NBA Jersey Problems

On Friday night, there was an issue in the Hawks-Thunder game that was as unsurprising as it was predictable.  Atlanta showed up to the game in red uniforms, while Oklahoma City was wearing orange.  If you think that's not enough of a contrast to tell the teams apart, you're right.  See for yourself:

It reminded me of the 2012 NCAA Tournament, when Baylor, Louisville and Syracuse all wore uniforms that were so bright you needed to adjust the contrast on your TV!  Or, perhaps a better example is when the NFL started doing the "Color Rush" thing and had that Thursday night game where the Bills wore red and the Jets wore green , the two colors that colorblind people have the biggest problem differentiating!  And they both had white helmets, so it's not like that helped!  (What happened immediately after?  The NFL started making sure there was enough of a light/dark contrast between the uniforms.)

The NBA blamed the whole thing on a miscommunication.  Apparently nobody caught it when the teams entered their jersey choices into the online system.  And, since the game was in Oklahoma City, they made the Thunder change into their white jerseys at halftime.  But they still played 24 minutes with anybody watching the game really having no clue which team was which!

As I said, I'm not surprised that this situation happened.  Frankly, I'm surprised it didn't happen earlier.  I've been expecting it ever since the 2017-18 season, when the NBA scrapped "home" and "road" uniform designations and started letting teams wear whatever color they want whenever they want.  Now, every team has at least four jerseys (Association, Icon, Statement and City), some of which don't even identify the team beyond a nickname for the city they play in!  I went through the NBA jersey database to figure out exactly how many and discovered that more than half the league--18 teams!--has uniforms that fall into that category!

If a casual fan came across a game on TV and one of these teams was playing in one of these uniforms, there's a good chance they'd have no idea what teams they were actually watching!  (And you can't use the "they only wear these for certain games" excuse, because every game is televised!)  I simply don't understand the logic behind that.  Shouldn't you want to make the people watching the game actually know what teams are playing?!

There's an obvious reason for this.  Money.  More jerseys for each team are more jerseys for fans to buy.  And I'm sure the fans probably love some of these jerseys. 

To be honest, I love some of them, too.  The Heat's Miami Vice jerseys are outstanding, and they're made even better by the fact that they make the arena floor match whenever they wear them!  I also like the ones where the team went with a throwback for one of their alternate uniforms. 

But far too many teams didn't take that approach.  They went with a nickname for their city or some other obscure reference that only their fans will get.  Other people won't, though.  They'll simply be confused and spend half the game trying to figure out what team they're watching.  And that's a problem.

When "The Valley" plays "The Land," it's obviously the Suns vs. the Cavs (I'll let you figure out which one is which).  "Rip City" vs. "H-Town?"  Blazers vs. Rockets.  Duh!  It's "Sactown" against "Cream City," sorry, I mean the Kings against the Bucks!  "Buzz City" and "Bed-Stuy," meanwhile, are the Hornets and Nets.  C'mon people!  How could you not know that?!

Some are slightly easier to figure out, but only because they used a well-known nickname for their city.  "Mile High City" can only be the Nuggets.  Same with the "Motor City" Pistons.  The Wizards have both "DC" and "District of Columbia" jerseys, which can only mean Washington, DC.

Likewise, it's not really a problem when teams use a common abbreviation for their home city on the alternate uniforms.  "OKC" isn't just the Thunder's abbreviation on standings, graphics, etc.  It's also how people refer to them most of the time.  So, an "OKC" jersey doesn't exactly lead to any confusion.  (The Timberwolves use "MSP," which I'm assuming stands for Minneapolis-St. Paul.  While not as obvious as OKC, every team in the Twin Cities is very careful not to look like they're favoring one over the other, so I'm fine with that, too.)

Then there's the Pelicans.  Their new "City" jersey for this season has no identification on it at all.  It doesn't say "New Orleans" or "NOLA" or "Pelicans" or a team logo of any kind!  It's simply three fleurs-de-lis.  Which means they either play in New Orleans or in Quebec!

Speaking of Canada, I've long had a problem with the Toronto Raptors and their "North" jerseys.  We get it.  You've got that whole "We the North" marketing campaign.  (They even put "North" on their freaking championship rings in 2019!)  But do you think any random person who sees a jersey that says nothing but "North" on it is gonna have any idea what the hell it means?!  It could be a high school or college team for all they know!  (And, for the record, Toronto isn't even the northernmost city in the NBA...Portland is!)

Fortunately, they won't be wearing those uniforms this season while they're playing in Tampa (and they would really make no sense!).  Although, I was half expecting "South" jerseys in honor of their temporary home.  I'd also be willing to bet the "North" jerseys make their return for the 2021-22 season, when the Raptors are, hopefully, once again playing their home games in Toronto.

Toronto/Tampa Bay isn't the biggest culprit, though.  That would be their 2019 NBA Finals opponents--the Golden State Warriors.  Or is it the "City" Warriors?  Maybe the "Bay" Warriors"?  The "Town" Warriors perhaps?  The "San Francisco" Warriors?  Apparently the geographic area they represent depends entirely on which uniform they happen to be wearing that particular day!

We're long past the days of teams having just one home, one away and one alternate uniform.  I get that.  But the NBA has taken it too far with all the variations for each team.  It's confusing for fans and, as we saw in the Hawks-Thunder game, can be confusing for the teams, too.

Are We Really Talking About 2032 Already?

It looks like the Olympics are headed back to Australia in 2032.  This isn't really a surprise.  The Queensland bid, centered around Brisbane, has been viewed as the favorite for a while, and now it's the "preferred bidder" that will enter a "targeted dialogue" with the IOC.  Which basically means they've already made up their minds and will be making the official announcement about Queensland 2032 at some point in the near future.

The 2032 Games are the first Olympics under the new bid process that was implemented in 2019.  Instead of the old bid process, where cities competed against each other in a multi-year process that IOC President Thomas Bach thought produced "too many losers," there's now a Host City Commission that meets with potential bidders and recommends a candidate to the full IOC.  They also removed the provision that a host city is chosen seven years in advance, basically leaving it open-ended.

But, if you're wondering "Why so early?," you're not alone.  The 2032 Olympics are 11 years away!  Yes, that the's same amount of time between the awarding of LA 2028 and the actual Games, but that was generally seen as a one-time exception so that they could do the historic double-awarding (it ended up working out, since the vote for 2028 would otherwise have been this year, when the IOC will be a little busy).  If 11 years is going to be the new standard, though, that changes everything for any city that might be thinking about it.

From the formation of a bid committee to the extinguishing of the flame, hosting the Olympics is a decade-long process.  At least it used to be.  Now, if they're going to award a Games more than 10 years out, you're looking at a process that may take 13-14 years from beginning to end.  That's a lot to ask for a city, country and National Olympic Committee, all of which will likely see at least one leadership change during that time.

Frankly, announcing Olympic host cities 11 years in advance is too far.  That's an extraordinary commitment.  And enthusiasm may be very different at the start and the end.  Just look at what's happening in Tokyo.  That bid actually enjoyed strong public support, which is rare to begin with, and that enthusiasm held even as the costs began to skyrocket.  But now, the support has waned so much that a majority of Japanese citizens would rather the Games be postponed again (which won't happen) or cancelled.

Speaking of Tokyo, that's another reason why it's way too premature to be awarding the 2032 Games.  There's no guarantee that the Olympics will be held this summer...through no fault of Tokyo's!  They could potentially end up spending eight years and billions of dollars preparing for an Olympics that never took place.  The 2032 Games are the next ones available, so there would be a lot of support for giving 2032 to Tokyo.  But you can't do that if they're already going to Brisbane!

Now, I don't think the IOC will actually make a formal announcement until this fall (after the Tokyo Games) at the earliest.  But that's not the point.  The point is the decision has basically already been made, which is leaving every other potential 2032 bidder out in the cold before the process even really got started!

Germany was considering a bid from the Rhine-Ruhr region, and Doha's been itching to host an Olympics forever.  There were also rumors for a joint Korean bid.  Those are just three of the other potential bidders.  This could've been a very competitive race.  Instead, it's over before it began.

While these bid cities are at various stages in the process, they're understandably not too happy that all their work will end up going for nothing.  The Germans are already crying foul because of the lack of transparency in the process.  They're especially unhappy since the head of the Host City Committee is John Coates, who just happens to be Australian!

None of this is meant as a knock on Queensland and the quality of its bid.  Quite the contrary, I think an Olympics in Queensland would be exceptional!  The 2018 Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast were an incredible success, and the 2000 Olympics in Sydney are considered by many (myself included) to be the greatest ever!  So there's no question that the Aussies will do a great job, and they've been targeting Brisbane 2032 as their next Olympic bid for a while now.  But that's not the point either.

Awarding the 2032 Games now may give the IOC a sense of security.  They'll have their host cities for the next decade locked down, in three major countries on three different continents (and it would be five different continents in a row after Rio and Tokyo).  They'd also most likely pat themselves on the back for how "well" the new process worked in delivering a quality host.  In their eyes, it'll be the proof that the Host City Commission "works."

However, I think the IOC is doing themselves an incredible disservice.  I'm not completely opposed to the concept of a Host City Commission or the thought process behind it.  By going public with their preference for Queensland this early, though, they're limiting their options.  They're essentially telling other potential bidders not to bother...and one of those bids may have ended up being better than the one from Queensland!

They don't want cities to feel like "losers" by going through the whole process and spending all that money, only for another city to be chosen.  I get that.  But there's nothing wrong with engaging with multiple cities and advancing more than one to the dialogue stage.  You can still express a preference, but do it later down the line.  This would also give the "losing" city a chance to make changes and improve its bid for a future run (like Athens and PyeongChang both did with their winning bids).

Lastly, potential bidders are being completely shut out before they can even decide if they want to bid!  Budapest has become a go-to site for World Championships.  It seems likely that they'll host an Olympics eventually.  Budapest may have been waiting until after the 2023 World Athletics Championships to decide.  That still would've been plenty of time had the decision not been until 2025.  Ditto with Doha.  They've hosted the World Championships in swimming and track & field.  They've hosted the Asian Games.  Let's see how they do with the 2022 World Cup, though. 

That experience is key.  Rio was awarded the 2016 Games in 2009.  Their bid likely would not have won if the 2007 Pan Am Games in the city hadn't been the huge success they were.  (Granted, Queensland has that experience with the 2018 Commonwealth Games, but those other cities will be getting their experience in the coming years).

There's obviously a sense of comfort that comes with Queensland.  They feel safe with Australia and they want to capitalize on the support while it's still there.  And, after the success of Sydney, they're confident the Aussies will do a good job.  But the other potential bidders might've done a good job, too, and they're not even being given a chance.

The 2021 Yankees

Now that the Brett Gardner and Justin Wilson signings are official, the Yankees' 2021 roster has begun to take shape.  There are some morons online who think that the Gardner signing complicates things from a position-player standpoint, but it really doesn't.  Because Gardner's spot was never really up for grabs.  In fact, barring any surprises or injuries, the only decisions they need to make regard the fifth starter and the one remaining place in the bullpen.

Most of the discussion about Gardner I think was more confusion than anything else.  People were wondering how he would fit in with a three-man bench, one of which obviously has to be the backup catcher.  Except there was a rule change last year designed to fix that problem.  Rosters have been expanded from 25 to 26 players, and the number of pitchers is limited to 13.  Since most teams carried 13 pitchers already, that means the extra guy is a bench player...so everyone has four, not three (NL teams have five)! 

Someone mentioned an Aaron Boone comment where he said they'd go with 14 pitchers "on occasion," but that's not allowed under the new rules.  That wasn't even my favorite one, though.  That was the person who said they "definitely" wouldn't carry five outfielders...which was already guaranteed since Giancarlo Stanton, while he'll primarily serve as the DH, is still technically an outfielder.

At first, I thought re-signing Gardner would require a decision.  Not regarding Gardner, but regarding the other outfielder.  They made a trade for Greg Allen in the offseason, and I figured that meant the plan was for Allen to be on the roster.  And it made sense, since he's a switch hitter who can steal bases and is solid defensively.  Which had me thinking Mike Tauchman's roster spot was in jeopardy.  But Allen was designated for assignment in one of the corresponding moves to get Gardner and Wilson on the 40-man roster, so that answers that question.  Gardner and Tauchman will be the backup outfielders.

Barring anything crazy, Tyler Wade will also make the team as the backup infielder.  That was his role last season, and I don't really see anyone usurping him as the utility guy.  Especially since Wade is solid defensively at second, third and short (and LeMahieu can play first when Voit needs a day off).  He's also their primary pinch runner. 

Kyle Higashioka's place as the backup catcher won't be challenged, either.  The fact that he catches Gerrit Cole certainly helps, but that has very little bearing on his roster security.  Robinson Chirinos and the other veterans in camp were brought in because they need a veteran third catcher just in case, and Erik Kratz retired at the end of last season, so he's not an option anymore.

If there was room on the roster for a left-handed first baseman, I'd gladly take one.  That's the biggest weakness the lineup has.  However, there simply isn't room for one.  Even if he proves he can still hit during Spring Training, I don't want Jay Bruce going anywhere near first base.  He's essentially a DH, and they already have that in Stanton, so I don't think they'd have much use for Bruce.

Of course, things can always change, and there will almost certainly be somebody who lands on the IL before Opening Day.  But that's the only way I see Mike Ford or Miguel Andujar starting the season in New York instead of Scranton.  Rather, these are the 13 position players I see making the opening day roster:

Catchers - Gary Sanchez, Kyle Higashioka
Infielders - Luke Voit, DJ LeMahieu, Gleyber Torres, Gio Urshela, Tyler Wade
Outfielders - Aaron Judge, Aaron Hicks, Clint Frazier, Giancarlo Stanton, Brett Gardner, Mike Tauchman

The pitching staff is where there's been significant turnover.  Sixty percent of last season's rotation has moved on, with the oft-injured Corey Kluber and Jameson Taillon serving as high-risk, potentially high-reward replacements.  Assuming Jordan Montgomery is the No. 4 starter, that leaves the No. 5 spot up for grabs (until Luis Severino returns from his Tommy John surgery in July, that is).

Deivi Garcia and Domingo German are probably the two leading contenders to be the fifth starter.  Garcia passed his trial by fire last year, excelling in his abbreviated rookie season after never having pitched above Double-A before.  He even "started" that infamous Game 2 of the Division Series.  German, meanwhile, has been met with a lukewarm reception from his teammates after returning from a domestic violence suspension.

Personally, I think Garcia and Michael King should both start the season getting regular turns in the rotation at Scranton.  Garcia was great last season, but he could definitely use a little more seasoning in the Minors.  That wasn't an option in 2020 since there was no Minor League season, but he won't make it through six months in the Majors without getting sent down, and that could be a huge confidence hit. 

Which I guess means German is my choice for the fifth starter.  Although, I can also see a situation where Garcia earns the No.5 spot in the rotation out of Spring Training and German goes to the bullpen as the second long man.  That eighth bullpen spot is really the only one legitimately up for grabs in Spring Training.

First, let's get the rest of the bullpen out of the way.  Adam Ottavino is Boston's problem now.  They turned his salary from one overpriced, inconsistent reliever into two relievers: Darren O'Day and the aforementioned Justin Wilson.  With Jonathan Holder also gone, O'Day essentially just replaces Holder as the mid-innings guy (he even took Holder's number).  Wilson provides something that was sorely missing last season: a left-handed arm out of the bullpen.  With the three-batter rule, there's less of a need for a LOOGY as there used to be, but having a lefty middle reliever is still valuable.

Chad Green and Zack Britton are still the setup men for closer Aroldis Chapman, and Luis Cessa is still there as the long man/mop-up guy.  Jonathan Loaisiga, meanwhile, fills the swing role that was previously occupied by Ottavino and Tommy Kahnle (who signed with the Dodgers, but will missed this season regardless after Tommy John surgery).

There are some veteran non-roster invitees in camp who could make for an intriguing battle to claim that last bullpen spot.  However, I think the internal candidates probably have the edge.  Especially considering how many of them ended up pitching for the Yankees last season and had success.  For some reason, I give the edge to Nick Nelson.  He made the postseason roster and actually pitched in two playoff games last year, and I think he's best-equipped to handle the infrequency with which he'll work as the last guy in the bullpen.

Nelson, of course, comes with an asterisk.  As a reliever with Minor League options, he'll probably make several trips back-and-forth.  But making the Opening Day roster is special regardless, and I think he'll do that.  So, with Nelson filling out the squad, here are my pitchers...

Starters - Gerrit Cole, Corey Kluber, Jameson Taillon, Jordan Montgomery, Domingo German
Relievers - Aroldis Chapman, Zack Britton, Chad Green, Darren O'Day, Justin Wilson, Jonathan Loaisiga, Luis Cessa, Nick Nelson

We Will ROC You

Russia won't be in Tokyo.  Or Beijing.   At least, the name "Russia" and Russian flag won't be.  There'll still be a Russian team, though.  And, while it won't be as big as you'd normally expect, it still figures to be fairly large.  So really, the only difference, is that the uniforms will be generic and the Russian anthem won't be played for gold medal winners.

As part of Russia's punishment for its doping scandal, the word "Russia" can't be used at all in international sports for the next two years.  Russian athletes are officially being designated as "neutrals," and this time they won't be given that ridiculous "Olympic Athlete From Russia" moniker.  Instead of "OAR", they'll be "ROC," which is just the abbreviation for "Russian Olympic Committee."  Although, since you can't say "Russia," it won't be spelled out.  It'll be just the abbreviation.

If you don't think that sounds like much of a suspension, you're not alone.  The ROC thing is perhaps even dumber than the OAR thing.  In PyeongChang, they at least had to compete under the Olympic flag and listen to the Olympic anthem.  In Tokyo and Beijing, they'll have their own flag (the ROC logo on a white background), and they'll be allowed to choose a piece of music to play at medal ceremonies (hopefully something by Tchaikovsky).

Contrast that to what happened to Kuwait in 2016.  The Kuwait Olympic Committee was suspended by the IOC for government interference in 2015, and Kuwaiti athletes had to compete under the Olympic flag as "Independent Olympic Athletes" at the Rio Games.  Shooter Fehaid Al-Deehani won Kuwait's first-ever Olympic gold medal in Rio.  Except he didn't.  Because Kuwait was suspended, the medal didn't count for them and he had to listen to the Olympic anthem while watching the Olympic flag be raised.

Government interference in the NOC is one of the IOC's biggest no-nos, and it pretty much guarantees that country a suspension.  But is that worse than what Russia did?  Yes, they both had their name and flag banned.  But the one that committed a fairly minor offense was basically treated as if it didn't exist, while the one was guilty of a widespread state-run doping scandal gets to use a compromise name, flag and song.  Can you say unequal punishment?

We all know the reason why Russia is being treated differently, of course.  It's because they're Russia.  Russia committed an egregious offense that warranted international suspension.  However, you couldn't come down too hard on them since Russia's so influential and you want to stay in their good graces.  As a result, they end up getting what amounted to a slap on the wrist.

When Russia's international suspension was originally handed down last year, it was supposed to last four years.  That was eventually reduced to two years.  The World Anti-Doping Association had a chance to appeal, but decided against it, so the suspension will end in December 2022 (maybe we'll be allowed to go places and do things and be near other people again by then).

I wasn't surprised that the suspension was reduced.  In fact, I was expecting it.  The whole point was to make them miss one Summer and one Winter Olympics.  However, with the Tokyo Games delayed, a four-year suspension would've kept them out of the Paris Games, as well.  That idea didn't sit well with me, especially since they effectively sat out 2020 anyway, so I was thinking they'd cut it to three.

Reducing it to two achieved the same purpose of making them miss two Olympics, as well as the 2022 World Cup.  And, by letting them compete under their own name and flag in 2023, it gives Russian athletes a full year to qualify for Paris without any eligibility questions hanging over their heads.  So, I'm actually OK with the two years.

What I don't like, though, is all the compromises that were made, all of which favor Russia.  Because they're making a mockery of the "neutral" thing! 

Every sport is determining the eligibility of Russian athletes on its own, and each has its own designation for the Russians.  Some sports, like tennis (which, granted, has one of the best anti-doping programs of any sport), don't care at all.  Daniil Medvedev still had "RUS" and a Russian flag next to his name during his run to the Australian Open final.  Most others simply use the abbreviation and logo of Russia's federation for the given sport (RSU for speed skating, RHF for handball, etc.).  So much for not saying "Russia!"

It's really only in track & field where Russia is being held accountable.  Russia has been suspended by World Athletics since 2015, and any Russian who's approved to compete must do so as an "Authorized Neutral Athlete."  And that doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon.  Even after Russia's all-sports suspension ends in December 2022, don't expect their track & field federation to be reinstated right away.  It'll be seven years at that point.  They're clearly not in any rush to bring the Russians (even the clean ones) back into the fold.

Unfortunately, he IOC doesn't really have the luxury of excluding Russia entirely.  (I also strongly agree with the idea that you can't unfairly punish the clean athletes.)  So they're stuck in what's really an impossible situation.  They need to hold Russia accountable and let the other nations know that they're competing on a level playing field.  But Russia is also too important to the movement, and you don't want to be too harsh (even for an offense as egregious as this).

They most definitely didn't come down too hard on Russia.  If anything, they were too soft.  They've turned a two-year suspension into, effectively, a slap on the wrist.  Which doesn't do anything to make anyone feel any better about the Russians being in Tokyo and Beijing.  Even if their name, flag and anthem aren't.

Hockey In the Great Outdoors

Now that the NHL has successfully pulled off its weekend at Lake Tahoe, complete with those stunning views and an eight-hour sun delay (it was literally cloudy everywhere except over the ice!), the options for future outdoor games really are endless.  It would seem that imagination is really the only thing that can hold them back.  It also leaves you wondering where they could possibly go next.

Outdoor games are a regular part of the NHL schedule now.  What's incredible about that is the novelty is yet to wear off.  That's a credit to the league for finding a variety of different venues and making each outdoor game unique.  They've been all over Canada and the U.S.  They've played in baseball parks, NFL stadiums, college football stadiums, soccer stadiums, and now, on a golf course.  They've even pulled off being outside in LA!

Between Winter Classics, Heritage Classics and the Stadium Series, there have been 30 outdoor games and 26 of the 31 teams have played in at least one (incredibly, Tampa Bay is one of the five).  There are still some existing NHL markets that are yet to host an outdoor game, but they are gonna run out eventually.  Which is why they're gonna get more and more creative with their outdoor venues.

Here are 10 places that I think would be amazing hosts for NHL outdoor games.  This list doesn't include any NFL stadiums in NHL markets.  That's too easy.  Nor does it include Montreal, which somehow hasn't hosted an outdoor game yet.  Rather, it's 10 places like Lake Tahoe.  Places that the NHL should consider simply because they'd be outstanding choices to hold an outdoor game.

Alaska: Mystery, Alaska came out in 1999.  What better way to celebrate the movie's 25th anniversary in 2024 than playing an NHL outdoor game somewhere in that state?  The Rangers were Mystery's opponent in the movie, so they'd obviously need to be one of the participants, but the options for the other team are really endless.  It could be Seattle or Vancouver, the two NHL teams closest to Alaska, one of their division rivals (Washington maybe?) or really the NHL's flavor of the month.

Banff, Alberta: Alternatively, they could play a game at Banff National Park in the Canadian Rockies, where they actually filmed the movie.  The choice of matchup here is easy: Oilers vs. Flames.  They could even play twice, with each team serving as the "home" team once.  Or one of them could play the Rangers.

Las Vegas Strip: This is something that has been begging to happen ever since Las Vegas was given an NHL team!  How amazing will this be?!  It was Las Vegas, of course, where the NHL played that outdoor exhibition game between the Kings and Rangers in 1991.  They set up that rink outside Caesar's Palace.  Whether they put it there or somewhere else on the Strip doesn't even matter.  It'll have the same effect wherever it is.  As for the Golden Knights' opponent, why not take it full circle and make it the Kings?

Salt Lake City: If Salt Lake City gets another Winter Olympics, an outdoor NHL game there would make a lot of sense.  They could either use the University of Utah's football stadium or the base of the ski jumps in Utah Olympic Park, which would be much cooler.  The Utah Grizziles are the ECHL affiliate of the Avalanche, and Colorado's also the closest NHL team to Salt Lake City, so they're the "host" in this one.  For their opponent, how about Dallas?  (If you're wondering about Lake Placid, there isn't really a suitable place to do one for the 50th anniversary of the Miracle on Ice in 2030.)

LA Coliseum: When MetLife Stadium hosted the Super Bowl, they had two Stadium Series games at Yankee Stadium.  So how about doing a Stadium Series game at the LA Coliseum in the lead-up to the 2028 Olympics?  You know NBC would be on board, seeing as they broadcast both.  Kings vs. Ducks?  Is that too cliche/obvious?

Daytona International Speedway: They played a Virginia Tech-Tennessee college football game in the infield of Bristol Motor Speedway a few years ago.  How about an NHL outdoor game on the home stretch at Daytona, with the rink right at the start/finish line?  Just think about how amazing that would be!  Even better, it would give the Lightning the chance not only to play in one, but to host one.  Plenty of choices for the opponent of the Stanley Cup champs.  I'm loving the idea of Tampa Bay vs. Washington, though.  And, logistically, it would have to be a Winter Classic so as not to interfere with Speedweeks in February.  (Daytona seems more fun than Indianapolis for some reason, but you could obviously do the same thing at Indy if you like.)

Maritimes: The Maritime provinces have been trying to get a CFL team for years.  It seems like it's eventually going to happen, but even if it doesn't, they already have a stadium in Moncton, New Brunswick that would work.  And an outdoor game in the Maritimes would be amazing!  You could have the Canadiens play the Bruins, giving all those Boston fans from Maine and New Hampshire a chance to make the short trip North.  Or, since Sidney Crosby is from Nova Scotia, you could also do Canadiens-Penguins.

National Mall: I understand that this one is incredibly unlikely to happen, but it would still be cool.  Set up the rink somewhere on the National Mall.  It could even be in front of the Capitol like the Inauguration if the government signed off on it (which they never will!).  Or you use the reflecting pool between the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial.  Either one would be awesome!  And the Capitals could play the Flyers, which has somehow never been an outdoor matchup before.

Mount Rushmore: Unlike a game on the National Mall, a game at Mount Rushmore seems completely doable.  Just imagine that stunning visual of the four Presidents watching in the background!  Minnesota's the closest team to the Dakotas, so you've probably got a lot of Wild fans there already.  They could take on the old outdoor game go-to team--Chicago.  And you could do it in 2026 to start the Sestercentennial Year.

Victoria, BC: Victoria is the capital of Vancouver Island and is only about 60 miles from both Vancouver and Seattle.  You see where I'm going with this, right?  Canucks vs. Kraken, meeting right in the middle.  It just makes way too much sense for this one not to happen!

What Once Was...And Can Be Again

There was something weird about watching this year's Australian Open.  The matches were played in front of good-sized crowds.  Players had actual fans cheering for them--not cardboard cutouts--and it wasn't silent.  It was almost normal.  At least, what used to be normal.

That's one of the craziest things about the last year.  We've gotten so used to things that we never thought we'd see.  Players and coaches wearing masks, empty stadiums and ads covering stands have become common sights.  So have socially-distanced celebrations and schedules and personal locker rooms, anything to avoid physical contact and keep everybody separated.  Ditto with Zoom interviews and broadcasters not actually at the game.

When sports first came back over the summer, we all wondered how it was going to work.  How would they make a broadcast work with all the restrictions that they'd have to follow?  Would they still be able to create any sort of gameday atmosphere without fans physically there?  Even as a made-for-TV event, would it work?

Now, we've gotten so used to these things that we barely remember what it was like pre-COVID.  In fact, I think some of these changes may end up becoming permanent.  They were forced into the situation, but it showed that broadcasting a game under such circumstances was possible.  And if they discovered something that worked in the process, why not stick with it?

Of course, we all want and expect things to go back to "normal" eventually.  It's no fun for anybody to have being played under all these restrictions in front of little to no fans.  But right now, fans are just grateful to have events to watch and athletes are just grateful to events to play in.

Here's the crazy thing, though: it'll be just as jarring when it does.  As weird as it was at first, we've been seeing these socially-distanced, made-for-TV, bubble games for so long now that they no longer seem strange.  And when things change back, the opposite will be true.  It'll, again, take some getting used to.  What was once so normal will suddenly seem so strange.

The Australian Open is a perfect example.  Fans were allowed, up to 30,000 per day.  That's a significantly smaller number than they'd normally have, but it was still much larger than any other crowd anywhere else in the world in recent months.  Restrictions were in place, of course, but people were there and some matches felt (and sounded like) you would've expected anytime prior to March 2020.  It was all so "normal."

This was only possible because the event took place in Australia.  Australia has handled the virus remarkably well to the point where they have virtually no transmission.  Part of the reason for that is their isolation, of course, but it's also because of the measures they've put in place.  Every player was forced to quarantine for two weeks upon arrival in the country.  Some even had to go into a "hard" quarantine because of an infected person on their flight.  But the result was being able to play an event that felt as close to the old definition of "normal" as possible.

It wasn't all smooth sailing, either.  They went into a five-day hard lockdown mid-tournament because of a suspected case at the Melbourne airport hotel.  It went into effect at 11:59 pm, so the fans were forced to leave in the middle of a Novak Djokovic match that went past midnight.  Fortunately, the lockdown didn't have to go past the five days and they were able to welcome crowds again for the semifinals and finals.

And wasn't that a refreshing sight?!  It was both a reminder of what things used to be and a sign of hope for what they can be again.  It's what we all want.  People in the stands cheering and creating an atmosphere that can't be replicated.  Instead of cardboard cutouts, ads and giant video boards, it was actual fans and an environment that actually looked and felt like a major sporting event.

Which, of course, leaves us wondering when other major sporting events will look and feel like it again.  We're on our way back.  More and more places are opening up and allowing fans back in stadiums.  Those numbers are gradually increasing, as well.  Major League Baseball is expecting to start the season with fans, and the NCAA Tournament will be allowing 25 percent capacity.  But we're still many months away from full houses.  And it'll probably be even longer until things are completely "normal."

"Normal" may seem a long way off.  Especially when we see the Australian Open being played in front of so many people.  But the Australian Open is still an encouraging sign.  It reminded us of how great it is when fans are there and left us longing for those days to return.  In fact, if anything, it has increased that desire.  Our appreciation for attending live sports has only grown after a year away.

Things can be like that again, too.  We just have to make it through a few more months.  Will it be different when we return?  Yes.  Will we have to wear masks and socially distance and test negative before we can even enter the facility?  Most likely.  But it won't be forever.  And if we have to do those things to start attending games again, so be it.

Life will get back to normal eventually, and games will be played in full stadiums again.  We don't know when that'll happen, but we do know that it will.  The Australian Open gave us a little taste of what our lives used to be and what we hope they'll be again.  And it was a glorious sight!

QBs On the Move

Carson Wentz has been traded to the Colts, reuniting him with his former offensive coordinator Frank Reich.  Wentz was one of many big-name NFL quarterbacks who figured to be changing teams this offseason, and he's the third to officially move following that Jared Goff-Matthew Stafford swap between the Rams and Lions.  There will be more.

A Wentz-Colts pairing seemed both logical and inevitable.  But it also took both a name and a potential destination off the board.  There are still plenty of options for the remaining available quarterbacks, though.  But what combinations of QB and team make as much sense as Wentz and the Colts?

Everyone knows DeShaun Watson wants out of Houston, even though the Texans aren't gonna trade him to just anybody.  He's been linked to both the Jets and Dolphins, neither of which makes much sense.  The Jets have the No. 2 pick in the draft, which figures to be Ohio State QB Justin Fields (I'm not including the Jaguars among the teams with a QB "need" since they're obviously taking Trevor Lawrence No. 1).  Why would you give up that pick and trade for Watson, especially since the Texans will almost certainly want a first-round pick in any package?

Miami, meanwhile, seems committed to Tua Tagovailoa.  The Dolphins were almost a playoff team last season, and Tua didn't even become the starter until late October!  They're building something, why mess with it?  Especially when Watson wouldn't necessarily be an upgrade?

I've got the market for Watson narrowed down to two teams--New Orleans and New England.  The Saints need a veteran to replace Drew Brees.  But they have salary cap issues, so they might have to go with a cheaper option.  The Patriots' Cam Newton experiment failed miserably, and they'd be taking a similar risk by trading for Watson.  But I still think that's the most likely scenario here.  DeShaun Watson ends up in New England.

Nick Foles could be a fallback option for the Saints.  He doesn't figure to cost nearly as much, so he might fall within their budget.  Of course, that's assuming the Bears decide to stick with Mitchell Trubisky, which I think is the safer bet.  That means Foles will be changing teams yet again.  And don't bet against that team being the Saints.

Foles actually would've been a pretty good fit in Houston, too.  No one seems to have any idea what the Texans are planning on doing, though.  They'll need a quarterback regardless, however.  So, if they don't end up with Foles and they don't do a straight-up QB trade with Watson, let me throw two options out there.

The first is Cam Newton, who won't be returning to New England.  Cam will likely want to start and may not sign until later in the summer as he waits for the right opportunity.  That opportunity could come in Houston, where the expectations won't be very high, so it'll be a very low-stress situation and a chance for him to get his career back on track.

Or, how about Marcus Mariota?  Like I said, Houston's going to be a very low-stress situation, which means there won't be much pressure on whoever takes over.  Which could be perfect for Mariota.  He buckled under the burden of expectations in Tennessee, but has proven to be a serviceable backup with the Raiders.  It could be worth taking out another flier on Mariota as a starter.  And Houston might be the only team will to do that, which makes Mariota a very interesting fallback option.

Whether the Jets trade for Watson or draft Fields at No. 2, it looks like they're probably moving on from Sam Darnold either way.  The real question with Darnold is whether he ends up signing somewhere as a starter or a backup?  I don't think all hope is lost for him as a starter, but I also don't think a team will count on Darnold to be "the" guy, either. 

Which means a team like Washington could be an option.  Alex Smith has proven that he deserves to be the starter when healthy.  But "when healthy" is the key part of that sentence.  They need a capable backup/secondary starter.  Enter Sam Darnold.  It really does seem like a perfect fit.

So, to recap: I've got DeShaun Watson going to New England, Nick Foles to New Orleans, Sam Darnold to Washington and either Cam Newton or Marcus Mariota to Houston.  Everyone else seems set with their quarterback situation (that includes the Jaguars and Jets with their rookie starters).  Which means at least one of those five guys is gonna end up being a backup somewhere.  Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, since a quality veteran backup QB is one of the most valuable assets any NFL team can have.

There's one more player who'll be changing teams next season that's worth mentioning.  He isn't a quarterback.  But every quarterback in the league will be very interested to see where he ends up.  Because, if healthy, he's going to make somebody's life miserable.  I'm, of course, talking about J.J. Watt.

Watt already has plenty of suitors, which was expected.  I've got it narrowed down to two teams, though.  He's been linked to the Titans, where he'd be able to stay in the AFC South and play for a competitive team.  However, I think he ends up in Pittsburgh with his brothers.  The Steelers' defense was exposed badly in December, and they could certainly use his presence on the pass rush.  So, sorry Baker Mayfield, Lamar Jackson and Joe Burrow.  It looks like you'll have to deal with all three Watt brothers when you play the Steelers next season.

Start of Spring Training Power Rankings

Even though it's 20 degrees outside and it snows every other day, Spring is in the air.  The players rejected MLB's proposal to delay the start of the season, so Spring Training will begin this week as scheduled.  (I'm not feeling the seven-inning doubleheaders and free runner in extra innings sticking around this season, but that's a separate issue.)

So, with Spring Training on the horizon, I figured now was as good a time as any to take a look at how the teams stack up after all of the offseason moves.  Of course, there are still some big names out there, so things could easily change.  But here's how I see things right now as everybody prepares to head to Florida and Arizona...

1. Los Angeles Dodgers: There's no reason not to put the defending champs at the top.  They lost some of their depth guys, but also took one of their strengths--the rotation--and made it a whole lot better.  Not many teams can add the reigning Cy Young winner and slot him in as the No. 3 starter, then take another Cy Young winner who sat out last season and insert him at No. 4.  Meanwhile, the best starter in the rotation may be the one guy without a Cy Young--Walker Buehler.

2. San Diego Padres: It's quite possible that the two best teams in baseball both play in the same division.  I've been high on San Diego for a while, and the Padres don't show any signs of going away anytime soon.  Their one area of concern was the starting rotation, so they swung a pair of trades for Yu Darvish and Blake Snell within a few hours of each other.  If they can stay healthy, the rotation suddenly isn't so much of a problem anymore.

3. New York Yankees: The Yankees get this spot almost by default since both of last year's ALCS participants became weaker this offseason, with Tampa Bay trading people away and Houston getting hit by free agency.  They didn't touch their lineup, but revamped their pitching staff using a high-risk, high-reward strategy with Corey Kluber and Jamieson Taillon.  Re-signing Masahiro Tanaka would've been nice and his decision to go back to Japan may end up hurting, but Kluber and Taillon are definitely an upgrade over James Paxton and JA Happ.

4. Toronto Blue Jays: Just like the NL's two best teams may be out west, the AL's two best may both be in the East.  Because the Blue Jays have loaded up!  They traded for Marcus Semien, signed George Springer, and added a closer in Kirby Yates.  And don't forget about all of their young talent, some of which might end up in bench/utility roles because of how deep they've suddenly become.

5. Atlanta Braves: Atlanta didn't do much in the offseason and didn't need to do much.  They did, after all, take the Dodgers to seven games in the NLCS last season.  The one big addition they did make was Charlie Morton, who only makes their rotation that much stronger.  They also re-signed Marcell Ozuna.  That would've been a big loss had he gone elsewhere.

6. New York Mets: How can you tell the Mets have a new owner with a completely different approach?  What they did in the offseason, that's how!  The Mets were linked to every big-name free agent, and they pulled off the ultimate coup with the Francisco Lindor trade...with Carlos Carrasco as essentially a throw-in.  I don't think they're done wheeling and dealing either.

7. Washington Nationals: Frankly, the Kyle Schwarber signing didn't make much sense to me.  They're a National League team signing a guy who should be a DH!  Then they made the Josh Bell trade, which was brilliant.  A switch-hitting power bat that they were sorely missing last year.  Meanwhile, they took advantage of Cleveland's purge and added Brad Hand to the bullpen, and they got Jon Lester on the cheap to be their No. 4 starter.

8. St. Louis Cardinals: This ranking is this high almost entirely because of one move.  The Rockies decided they didn't want to pay Nolan Arenado anymore.  The Cardinals said "OK, we'll take him," and instantly made themselves the NL Central favorites.  More importantly, Arenado gives Paul Goldschmidt the lineup protection he didn't have in either of his first two seasons in St. Louis.

9. Minnesota Twins: We're in for an AL Central dogfight between the Twins and White Sox.  I give Minnesota the slight edge because they've won the division two years in a row and don't show any signs of a let up in 2021 (getting to play 38 games against the Royals and Tigers will certainly help both of them).  Andrelton Simmons is their biggest lineup addition, while JA Happ slots into the No. 4 spot in the rotation.  Both are upgrades.

10. Chicago White Sox: Now that the White Sox are finally here, don't expect them to go anywhere.  In fact, the 2021 White Sox may be even better than the 2020 edition, especially if they fill their DH spot.  It's the improvement on the pitching end that has me the most excited, though.  Lance Lynn, who was the No. 1 starter in Texas, slots in at No. 3, and signing closer Liam Hendriks was huge, too.  Of course, there's still a big question mark surrounding the White Sox, and that's whether Tony La Russa still has it after so long out of the dugout.

I'm not saying these are the only 10 teams capable of winning the World Series this season.  I'd just be surprised to see it be somebody outside of this group.  Especially since the plan is to go back to a normal, 162-game season with 10-team playoffs this year, the stronger teams will definitely distinguish themselves.

Meanwhile, just like most seasons, there are some teams that simply aren't trying.  There are those like the Red Sox, who aren't really trying but aren't actively tanking either.  Then there are the five who occupy spots 26-30 in my power rankings: Baltimore, Colorado, Detroit, Kansas City and Pittsburgh.  The Pirates and Rockies, especially, are making no effort to be competitive.  The Orioles, Tigers and Royals should all be marginally better this season, but they've still got a long way to go. 

One Smart, One Dumb

There were two major announcements yesterday that I found interesting.  One was a really smart decision.  The other didn't make much sense.  It seemed an unnecessary money grab, and I'm not even sure how many people actually wanted it.  But, that doesn't seem to matter.  Because they're doing it anyway.

I'm, of course, talking about the NBA's decision to hold an All-Star Game this season.  When the schedule first came out, they had the season divided into two halves, with a break in the middle.  No All-Star Game was planned.  Somewhere along the line, though, they changed their minds and put the wheels in motion for an All-Star Game in Atlanta on March 7.

Holding an All-Star Game this season, frankly, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  For starters, they began the season 10 weeks later than usual, yet only chopped of 10 games.  Yes, they're going later into the summer.  But that's still a very condensed time frame, made even more condensed by the short turnaround from the end of last season.  And the All-Star Game is, obviously, going to include the top players, aka the ones who'll most be in need of the rest.

Then there's the fact that the NBA has had to postpone 22 games involving nearly half the league because of positive tests and/or contact tracing.  There will almost certainly be more.  Those games obviously have to be made up.  Part of the reason they were having an All-Star Break with no All-Star Game was so that they'd have more flexibility to reschedule those games.  Now they all have to be crammed into the second half, which may be why the second half schedule hasn't been released yet.

The NBPA obviously had to agree for an All-Star Game to be played, but you can tell the players don't really have any enthusiasm about it.  LeBron is one of many top players who's on the record for being unhappy.  He called it a "slap in the face," while also admitting he'd be there (physically at least) if he's selected, which he almost certainly will be.  LeBron said he "doesn't understand" why the NBA wants to have an All-Star Game this season and doesn't think it's particularly smart to bring the entire league to one place in the middle of a pandemic (the bubble worked because it was closed, so that's not an apt comparison).

Of course, we all know the reason why the NBA wants to still have an All-Star Game.  Money.  The league makes a lot of money off the All-Star Game, and so does Turner.  If there's no All-Star Game, TNT can't show those ads and would have to make it up to the sponsors.  And the league is still expecting the broadcast ratings to be solid, especially since there are still crowd size limitations (yet another reason why having an All-Star Game is stupid.  Why do you want to play one with limited fans?), meaning people who would otherwise be at the game have to watch it on TV instead.

Which doesn't make this sit any better with the players.  They're still very critical of the league and its seeming lack of concern about their health.  Kawhi Leonard called it out for what it is.  "They're just putting money over health right now, pretty much," he said.  And that pretty much sums it up.

Meanwhile, NBC made a major announcement that was a welcome surprise (well, maybe not for people on the West Coast).  They'll be showing the Olympic Opening Ceremony live.  They didn't even do that in Rio, which is only an hour ahead of the East Coast!  But in Tokyo, it'll be on TV live at 7 am (and it's live in all time zones, so it's really bright and early at 4 am out West)!  This is huge news, and it represents a major shift for NBC.

One of America's favorite pastimes during any Olympics is criticizing NBC's coverage, particularly their use of tape delay.  Some of the criticism is fair.  A lot of it is not.  (When the Olympics are in Europe they don't show anything live in prime time because they can't!  It's the middle of the night there!  Why is that so hard to understand?!)  And perhaps the biggest source of that frustration is the Opening Ceremony, which, until now, people have only been able to watch on tape-delay during the prime time broadcast.

NBC did make live coverage of the 2018 Winter Olympic Opening Ceremony available on its website, but didn't show it on TV until that night.  That's been their standard at all Olympics outside North America ever since NBC got the U.S. broadcast rights in 1988 (they did show the 1988 Opening Ceremony live from Seoul, but that was on Saturday morning local time, which is Friday night in the U.S.).  And everyone pretty much assumed they'd do it again in Tokyo.

They'll still have the prime time Opening Ceremony broadcast, but it won't be the first time people can watch it.  It'll air live during the morning window for the first time.  Whether this is a response to the criticism or a change in strategy (or both) is irrelevant.  The point is NBC is finally giving people a choice.  If they want to watch the Opening Ceremony live as it's happening, they actually can.  On their TV.

Whether this is a one-time experiment in Tokyo or their plan for all Olympics moving forward remains to be seen, but I bet it's the latter.  The next Olympics are also in Asia, so that's another Friday morning broadcast, while the 2024 and 2026 Games are in Europe, so it'll be at roughly 3:00 Eastern.  It's a tight turnaround, but they could show it live, go to news, then come right back with a prime time replay.  And the 2028 Olympics are in LA, so that'll obviously be live.

Whatever the reason, this was a brilliant move by the powers-that-be at NBC.  All the stars aligned for it--the anticipation for these Olympics is even greater after the one-year delay, the time difference makes a morning broadcast possible, a lot of people will likely still be spending a majority of their day at home--so it's worth giving it a shot.  And I have a feeling it'll end up being ratings gold!  Either way, their strategy will be justified.  And that may dictate what they do moving forward, too.

Money was likely as much of a consideration in NBC's thinking as it was in the NBA's.  However, there's a big difference between the two decisions.  Showing the Olympic Opening Ceremony live in the morning doesn't put anybody at risk.  Playing the NBA All-Star Game, though, is as unnecessary as it is stupid.

Australia Three Weeks Later

It wasn't too long ago that the Australian Open men's final was always the same day as the Super Bowl.  Then the NFL moved the Super Bowl back a week, meaning the Australian Open would start on Conference Championship Sunday.  Then the Australian Open moved a week earlier, putting the final on the off week.  But this year, thanks to a delayed start, we've got something brand new--the Aussie Open starting on Super Bowl Sunday!

Australia has actually handled the pandemic incredibly well, so at first I was surprised they decided to push back the tournament three weeks.  Then when they explained why it made sense.  One of the reasons Australia has handled the virus is because of strict quarantine measures, and a three-week delay would allow the players to quarantine before the tournament without having to arrive during the holidays.  They even moved the qualifying tournaments to Dubai and Doha, but kept them at the same time, so that those players could quarantine, too.

For the most part, it worked.  Some players tested positive and had to withdraw, and there was an infected person on one of the flights to Melbourne, but everybody made it to Australia and was able to successfully quarantine.  There was a slight hiccup earlier this week when the warm-up tournaments had to be halted for a day, but now we're good to go for the first Grand Slam tournament of 2021.

I wonder what type of an effect the delay will have, though.  This is vastly different than moving the French Open from May to October.  Instead of beautiful Spring days, it was cold and dark the entire time (which did nothing to halt Rafa's annual run to the title).  A two-week delay, on the other hand, isn't much.  It could still make a difference, though.  Late January in Australia is the equivalent of late July in the Northern Hemisphere, so ridiculous heat is usually a factor during the first week of the tournament.  But now they're playing in what's essentially early August.  The average temperature is pretty much the same, but there's usually less rain, so it may not be as humid.  Will that actually matter?

One thing that we know will actually matter is something that will be a storyline as long as a certain Spaniard is in the tournament.  With his most recent annual victory in Paris, Nadal tied Roger Federer's all-time record of 20 Grand Slam titles.  He can obviously break it here (and, if he doesn't, he'll instead get the chance to do it by winning his 35th consecutive French Open).

Nadal has one big thing going against him in his quest for No. 21, though.  And that's the world's No. 1 player, who has made Melbourne Park his personal playground in much the same way Rafa has at Roland Garros.  Djokovic is looking for his third straight Australian Open title, ninth overall, and eighth in 11 years.  So, needless to say, he's the favorite.

After his US Open DQ last year, some people wondered how Djokovic would bounce back.  He bounced back fine, making it to the final at the French Open.  Now enough time has passed, and there's been another Grand Slam since then, so I don't think Djokovic's mental state will be an issue.  If anything, he's more focused.

Last year, Dominic Thiem gave Djokovic all he could handle in the final.  Thiem then went on to win his first Grand Slam title at the US Open.  So, I'd say that he might be the second favorite.  Unfortunately, he and Djokovic are on the same side of the draw, which means a rematch of last year's final would be in the semis.  And, should they meet, the winner of that semi will be a clear favorite in the final.

The circumstances are completely different and there will be a limited number of fans, but Thiem's US Open win is important for another reason.  He knows what it takes to win a Grand Slam played in a bubble.  As does Naomi Osaka, who followed up her previous US Open title by winning the Australian Open.  Can she do it again?

Osaka is just one of the many favorites on the women's side.  While men's tennis has been somewhat predictable over the past 15 years thanks to the Big Four, women's tennis has been anything but.  Case in point, defending champion Sofia Kenin, who had never before been past the fourth round at a Slam before winning last year.  She also made the final of the French Open in 2020, losing to Iga Swiatek, who dominated the tournament despite being ranked No. 54 at the time.

So, needless to say, the women's tournament is much more wide open than the men's.  Women's No. 1 Ashleigh Barty is Australian.  She reached the semifinals last year, then missed the other two Grand Slams because she opted to stay in Australia rather than travel during the pandemic.  Which means it's been more than a year since her last Grand Slam match.  And let's not forget the pressure she's under to become the first homegrown Aussie Open women's champion since 1978.

Barty and Kenin are on the same side of the draw as two women looking for their first Grand Slam title--Karolina Pliskova and Elina Svitolina.  Those two have had very similar Grand Slam results.  They either beat top players and make a deep run or lose early to someone they shouldn't.  But you can't discount them completely.  Because they definitely have the talent.

Then there's Serena Williams, who's still looking for Grand Slam title No. 24 to tie the all-time record.  As crazy as it sounds, it's been four years since she won here while pregnant.  That four-year stretch without a Grand Slam title is by far the longest of her career, but to think Serena isn't still capable, even at age 39, would be foolish.  It's true that she can't overpower you the way she did in her prime.  And it's also true that she needs things to break her way.  But she still made the semifinals at the US Open last year and has won here seven times.  She could easily do it again.

Serena can't be considered a "favorite," though.  Especially when her path to the final includes a possible semifinal matchup with Osaka.  She's on the list of contenders would could win the title.  But is it likely?  I don't think so.  A good run for her could be the quarterfinals or semifinals.

Just like at the US Open, the winner will likely be the player who best handles the bubble conditions.  Which is why you've gotta like Osaka.  I'm also keeping my eye on Vika Azarenka, too.  Don't forget, both of Vika's Grand Slam titles came in Australia.  Her draw seems way too tough for her go all the way this time, though.  I'll say Svitolina makes the final from that side, losing to Osaka.

On the men's side, it's safe to stick with the chalk.  The top players are just a cut above the rest of the field.  My one "upset" prediction is Alex de Minaur over Nadal in the round of 16, which allows either Daniil Medvedev or Stefanos Tsitsipas to lose to Djokovic in the final.  And, with the win, Nole gets to 18 Grand Slam titles for his career.

A Super Bowl Home Game

Because, of course!  Why wouldn't it be?  After the World Series, Stanley Cup Final and NBA Finals were all played at neutral sites, the Super Bowl, which is always played at a neutral site, was obviously going to be played on one of the teams' home fields.  It wouldn't be a reminder that this is the 2020 season we're talking about otherwise.

Although, we probably shouldn't be surprised.  The Bucs did go out and get Tom Brady, after all, so they obviously thought this was possible.  It's just that not many of the rest of us did.  Except for Romodamus, who said at the end of the Chiefs-Bucs regular season game that he could see them meeting again on the same field on Super Bowl Sunday.  (It's also worth noting that Tampa hasn't lost since then.)

A big deal is being made about the quarterback matchup, and rightfully so.  Brady is the best to ever do it and it really is mind-blowing that this is his 10th Super Bowl.  They also seem to be the only ones capable of beating each other.  The only playoff loss of Mahomes' career was the AFC Championship Game against Brady's Patriots two years ago.  But Mahomes has won the last two matchups, including Kansas City's Week 12 victory, and is the last quarterback to beat Brady period.

I want to say this is the rubber match, but any prediction involving Brady needs to include an asterisk since you really can never something something will happen for the "last" time with him.  But either way, one of them further cements his legacy.  Brady wins a seventh ring (one more than any other franchise) and becomes the second quarterback to win one with two different teams (joining the newly-minted Hall of Famer who was his longtime rival) or Mahomes wins his second straight (becoming the first QB to do that since Brady himself).

It's obviously about a lot more than Brady and Mahomes, though.  They both have talented, dynamic supporting casts, and we're probably gonna see a high-scoring game.  Which is why I think the defenses will actually be the key.  One of the defenses will make a big play or get a key stop.  And that team will probably end up being your winner.

Chiefs (16-2) at Buccaneers (14-5): Kansas City-My pick is Kansas City for several reasons.  First of all, the Chiefs are simply a better team.  They're the defending champions, and they're better this year.  And having to go on the road for the Super Bowl isn't nearly as big a deal as it could be for another team or in another year.

If anything, not being in Tampa all week benefits them.  The Bucs obviously have the advantages of not having to travel, sleeping in their own beds, being familiar with their surroundings and having a majority of the crowd (limited as it may be) rooting for them.  But they also had to deal with all of the Super Bowl hoopla going on while trying to go about their business as if nothing is happening.  It would be impossible for that to not be a distraction.  Even with all of Brady and Gronk's Super Bowl experience, that's something they've never dealt with before.

The Chiefs, meanwhile, didn't have to deal with any of that.  They were able to practice as if this were a regular road game.  And, frankly, that's how they should treat it.  Yes, it's the Super Bowl.  But, there's no reason to break from a regular weekly routine that has been so successful for you.  They're undefeated on the road this season, and they're able to do the same thing that's worked all year.

One of those things is not traveling into town until the night before the game.  That's obviously a change from past Super Bowls, but, again, it actually worked in Kansas City's favor.  Because they weren't flying into Tampa until Saturday whether they were playing the Packers or the Bucs.  So, the fact that Tampa Bay has been there all week and they haven't doesn't really make too big of a difference to me.

Kansas City's win in Tampa earlier this season is important, too.  That's part of the reason why I don't think it's a big deal that this is the Bucs' home stadium.  That game was late in the year, too (Week 12), so it's not a completely foreign setting.  And, if you're gonna play a road game in the Super Bowl, doing it in a stadium that's only 20 percent full is certainly the way to do it.

That crowd is in for a treat, too.  Because if this is anything like the three previous Brady vs. Mahomes matchups, it's gonna be a high-scoring spectacle.  At the very least, we won't have to endure the snooze-fest that was Brady's last Super Bowl appearance.  There will be plenty of points scored between two electrifying offenses.

Last year, the Chiefs fall behind the 49ers 20-10 before scoring three touchdowns in the final six minutes.  Brady is a notorious slow starter in Super Bowls.  In fact, I saw an incredible stat this week, that the Patriots scored a grand total of three first quarter points in their nine Bradicheck appearances (most of those were either 0-0 or 3-0 after the first quarter).  But, of course, he's also built his legend on those epic fourth quarter comebacks.

So, as we've seen, facing a fourth-quarter deficit doesn't bother either quarterback.  What I'm curious to see is how they play with a Super Bowl lead (don't forget, all of New England's wins were ridiculously close).  One of them will obviously have to get out to a lead.  Will that change the approach?  Or will we have one of those back-and-forth affairs where every touchdown is countered with a touchdown and the last team to have the ball wins?

Tampa Bay has done an outstanding job to get here.  They won three playoff road games, including victories over the top two seeds (quarterbacked by future Hall of Famers Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers).  Their reward is a home game in the Super Bowl.  It won't be a storybook ending for them, though.  The Chiefs are simply too good.  Kansas City wins 34-24.

Last Week: 1-1
Playoffs: 7-5
Overall: 173-94-1

Peyton and Friends

When the Pro Football Hall of Fame voters held their virtual selection meeting, the discussion regarding Peyton Manning took all of 15 seconds.  Apparently, his presenter just said "Peyton Manning" then sat down and dropped the (virtual) mic.  So, I think it's safe to say that Peyton will be one of the five names announced as new Hall of Famers.  But we already knew that.  We knew that as soon as he retired after winning Super Bowl 50.

That got me thinking about one crazy Peyton stat, though.  Manning vs. Brady was the rivalry throughout Peyton's entire career.  They combined to make 10 Super Bowl appearances in that time (Brady 6, Manning 4).  In the five years since Peyton retired, Brady's been to four more.  That's just crazy!

But, back to the Hall of Fame and who'll join Peyton in the Class of 2021.  There are only four spots left and, once again, if it were a straight "Yes/No" vote, I think I'd be a "Yes" on probably 12 of the other 14.  But they can't all make it.  And I think they'll get broken down by category, with one from each group getting selected.

First, we have the other rookies: Charles Woodson, Calvin Johnson and Jared Allen.  Jared Allen is absolutely a Hall of Famer.  But he's not a first-ballot Hall of Famer.  Especially in this class.  I also love me some Megatron.  He's got a much better chance of being elected than Allen does.  But there are also two other wide receivers who are finalists and he isn't so significantly stronger than either Torry Holt or Reggie Wayne.  Basically what I'm saying is that Megatron should get in eventually, but he'll have to wait his turn.

Charles Woodson, however, does not have to wait his turn.  He and Peyton will continue the trend of multiple first-time guys being elected while also helping to clear out that backlog of defensive backs.  The real question is whether he'll be joined by another defensive back, which would mark the third straight year in which multiple DBs were selected.

Two of those defensive backs happen to be Tampa Bay Buccaneers, which leads me to believe either John Lynch or Ronde Barber will be selected.  With the Super Bowl being played in Tampa, it seemed like a given that they'd put in one of the local guys.  Then you throw in the fact that the Bucs will be playing in the game, I'd say it's almost a guarantee.  That insane Tampa Bay defense of the early 2000s will finally have its third Hall of Famer to go along with Warren Sapp and Derrick Brooks (eventually, it should get to five with Simeon Rice).

It seems like John Lynch has been a finalist every year at this point.  It's his ninth year of eligibility and eighth year as a finalist.  It's really getting absurd.  He's like Susan Lucci.  Although, just like Susan Lucci eventually did win a Daytime Emmy, John Lynch will finally see his Hall of Fame wait end.  Honestly, Ronde Barber probably had the better career.  But it wasn't as good as Charles Woodson's and John Lynch has been waiting so long.

Another guy who's had an agonizingly long wait is Tony Boselli, who'll be calling the Super Bowl on radio.  This is Boselli's 15th year of eligibility.  The thing that's been holding him back is probably the fact that his career was only seven years.  Those seven seasons in Jacksonville were extraordinary, though.  And they've started to show that they're less hesitant to put in guys who had shorter careers.  So Boselli gets the nod as this year's offensive lineman.

Which leaves us with five defensive players and two wide receivers for the final spot.  It would be great to see Reggie Wayne go in with Peyton, but I have a feeling they'll make both him and Torry Holt wait and go with one of the defensive guys.  And I think that'll be Richard Seymour, the pass rushing force during the first half of the Patriots' dynasty.

So those are my five: Peyton Manning, Charles Woodson, John Lynch, Tony Boselli and Richard Seymour.  But they won't be the only ones.  As usual, the coach, contributor and senior finalists will be considered separately.  And all three seem likely to get in.

Tom Flores is the coaching finalist.  For years, people have been wondering why Tom Flores wasn't in the Hall of Fame yet, and I can't say I disagree with them.  He won two Super Bowls with the Raiders (XV and XVIII).  Flores, Tom Coughlin, Mike Shanahan and George Seifert are the only retired coaches who've won multiple Super Bowls and aren't in the Hall of Fame.  He was also the first minority coach to win a Super Bowl and went 8-3 in the playoffs as Raiders coach.

Last year, when they had that special "Centennial Class," Drew Pearson was one of the candidates.  I was shocked he wasn't selected.  Apparently I wasn't the only one.  Because this year, with only one senior candidate up for election, Pearson was the committee's choice.  Although, since the 2020 induction was cancelled, it'll be like he's part of the Centennial Class anyway.

The contributor finalist is Bill Nunn, the "super scout" who helped build the Steelers' dynasty in the 70s.  Nunn found talent in places no one had previously thought to look--HBCUs and small colleges.  Steelers draft choices from HBCUs during that era included Hall of Famers John Stallworth, Mel Blount and Donnie Shell, as well as should-be Hall of Famer L.C. Greenwood.  Pittsburgh also snagged Hall of Fame linebacker Jack Lambert from Kent State and Mean Joe Greene from North Texas.  And, with the No. 1 overall pick in 1970, they drafted some guy out of Louisiana Tech named Terry Bradshaw, who worked out alright.

I'm fairly confident that at least four of my choices will indeed be on the stage introduced as Hall of Famers at the NFL Honors (yes, it's the four obvious ones...so what?!).  But I can really see any combination of the other 14 finalists joining Peyton, Flores, Pearson, Nunn and the Class of 2020 on the stage in Canton in August.

Beijing 2.0: One Year to Go

A lot of talk in Olympic circles has, rightfully so, been about the will they/won't they regarding the upcoming Summer Games in Tokyo.  But that isn't the only Olympics coming up.  Just six months after Tokyo, the 2022 Winter Games begin in Beijing, which will become the first city ever to host both the Summer and Winter Olympics.

The Opening Ceremony of Beijing 2.0, which is one year from today, will be the earliest for a Winter Olympics since 1976.  They'll also be the first Olympics to open before the Super Bowl.  That may become unavoidable in the future if the NFL moves the Super Bowl back a week, but I'm curious to see how the two events taking place simultaneously will impact Olympic ratings.  Now you know why NBC switched Super Bowl years to make sure it had both!  (Although, the Olympics will be some pretty solid lead-in and lead-out programming for Super Bowl LV.)

Anyway, with the Olympics headed back to China, it's time to start thinking of who might possibly be lighting the cauldron in the Bird's Nest next February.  You also have to wonder what they're gonna think of to top that dramatic spectacle they put on in 2008.  The final torchbearer then was Li Ning, the gymnast who won six medals in 1984, when China made its return to the Olympic scene. 

While China's Winter Olympic history isn't nearly as long, there are still plenty of candidates for that honor.  The most obvious may be Ye Qiaobo, who was China's first-ever Winter Olympic medalist.  She won two silvers in speed skating at the 1992 Games in Albertville and a bronze two years later in Lillehammer.

It's short track, not long track, speed skating where China has had its most Winter Olympic success.  Not surprisingly, China's most decorated Winter Olympian is a short track speed skater.  Wang Meng won six medals at the 2006 and 2010 Games, including three golds in Vancouver.  She probably would've swept all four events if she hadn't crashed into the barrier in the 1500 final.  It would be a shock if she's not among the final torch bearers, if not the last one.

Then there's the dynamic duo of Yang Yang (A) and Yang Yang (S), who confused the crap out of everyone while simultaneously members of the Chinese short track team at two Olympics.  They both won five medals, too, and they actually went 1-3 in the 1000 meters at the Salt Lake City Games (as well as teaming up for silver in the relay).  Yang Yang (A) finished with two gold, two silver and a bronze, while Yang Yang (S) earned four silver medals (three of them in Nagano) to go along with a pair of bronzes.

On the men's side, Li Jiajun is the most successful Chinese short track speed skater.  He won five medals across three Games--a silver and a bronze in both Nagano and Salt Lake City, as well as a bronze in Torino.  He was also a 12-time World Champion and has previously lit the cauldron at a major international winter sports event hosted by China, the 2007 Asian Winter Games.

Choosing an active athlete wouldn't be completely unprecedented, but it would still be a surprise.  If they wanted to go with an active Winter Olympian, though, it could be another, you guessed it, short track speed skater.  Zhou Yang is a three-time gold medalist who won back-to-back individual 1500-meter Olympic titles in Vancouver and Sochi.  She was China's flag bearer in PyeongChang, but didn't medal in either of her events (although China did set an Olympic record in the semifinal of the relay).

Two active male short track speed skaters also figure to be medal contenders on home ice next year.  Wu Dajing set a world record to win the 500 in PyeongChang, then added a silver in the relay.  Han Tianyu, meanwhile, has an individual silver from Sochi and a pair of relay medals (one silver, one bronze) from the last two Winter Games.

Or maybe they'll try to appeal to the youth by choosing a 17-year-old freestyle skier.  Eileen Gu is from San Francisco, but has a Chinese mother and competes for China.  She could easily be the Face of the 2022 Games, and only partially because she's a model who's appeared in Paris and New York fashion weeks and graced the pages of the Chinese versions of all of the major magazines.  Gu also won three medals at her first-ever X Games last week.  She's the real deal.  Also, look for the NBC feature on her at some point during the Games.

They most likely won't go that route.  I have a feeling it'll be a figure skater.  And Chinese figure skating makes me think of four names in particular.  So, if I had to bet, I'd put my money on one of these four (actually, three, since two of them are a married couple).

First, there's the beautiful and elegant Chen Lu.  In 1994, there was all that Nancy and Tonya drama.  Nancy Kerrigan, of course, ended up winning silver behind Oksana Baiul.  Chen won the bronze, China's first-ever Olympic figure skating medal.  After winning the World Championship in 1995 and World Championships silver in 1996, she didn't even qualify for the long program in 1997.  One year later, she was back in the Olympics and won her second straight bronze, holding off two Russians to join Tara Lipinski and Michelle Kwan on the podium, a fitting farewell to competition.

Shen Xue & Zhao Hongbo have their own beautiful story.  They began skating together in 1992 and finished fifth in Nagano.  In 1999, they won China's first-ever World Championships medal, a silver.  They won bronze in Salt Lake City and their first of consecutive World titles later in 2002.  Zhao tore his Achilles in 2005 and they didn't return to competition until just before the 2006 Games, yet, in Torino, won their second straight Olympic bronze.  They won their third World title in 2007, retired and got married.  Their retirement didn't last long.  They returned for the 2009-10 season and capped their careers in Vancouver by becoming the first Chinese figure skating gold medalists in Olympic history.

Their coach was Yao Bin, a legend in his own right.  And their gold medal was, in a way, a tribute to Yao, a man who has almost single-handedly turned China into a pairs skating powerhouse.  A man whose legacy I can think of no better way to recognize than by giving him the ultimate honor.

Yao Bin and his partner, Luan Bo, were the first skaters to represent China at a World Championships.  They finished an embarrassing last in 1980.  Then again in 1981.  Then again in 1982.  They had another last-place finish at the 1984 Sarajevo Olympics, after which Yao dedicated his life to coaching.  And he achieved his goal of turning China into a world-class figure skating nation.  In 2004, he coached the pairs that finished second, third and fifth at the World Championships.  Then at the Vancouver Olympics, his pairs finished first, second and fifth, with Shen & Zhao setting world records in the short program and total score.

As you can see, there are plenty of Chinese Winter Olympic champions to choose from when the cauldron is lit for the second Beijing Games in 14 years.  Any one of these athletes would be an excellent selection, just as I'm sure there are others they have in mind who I haven't thought of.  But I can think of no one who deserves the honor more than Yao Bin.

2020 NFL Honors

I'm gonna have a busy week on the blog front.  There's obviously all the NFL stuff related to the Super Bowl, and there's also the one-year-to-go countdown for the 2022 Winter Olympics, as well as the delayed Australian Open (which gets underway during the game on Sunday).  With that in mind, there's no time to waste, so let's get to the blogging.

As amazing as it seems, the NFL has made it to the finish line.  There were bumps along the way and numerous postponements, but no games were cancelled and they made it through the "pandemic season" on schedule.  As it turns out, all of those contingency scenarios ended up being unnecessary.  It was supposed to end on February 7 in Tampa, and it will end on February 7 in Tampa.

And, since it's the 2020 season we're talking about, we have to be reminded during Super Bowl Week.  There will be human fans at the Super Bowl, but there'll also be cardboard cutouts to help maintain social distancing.  Because it wouldn't be 2020 without cardboard fans!

Some parts of Super Bowl Week will remain the same, though.  One of them is the NFL Honors, which will take place in-person the night before the game as usual.  So, I guess it's time to start handing out some awards then...

MVP: Aaron Rodgers, Packers-All season long, the question of who would end up winning MVP came down to a pair of quarterbacks--Aaron Rodgers and Patrick Mahomes.  They both put up MVP-type numbers, but Rodgers emerged as the clear front-runner by the end.  He had 48 touchdown passes and just five interceptions.  That's an insane ratio!  Rodgers completed 70 percent of his passes and also led the league in passer rating (121.5).  There's no way the Packers go 13-3 or make it to the NFC Championship Game without him.  (Which is why it's asinine they're even thinking about not bringing him back!)

Offensive Player: Derrick Henry, Titans-It was a great offensive year throughout the league, so there were plenty of players worthy of this honor.  You've got Stefon Diggs and his 127 receptions.  Alvin Kamara and his 21 touchdowns.  Travis Kelce, who's really good at football.  And let's not forget the two MVP-caliber quarterbacks.  But I'm going with the Titans' Derrick Henry.  Everyone knows Tennessee's offense consists mainly of handing the ball to Henry and letting him run.  So, it sounds simple enough.  Stop Derrick Henry, stop the Titans.  Except no one did!  He became the eighth 2,000-yard rusher in NFL history.  Six of the other seven were named Offensive Player of the Year that season.
 
Defensive Player: T.J. Watt, Steelers-Remember how the Steelers were the best team in the league until Thanksgiving?  Yeah, I don't either, but that's besides the point!  Anyway, the main reason they got off to an 11-0 start was because of their defense.  And T.J. Watt was the leader of that defense.  He led the league in sacks (15) and tackles for loss (23), was named Defensive Player of the Month twice and was an All-Pro.  He's no longer just J.J.'s little brother.  In fact, they would become the first brothers ever to both win the Defensive Player of the Year award.

Offensive Rookie: Justin Herbert, Chargers-Minnesota's Justin Jefferson did some crazy things and could easily be the winner here.  The guy had 1,400 receiving yards--second-most in NFL history--as a rookie!  But I'm going with another Justin who did some crazy things--Herbert.  He wasn't supposed to take over as the Chargers' starter as early as he did, but a Tyrod Taylor injury gave him an opportunity and he ran with it.  Herbert broke all kinds of rookie passing records and led some amazing comebacks for a Chargers team that ended the season on a four-game winning streak after starting 3-9.

Defensive Rookie: Chase Young, Washington-Sometimes the high draft pick you hope can be a franchise-changing difference-maker turns out to be just that.  That was certainly the case with Chase Young.  The No. 2 pick was easily the best player on that Washington defense, and the defense is the primary reason why they made the playoffs.  He was also the only rookie defender to make the Pro Bowl.  This one should be unanimous.

Coach: Kevin Stefanski, Browns-This was perhaps the toughest call of any award.  Even tougher than MVP.  Because a very convincing argument can be made for both Kevin Stefanski and Washington's Ron Rivera.  In a way, I hope they tie for the honor.  But, if I have to pick one, I'm going with Stefanski for leading the Browns back to the playoffs for the first time in 18 years.  More than that, though, Cleveland won 11 games and proved to be a legit contender.  Washington, meanwhile, won the NFC East with a losing record, mainly because the division was so bad.  That's why Stefanski gets the edge.

Comeback: Alex Smith, Washington-From the toughest call to the easiest one.  Alex Smith almost died from complications after a gruesome leg injury during a game two years ago that certainly looked career-ending.  Yet in 2020, he made it all the way back!  Just being on the field would be enough.  Then you throw in the fact that he regained the starting role at midseason and went 5-1 as the starter to lead Washington to the division title.  In a year as horrible as 2020, it's nice to have a rare good story to talk about.

Man of the Year: Russell Wilson, Seahawks-There was a lot of not good stuff that happened in 2020.  From the pandemic to the racial unrest to the election, NFL players were on top of all of it.  In many cases, they were at the forefront of these social issues.  Nominees donated time and money, participated in marches, held voter registration drives.  The Walter Payton Man of the Year has always been the NFL's highest honor, and that will certainly be the case for the 2020 season.

My choice is a player who tackled all of 2020's biggest issues head-on--Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson.  As soon as everything shut down, he made it a point to take on food insecurity, donating a million meals to a local food bank in Seattle right away.  It eventually became more than 47 million meals nationwide.  He also became a powerful speaker in the Black Lives Matter movement over the summer and was instrumental in the NFL's I AM A VOTER campaign.  Oh, and despite the pandemic, he continued his weekly visits to Seattle Children's Hospital virtually.  Truly exceptional both on the field and off!

Which isn't to say that the other 31 nominees aren't deserving.  I'm just ridiculously impressed by the scope of the community involvement and outreach by the guy who's been the Seahawks' franchise player since his arrival in Seattle nine years ago.  His positive impact was never felt more than in 2020, which makes him the perfect choice for the NFL's Walter Payton Man of the Year.