in the Central, Toronto-Montreal and Edmonton-Winnipeg in the North, and Vegas-Minnesota and St. Louis-Colorado out West.  I'll take Boston vs. Philadelphia, Tampa Bay vs. Nashville, Toronto vs. Edmonton and Vegas vs. Colorado as the division finals.

Once we hit the "conference finals," they'll finally see teams from outside their division.  How they're determining which series gets which trophy, I have no idea, but I'm sure they'll figure it out.  Anyway, I've got Boston over Toronto in one series and Vegas over Tampa Bay in the other.  And, following in the Lightning's footsteps, the Bruins will follow up a President's Trophy season by winning the Cup the next year.

Super Wild Card Weekend

"Super Wild Card Weekend."  It really is a great name that the NFL came up with for the new, expanded playoff format.  Beyond the supersizedness of back-to-back tripleheaders, though, this weekend is super for some other reasons.  The Buffalo Bills are playing a playoff home game for the first time in 25 years...and the Bills Mafia will be there!  The Cleveland Browns are back in the playoffs!  So are the Tampa Bay Bucs!  It's great to finally see some different teams in there alongside some of the usual suspects (Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Seattle, Baltimore).  It's also great to finally have a playoffs that won't include the Patriots!

I'm interested to see how much of an impact the new format will have, too.  Especially on the 2-seeds.  We've obviously seen plenty of teams that played on Wild Card Weekend reach and even win the Super Bowl, but only the No. 1 seeds getting a bye could have a huge impact.  Although, that could have more to do with the fact that the NFC Championship Game would be in Green Bay than the Packers being the only team with a week off.

That's not until next week, obviously.  And, frankly, I have a very hard time seeing anybody in the AFC beating Kansas City.  The Bills aren't as good as the Chiefs and the Steelers are a shell of what they were early in the season.  The Baltimore-Tennessee winner could make it a game next week, but that's really about it.  So, my pick in the AFC is the defending champions.

Green Bay, on the other hand, I can actually see getting a challenge.  I'd like the Saints so much more if they had home field, but I don't see them going into Lambeau and winning.  The Seahawks, however, that one's definitely possible.  In fact, I'm gonna go there.  Seattle will beat the Rams, win in New Orleans next week, then beat the Packers in Lambeau to set up a Super Bowl LV matchup against the Chiefs, where Kansas City will become the first team in nearly 20 years to repeat.

Colts (11-5) at Bills (13-3): Buffalo-It seems a little anticlimactic to unveil my Super Bowl pick before I break down the wild card games, but what are you gonna do?  Game No. 1 of Super Wild Card Weekend is in Buffalo.  The Bills' last home playoff game was Jim Kelly's final game in the NFL.  It was that long ago!  Of course, it's been even longer since their last playoff win, which was in 1995.

Frankly, the Bills' outstanding regular season means very little if they don't get their first playoff victory in 25 years.  They know it, too.  Fortunately, this team is a lot better than the one that blew it against Houston last year.  And you know they're fired up to be playing at home, too!  Great job by the Colts to get in.  If this was last season, they'd be the rare 11-5 team that missed the playoffs.  Getting in was their reward, though.  Because the Bills won't let themselves lose.

Rams (10-6) at Seahawks (12-4): Seattle-They played just two weeks ago, with the Seahawks beating the Rams to clinch the division.  The Rams then took care of business against Arizona to earn a return trip to Seattle.  That was probably the best-case scenario for them, too.  Not only are they familiar with the Seahawks, they didn't have to leave the West Coast!  Both teams play in the Pacific time zone, so that takes away one of the advantages Seattle would've had.  Seattle's other big advantage that's gone, of course, is the crowd.  Which, in the playoffs especially, could be significant.

When these two met two weeks ago, Jared Goff hurt his finger, which was a big factor in the Seattle win.  He'll supposedly be back, but you have to wonder how limited he'll be.  Frankly, I don't think it matters whether or not Goff plays and whether or not he's effective.  Because the Seahawks are on a roll!  They've won four straight since that little blip against the Giants.  The fact that they just beat the Rams helps, too.  Seattle moves into the Divisional Playoffs once again.

Buccaneers (11-5) at Washington (7-9): Tampa Bay-Tom Brady 1, Bill Belichick 0.  You know it's gotta feel good for him to be in a familiar January setting while his old team went 7-9 in their first season without him.  Of course, Tampa Bay's opponent this week also went 7-9 this season, as Washington is the first sub-.500 division winner since the Panthers in 2014.  A Panthers team that was, incidentally, coached by Ron Rivera.  And, let's not forget, Carolina beat Arizona in its wild card game that season.

 As we've seen on numerous occasions this season, Washington is better than it's record.  They're very formidable, in fact.  Tampa Bay is the strongest wild card team in either conference and is being talked about as a possible sleeper Super Bowl team, plus they have Brady, but this won't be a Bucs rout.  Especially since Tampa Bay is a different team on the road.  I'll still give them the nod, but this game will be much closer than the teams' records might otherwise indicate.

Ravens (11-5) at Titans (11-5): Baltimore-Last season, the Titans went into Baltimore and knocked off the top-seeded Ravens.  So, of course, they meet again the following year!  You know the Ravens remember and would love to return the favor.  This time the game is in Nashville, however.  Will that make a difference?

On paper, this is the best game of the six.  The Titans will use the same strategy that carried them to the AFC Championship Game last season.  Hand the ball to Derrick Henry and let him run.  It's not a bad plan, seeing as he rushed for over 2,000 yards.  What the Ravens need is Lamar Jackson to play significantly better than he did in last season's playoff matchup with the Titans.  If they get a good performance from their quarterback and the defense can handle Henry, Baltimore can come away with the victory.

Bears (8-8) at Saints (12-4): New Orleans-Drew Brees has indicated that he'll retire after the season, so, if that's true, this could be one of the final games in his Hall of Fame career.  And you know that'll give the Saints plenty of extra motivation to send him out with a title, which is something they're completely capable of.  Especially if that offense does what we know it can do.

There isn't much to say about the Bears.  I'll give credit where it's due.  They got hot down the stretch and took advantage of the extra wild card to earn the seventh and last spot.  But they're the worst of the 14 teams.  I'd even argue that Washington is better.  They have a solid defense and suddenly became this offensive force out of nowhere.  But they're no match for the Saints.

Browns (11-5) at Steelers (12-4): Pittsburgh-Fun fact: this is the third consecutive Browns playoff game in Pittsburgh.  They finally return to the postseason after 18 years, only to draw their hated archrivals, who they just faced last week.  The Browns, of course, won that game to clinch their wild card, but very little can be taken from that contest.  Pittsburgh was resting key players for this week, and a bunch of starters didn't even travel!

Cleveland's return to the playoffs is one of the feel-good stories of this season.  Unfortunately, they had a COVID outbreak at the most inopportune time.  They weren't able to practice all week, and their head coach won't be available.  They did get lucky in one regard.  This is the Sunday night game, so they get a little extra time to prepare.  I'm not sure it'll matter, though.  For all their struggles over the final month of the season, Pittsburgh is still the better team.  It'll be close, but the Steelers should be able to win.

Last Week: 13-3
Overall: 166-89-1 

Two Teams Making Moves

It's been a quiet MLB offseason so far.  That's not entirely surprising.  Owners have significantly less money to spend after last season, and they don't know when (or if) fans will be allowed to attend games this year.  They also have no idea if this season will even start on time!  Combine that with the fact that the last few winters have been pretty slow in terms of player movement anyway, and it shouldn't be a shock that a number of big name free agents are still available.

That's not to say it's been entirely quiet, though.  Two teams in particular have been incredibly active.  And they've both improved themselves to the point that you can seriously see either (or both) challenging the Dodgers for the NL pennant in 2021.  LA is still the best team in the National League.  But their hold on that claim isn't as secure as it once was.

The Dodgers may even have some competition in the NL West for the first time in years.  That's because the San Diego Padres just got a whole lot better.  After ending their playoff drought last season, the Padres are going all in for 2021.

San Diego's been incredibly active in free agency over the past few offseasons, getting Eric Hosmer and Manny Machado in back-to-back winters.  Throw in superstar-in-the-making Fernando Tatis, Jr., as well as Wil Myers and Rookie of the Year finalist Jake Cronenworth, and the Padres have as good a lineup as any team in the National League.  But they knew that to compete with the Dodgers, they needed pitching.  Specifically starting pitching.  So they took care of that little problem.

In a move that really came out of nowhere, the Padres acquired former AL Cy Young winner Blake Snell from the Rays (a team they make a lot of trades with).  Then they shocked everybody by completing a trade for Cubs ace Yu Darvish, with his personal catcher Victor Caratini thrown in.  And, don't forget, they got Mike Clevinger at the trade deadline in mid-September.  Clevinger is out for at least the first part of the 2021 season, but that's 60 percent of the rotation...all of whom are better than what the Padres already had.

Dinelson Lamet was solid last season as the Padres' No. 2 starter behind Zach Davies (who was sent to the Cubs in the Darvish trade).  Now he's No. 4.  Which also moves Chris Paddack, who should be a back-of-the-rotation guy, to No. 5.  And their top prospect, Mackenzie Gore, is a left-handed starter who could be a regular in the rotation soon enough.  Suddenly, San Diego has too many starting pitchers.  That's a formidable quintet, even if the Dodgers' rotation of Buehler, Kershaw, Price, Gonsolin and May is slightly better.

If that wasn't enough, they also signed Ha-seong Kim, a Korean infielder who's making the jump to America this season.  Not sure what the plan is with Cronenworth since they both play second (a platoon seems most likely), but the point is, San Diego will be just as loaded again in 2021.  If not more so.  And they may not be done yet.

Neither are the New York Mets.  When Steve Cohen bought the team a few months ago, he made it clear that things were going to be different.  They play in a major market and they're gonna start acting like it.  The Mets are going to be active and aggressive.

With that in mind, it's not surprising that the Mets have been attached to nearly every big-name free agent still available.  From J.T. Realmuto to DJ LeMahieu, George Springer to Trevor Bauer, all of their names have been mentioned as potentially signing with the Mets.  While it's still possible that they'll sign one or more of them, too, none of that will compare to the blockbuster trade they pulled off on Thursday.

Francisco Lindor had been rumored to be on his way out of Cleveland for more than a year.  He'll be a free agent after 2021, and it was pretty obvious the Indians weren't gonna be able to afford to keep him.  They tried to trade him last offseason, but ended up keeping him.  Cleveland became even more intent on trading Lindor this offseason, though, preferring to get something for him in a trade instead of just watching him leave as a free agent.

Enter the Mets.  They had the money and the situation to offer Lindor, and they pulled the trigger, sending four players to Cleveland for Lindor and Carlos Carrasco.  And with that, the best shortstop in baseball is headed to Queens along with a quality veteran starter (keeping with the Mets' philosophy of you can never have too much starting pitching).

This trade is awfully similar to the one that was pulled off last year, when the Red Sox shipped pending free agent Mookie Betts to the Dodgers along with David Price.  Betts proved to be the missing piece, as the Dodgers won the World Series for the first time in 32 years.  And he signed a 12-year extension to stay in LA long-term.  While an extension wasn't part of the trade agreement, I would imagine Lindor wouldn't have gone to a team he didn't plan on signing with (or at least talking to).

Only two months after buying the team, Cohen showed Mets fans that he was serious when he said they're gonna be making moves.  They pulled off a blockbuster trade and got a perennial All-Star, and they still have plenty of money to add at least one high-priced free agent.  And I haven't even mentioned yet that they already had Pete Alonso and Jacob deGrom.

Even in a loaded NL East, the Mets are right up there.  Atlanta's still probably the division favorites.  At least right now.  But that could easily change if the Mets add a Springer or a Bauer or a Realmuto.  At the very least, they're the second-best team in the division.  And they're gonna be in the conversation for a long time.  Just like Cohen promised.

Of course, it's not like either team was "bad" before this.  San Diego made the playoffs for the first time in 13 years last season, and I think that would've been true even if the season had been its normal length.  The Mets had a Mets-like season.  But nobody has ever doubted the amount of talent there is in Queens, and everyone knows what that team is capable of if everything comes together.

Don't get me wrong.  The Braves and Dodgers are still the teams to beat in the NL East and West, respectively.  But the New York Mets and San Diego Padres will make life incredibly difficult for them in 2021 and beyond.  Watch out for the Mets and Padres!  Because neither one is going anywhere anytime soon!

A Lot To Look Forward To

Now that the "fun" of 2020 is behind us, it's time to look ahead to the jam-packed schedule of sporting events ahead of us in 2021.  In fact, the next several years will be loaded with high-level events, as everyone looks to get back on schedule after all of last year's postponements.  Of course, this is all still subject to change depending on how much longer this all lasts, but I'm choosing to be optimistic and think everything will be able to happen as scheduled.

Last year being completely wiped off the sporting calendar had some effect, but it was really the Olympic postponement that set all the wheels in motion.  Most Olympic sports hold their World Championships in odd years, so all of those had to be moved, creating a situation where those sports will have Worlds in back-to-back years.  In fact, we'll see a global championship five years in a row in a majority of them!

Track & field and swimming are the most obvious examples of this.  The 2021 World Championships were rescheduled for 2022, with everything getting back on schedule in 2023.  So, they'll have an Olympics in 2021, followed by World Championships in 2022 and 2023, then the Paris Olympics in 2024 and another World Championships in 2025.  Five straight years with elite-level international competition.  Same thing with beach volleyball, another marquee Summer Olympic sport.

That's huge for the growth of these Olympic sports, especially heading into the 2028 Games in LA.  It'll really give the athletes a chance to become household names.  Instead of fading into the typical post-Olympic obscurity, known only to the die-hards, they'll have an opportunity to be center stage each summer from now until 2025.

Ordinarily, the World Championships are the only major competition of the year for FINA and World Athletics.  However, that won't be the case in 2022, when they'll be held in the same year as the smaller, secondary global meet (the World Indoor Championships for track & field and World Short Course Championships for swimming).

In fact, the 2020 World Indoor Championships in Nanjing, China, which were originally postponed a year, have been pushed all the way back to 2023.  So, for track & field, it'll go: 2021-Olympics, 2022-World Indoors & Outdoors, 2023-World Indoors & Outdoors, 2024-World Indoors & Olympics, 2025-World Outdoors.  For swimming, it's Olympics & Short Course in 2021, Worlds & Short Course in 2022, Worlds in 2023, Olympics & Short Course in 2024.

None of this even includes the 2022 Commonwealth Games or biennial European Championships.  Or the Pan Am Games, Asian Games and European Games.  So, needless to say, these athletes will have plenty of international opportunities in the coming years after 2020 was completely wiped out.

It's not just Olympic sports and their World Championships, either.  With Euro 2020 pushed back a year, FIFA will now also have a major tournament four years in a row.  The Euro and Copa America are just 18 months before the 2022 World Cup, with the 2023 Women's World Cup following six months after that.  Then, it's the next Copa America and Euro in 2024 before international soccer finally takes a summer off in 2025.

There will be a World Baseball Classic at some point, too.  It was originally supposed to be played this March, but has been delayed for obvious reasons.  MLB and the MLBPA still aren't sure when it'll happen, although 2023 is the rumored date.  With baseball back on the Olympic program in Tokyo, but not in Paris, the 2023 date would actually make a lot of sense.  I'd even argue that they could then hold the next one after that in 2026 (the 20th anniversary of the first) as a prelude to the 2028 Olympic tournament at Dodger Stadium (I'm assuming baseball will be back on the program then).

Throw in the 2022 Winter Olympics and you've really got a crowded international sporting calendar!  Although, I have a feeling the 2022 Olympics will get overshadowed simply by all the madness that'll be going on at home.  It's already going to be the first time the Winter Olympic Opening Ceremony happens before the Super Bowl.  Now, with the NFL planning to add a 17th game to the schedule next season, that'll move the Super Bowl back a week...which moves it from the first weekend of the Olympics to the middle of the Olympics!

And let's not forget how screwed up the domestic schedules still are after everything got so out of whack in 2020!  After their playoff bubbles, the NBA and NHL seasons will extend into the summer again.  The only reason European soccer won't is because they want to be done in time for the Euro.  So, that's a lot of stuff to cram into the first few months of 2021, all so they can get back on schedule for the 2021-22 season.

Of course, we can't forget the reason for all this: our dear, departed friend 2020.  Had last year been anything close to normal, this year would still feature Olympic sport World Championships, but the summer of 2022 would be exceptionally quiet (especially with the World Cup not taking place until November).  Instead, every summer will be busy.  (Let's not forget where the 2026 World Cup is, either.)

So, perhaps there's a silver lining to the mess that was last year.  We all had to endure something miserable.  Something miserable that still isn't over.  Something miserable that screwed up all of our lives in so many ways, and we'll hopefully never experience anything remotely close ever again. 

But there's a light at the end of the tunnel, and a massive reward waiting for the world in Tokyo.  That's just the start, too.  After an entire year off, it's gonna be sports overload.  And, frankly, we all deserve it.

NFL 2020ne, Week 17

I don't know if it's the extra wild card in each conference or the 2020 of it all, but the number of relevant games in Week 17 of the NFL season is ridiculous!  What's also ridiculous is the fact that, despite everything everyone had to endure this season, they've made it to Game 256 on schedule.  Not many people thought they would, and it's notable that they did.

But back to Week 17 and how relevant it is.  There are five AFC teams that are currently 10-5.  Only four of them will make the playoffs.  Meanwhile, the NFC East winner will either be 7-9 or 6-10 and host a playoff game next week.  Of the 16 games, only five are completely irrelevant...and two of those involve playoff teams!  So, yeah, it's gonna be crazy!

Dolphins (10-5) at Bills (12-3): Buffalo-The Buffalo Bills are a team on a mission.  They sent a message against the Steelers, and they sent another one against the Patriots.  And they want the 2-seed.  So, there will be no resting starters or anything like that against the archrival Dolphins...especially since they have a chance to knock Miami out if they win.  The Bills always love it when the Dolphins' visit to Buffalo isn't until the end of the season, too.  All of that adds up to a 13-3 record, a 2-seed, and (potentially) two home playoff games.

Ravens (10-5) at Bengals (4-10-1): Baltimore-None of the AFC wild card contenders is playing better football at the moment than the Ravens.  They've won four straight since that Thanksgiving/Wednesday fun and will be the wild card team that the Chiefs, Bills and Steelers most want to avoid in the playoffs.  Cincinnati, of course, is also ending the season on a high, having notched back-to-back wins, including a victory over the Steelers.  A Ravens team with a chance to clinch may be too much for them, though.

Steelers (12-3) at Browns (10-5): Cleveland-Hopefully fate and 2020 haven't been playing a cruel trick on the Cleveland Browns this whole time!  For weeks, their playoff berth has looked secure and we've been talking about them finally ending their 18-year drought.  Then all of their wide receivers go on the COVID list, they lose to the Jets, and they suddenly find themselves needing to beat Pittsburgh or hope one of the South teams loses.  Otherwise, they're out.  Fortunately, the Steelers seem to care more about making sure everybody's healthy for next week than trying to get the 2-seed and the second home game.  As a result, I think the Browns will, indeed, end their playoff drought.

Titans (10-5) at Texans (4-11): Tennessee-As if trying to clinch the division in Green Bay wasn't already going to be hard enough, the Titans also had to deal with snow last Sunday night!  They had very little chance against the Packers, and Green Bay made sure they knew it.  Fortunately, they hold the tiebreaker and have another shot to clinch the AFC South in Houston.  A loss, meanwhile, could knock them out entirely.  Sounds like plenty of motivation to take of business against a Texans team that's ready for the season to be done.

Jaguars (1-14) at Colts (10-5): Indianapolis-Jacksonville's win came against Indianapolis in Week 1.  And it's why the Colts are the team on the outside looking in right now.  If all five 10-5 teams do the same thing this week (win or lose), it's Indy who'll be out.  All because of a Week 1 loss to Jacksonville.  If they lose to the Jaguars again, there's no chance they make the playoffs.  The only think they can control is making sure they don't bookend the season with losses to the Jaguars.  They won't.

Chargers (6-9) at Chiefs (14-1): Chargers-Kansas City clinched the NFL's best record last week and has absolutely nothing to play for.  Which leaves me wondering how much we'll see of the Chiefs' starters against the Chargers.  I'd imagine they'll play some, but certainly not the whole game.  Frankly, 15-1 isn't and shouldn't be that important.  I've also been saying all season that they had too many close calls to go 15-1.  Getting back to the Super Bowl matters far more, anyway.  Besides, it's not like 14-2 is anything to sneeze at.

Jets (2-13) at Patriots (6-9): New England-First, they played a game where they were eliminated from playoff contention.  Now, they'll play one knowing they'll finish the season below .500.  My how things have changed in New England!  Somebody might need to check on Patriots fans to make sure they're OK!  As for their opponents, leave it to the Jets to start the season 0-13, then go on a two-game winning streak (with both of those wins potentially knocking the other team out of the playoffs).  Jets fans can take solace in the fact this will be Adam Gase's last game as their head coach.

Raiders (7-8) at Broncos (5-10): Denver-Who knows with this one?  The Raiders have looked like a playoff team at times, and there's also been times where looked like a team that had no business being in the playoff race as long as they were.  Obviously going for the field goal instead of the touchdown last week didn't quite work out.  As a result, all they've got to play for in the season finale is a .500 finish.  Will they care enough about that, though?  My guess is no.

Cardinals (8-7) at Rams (9-6): Arizona-That loss to their stadium-mates really hurt the Cardinals bad.  Perhaps more than they even realized.  The Bears hold the tiebreaker, so Arizona needs to win to get in.  And if Chicago beats Green Bay, the loser of this game, remarkably, is out!  This after just assuming pretty much all season that the wild card teams would be Tampa Bay and the two that didn't win the West.  I'm picking Arizona here not because I think they're better than the Rams (I don't) or because I'd rather see them in the playoffs than the Rams (I don't).  It's because that's the only way they both make it...and they both deserve to!

Packers (12-3) at Bears (8-7): Green Bay-Aaron Rodgers has never played an NFC Championship Game at home!  I was shocked when Cris Collinsworth mentioned that last week!  Of course, that's not the only reason why home field is huge for the Packers, but it's perhaps the biggest one.  They've lost their last three NFC Championship Game appearances, so just getting there won't be enough.  And they'll want to make sure that if they get back again, it'll be in Lambeau.  Having the only bye will just be a bonus.  So will the chance to knock the Bears out!

Seahawks (11-4) vs 49ers (6-9): Seattle-Even though the No. 2 seed no longer has a bye attached to it, you'd have to figure the Seahawks still want it.  Sure, some of their home field advantage is lost with no fans in the stands, but they'd still much rather make the Saints (or whoever) fly to the West Coast and play outdoors in Seattle in January.  The 1-seed is still in play, too, so you know they'll be keeping tabs on the Packer game.  Either way, they'll bring their A-game to Arizona.

Saints (11-4) at Panthers (5-10): New Orleans-For the Saints to get the NFC bye, they need it to be a three-way tie at 12-4.  It's a long shot, but it's doable.  At least, it was doable when they had their running backs.  Now I'm not so sure.  Especially since the Panthers have proven that they can be a formidable opponent (just ask Washington!).  They still have Drew Brees and wide receivers, so I think they still have enough to take care of the one thing they can handle.  But I also wonder if they position themselves to be healthy for next week.

Washington (6-9) at Eagles (4-10-1): Washington-When Alex Smith is playing quarterback, Washington is a legitimately good football team.  When he doesn't, they aren't.  So, it's a good thing that Smith will be under center in the season finale against the Eagles.  It's also a good thing that the rest of the division is so bad they get a mulligan for last week.  Yes, it means that we'll have a 7-9 division winner, but it wouldn't be the first time that's happened.  They'll make the most of their second chance, rendering the Giants-Cowboys game irrelevant.

Cowboys (6-9) at Giants (5-10): Dallas-Speaking as a football fan, it would be absolutely absurd if the 6-10 Giants win the division and host a playoff game!  It's not like a 7-9 division winner is much better, but 7-9 could easily be 8-8.  And, frankly, Dallas is a good enough team that the Cowboys could've been 12-4 this year if everything had gone their way.  After the Giants' miserable efforts against Arizona, Cleveland and Baltimore, I have no confidence in them winning this game and forcing the three-way tie they need to be the least-bad team in the NFC East.

Falcons (4-11) at Buccaneers (10-5): Tampa Bay-Tampa Bay clinched last week, but still has plenty to play for.  If the Bucs win, they're the 5-seed.  That means a visit to the NFC East winner next week.  If they lose, they could drop to 6, which would mean going to New Orleans, Seattle or Green Bay.  Which of those options would you prefer?  That's what I thought!  And no need to worry about resting starters, since they got to do that in the second half of the Lions game.

Vikings (6-9) at Lions (5-10): Minnesota-As for the Lions, they end the season by hosting Minnesota.  The Vikings were the seventh "if the season ended today..." playoff team a few weeks ago, but a loss to the Bears knocked them out of the discussion.  And, after letting Alvin Kamara run all over them on Christmas, .500 isn't even a possibility anymore.  Nevertheless, they're better than the Lions and are presumably keeping their coaching staff, so this game gives them a chance to get a jump on next season.

Last Week: 12-4
Overall: 153-86-1